Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site mako.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!vaxine!wjh12!genrad!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!tektronix!orca!mako!davecl From: davecl@mako.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro,net.micro.68k,net.arch Subject: Re: Re: 68020 vs. 32032, pros and cons Message-ID: <170@mako.UUCP> Date: Fri, 15-Jun-84 11:53:35 EDT Article-I.D.: mako.170 Posted: Fri Jun 15 11:53:35 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Jun-84 01:14:09 EDT References: <452@trwspp.UUCP>,<1048@vax2.fluke.UUCP>,<1254@sun.uucp> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 17 The following are my impressions based on the instruction set manuals, instruction timings and comments from other people. As far as the bus interface is concerned, the 16032 (which is supposedly now being renamed to the 32016 since the TI announcement) corresponds most closely to the 68008 or 8088. The 32032 corresponds to the 68000 or 8086. In a sense everything was designed for the 32032 all along; the 16032 came out earlier because that was a physical package that could be done sooner. The performance numbers that I've heard is that the 32032 should represent a 25-40% improvement over the 16032, depending on the application. To get a National part with the maturity of development represented by the 68020, you'll have to wait for a later part (like the 32132?). dgc