View Single Post
Old 27 February 2017, 22:32   #39
Xebec
Registered User

 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthey View Post

IMO, Intel was no expert even up to the Pentium days. They were lucky again that texture mapped "desktop" gaming was pushing PC sales where energy efficiency wasn't important. Let's compare the Pentium and 68060.

Pentium@75MHz 80502, 3.3V, 0.6um, 3.2 million transistors, 9.5W max
68060@75MHz 3.3V, 0.6um, 2.5 million transistors, ~5.5W max*
This is a little bit of an unfair comparison -- the Pentium 3.3V on 0.6um process also shipped at 90 and 100mhz in volume (March 1994), with 100 being a full 33% faster than the 68060 ever shipped at. The main reasons for the 75 mhz version were to make Pentium work on cheaper motherboards (50 mhz bus speed instead of 66), and because of pricing pressure coming on from AMD's 5x86-120/133 chips released in 1995. I bet the Pentium 100 launched cheaper than the 68060 50, 66, or 75 mhz..

As for TDP/power consumption - somewhat meaningless in this case -- the Pentium was a more aggressive design with more transistors intended for higher performance. Keep in mind Intel also had the Pentium Pro released on November 1995, which was leaps and bounds ahead of the 68060 and early PPCs..

IMO Motorola's biggest problem was itself -- it kept pricing the 68000, and 68020/030 at exorbitant prices, didn't sell high clock speed versions of the 68K or '020 because of worry it would compete with the '030 (i.e. later 68K and 020's had a LOT of margin left in them), which in the case of our dear Amiga prevented lower end increments from improving enough to stay relevant. (An A500+/A600 with a 68020@ 25 mhz, and an A1200 with a 68030 @ 32mhz certainly wouldn't have hurt market share). The 68000 was already 6 years old by the time the A1000 launched...

The Amiga had epic engineering going for it, but EVERYTHING else going against it.. .
Xebec is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04943 seconds with 9 queries