15 May
2002
15 May
'02
1:41 p.m.
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)"
<cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
Hi
What are you guys talking about. The K6 has millions of transistors,
as does the 486.
Dwight
> The 4004 was once rumored to have been named
that because it had the
> equivalent of 4004 transistors.
> THAT is what probably gave rise to the 68000 silliness.
> It's MUCH more impressive what was done with only 486!
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Andreas Freiherr wrote:
Shoudn't that read "80486"?
only if we stick with intel!
That's what was so impressive about the Cyrix 486SLC, was that it DIDN'T
have the other 80,000! 'course it always seemed more like a fast 80386 to
me.
And the K6 does a really nice job with 6144!
and how about the Z80, V20, etc.?
15 May
15 May
2:28 p.m.
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Dwight K. Elvey wrote:
>> > The 4004 was once rumored to have been
named that because it had the
>> > equivalent of 4004 transistors.
>> > THAT is what probably gave rise to the 68000 silliness.
>> > It's MUCH more impressive what was done with only 486!
>> Shoudn't that read "80486"?
>only if we stick with intel!
>That's what was so impressive about the Cyrix 486SLC, was that it DIDN'T
>have the other 80,000! 'course it always seemed more like a fast 80386 to
>me.
>And the K6 does a really nice job with 6144!
>and how about the Z80, V20, etc.?
Hi
What are you guys talking about. The K6 has millions of transistors,
as does the 486.
Just following through on ridiculing the premise that the 68000 was named
that because of having 68000 transistors.
Yes, we DO actually know that the K6 has more than 6K (6144) of
transistors.
8278
days inactive
8278
days old
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
dwightk.elvey＠amd.com