6 May
2010
6 May
'10
10:17 p.m.
On 5/6/2010 1:03 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
Except that there has never been a CPU built to run over 1GHz where a
given operation takes 256 cycles to execute.
If you're comparing 1982 processors to 1982 processors, then yes, we
could have a spirited discussion about 6809 vs. 6502 vs. z80 vs. 8086
vs. 68000. But this is 2010.
--
Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/
Help our electronic games project: http://www.mobygames.com/
Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/
A child borne of the home computer wars: http://trixter.wordpress.com/
On 5/5/2010 3:02 PM, Tony Duell wrote:
I
still stand my my statement that the master clock rate is meaningless.
Laws of physics disagree with you for sufficiently high orders of magnitude.
Care to explain? I can't think of a single law of physics that prohibits
using as many clock cylces as I want for a particular operaiton. In which
case, an 8MHz RISC processor which takes 1 cycle for a given operation
could be a lot faster than a 1GHz processor what happens to take 256
cycles for the same operation.