Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fortune.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxz!houxm!ihnp4!fortune!phipps
From: phipps@fortune.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.68k,net.arch
Subject: Chip Speed / Re: 68020 vs. 32032, ...
Message-ID: <3606@fortune.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 15:46:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: fortune.3606
Posted: Fri Jun 15 15:46:39 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jun-84 01:18:47 EDT
References: <98@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA
Lines: 23

[Beware the jabberwock ...]

    Traditionally the cpu operations have always been faster 
    than memory operations, since the same technology 
    applied to either operation favors the simpler.  
    
This goes against all I've picked up about hardware
(I acknowledge that I'm primarily a software person).
My understanding is that for the same chip technology, 
memory is always easier to design than CPUs, because memory designs 
are *simpler* and exhibit so much more regularity than CPU designs.  
Isn't it traditionally the case for any given chip family 
that chipmongers introduce memory chips first, then follow that up 
about a year later with a corresponding CPU chip ?

Will someone please point out my error, or explain how both the excerpt above
and my statements can be correct ?

-- Clay Phipps

-- 
   {cbosgd decvax!decwrl!amd70 harpo hplabs!hpda ihnp4 sri-unix ucbvax!amd70}
   !fortune!phipps