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