Thread: 68k details
View Single Post
Old 28 October 2018, 22:47   #585
roondar
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 1,364
Quote:
Originally Posted by litwr View Post
It is completely untrue. It was meynaf who used high level OS calls to make 68k code smaller. So he used a call to OS routines while I had to use codes for those routines which doesn't present in DOS. Then I rewrote my code eliminating some service auxiliary functions making the condition more equal for the both platforms.
It is actually 'completely' true: I was referring to your use of a .COM file to make your executable size smaller on one specific architecture. That is using OS features to make your code appear smaller than it really is and has absolutely nothing to do with comparing the strength of ISA's.

As for using OS calls, IIRC both of you agreed to not use those any more. As such, I didn't feel it needed to refer to them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by litwr View Post
Indeed, systems with 486@25MHz or 68040@20MHz were faster than ARM based at 12MHz but their prices at 90 or 91 were above $10000. We can introduce new measurement - a performance unit per dollar. With it ARM systems were much better too.
Indeed, Intel's 486 and Motorola's 68040 were faster. To be clear here, they were roughly 3-4x faster than the ARM you are talking about. They were also a whole lot cheaper than you claim.

A 25MHz 486 from april 1991 (see https://books.google.nl/books?id=0FA...201991&f=false) could be bought for $3000.

Four times faster, but only about 1.7 times more expensive (yeah, I forgot to use the exchange rate between pounds and dollars - April 1991 puts it at 1.7 pounds per dollar, so the GPB 999 A3010 would be $1698). Seems Intel wins this round

Note that a fast 386 or 68030 should also comfortably beat the 12MHz ARM2. And those were cheaper still.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	infoworld-april-1991.PNG
Views:	34
Size:	166.7 KB
ID:	60480  

Last edited by roondar; 28 October 2018 at 22:55. Reason: Corrected for Exchange rate.
roondar is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04579 seconds with 12 queries