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