home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: seagoon.newcastle.edu.au!usenet
- From: "Bruce R. McFarling" <ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au>
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
- Subject: Re: Is there a 6502 CPU in a Nintendo?
- Date: 21 Apr 1996 10:22:48 GMT
- Organization: Department of Economics, University of Newcastle
- Message-ID: <4ld29o$jaj@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au>
- References: <s16e0ea6.015@shands.ufl.edu> <HERMIT.96Apr14010055@ese.UCSC.EDU> <1996Apr14.202958@msuvx1.memphis.edu> <9604152010.AA001hj@cosine.demon.co.uk> <4l48i9$968@sam.inforamp.net>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: econ70.newcastle.edu.au
- Mime-Version: 1.0
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
- X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.2N (Windows; I; 16bit)
-
- crs0794@inforamp.net (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote:
- >You're not kidding that you can't just compare MHz between 8 and
- >16-bit CPUs; the 8-bit CPUs have a definite advantage! One of
- >the great disappointments I experienced when moving from the 6502
- >and 6809 world into the 68000 and 8086 worlds was that the processors >were so inefficient when accessing memory. Both of the afor=
- ementioned >16-bit CPUs required 4 clock cycles to perform a memory transfer; the >6502 does memory transfers in one phase of a cycl=
- e, ...
- This isn't an 8-bit / 16-bit issue. The same kind of
- comparison can be made between 6502 and 8080 chips, both of
- them pretty much 8-bit chips, and between 65816 and 8086 chips,
- both of them pretty much 16-bit chips. The 808x family has
- always needed more clock cycles for the same operation, *if*
- the operation was available on the 65xx family. That's why a
- 20 MHz 65816 is faster than a 25MHz 8086 or 80286, as well as
- why it needs faster memory than either of those two.
-
-
-
- Virtually,
-
- Bruce R. McFarling, Newcastle, NSW
- ecbm@cc.newcastle.edu.au
-
-
-