Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84  Brag 10-8-84; site bragvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!bragvax!david
From: david@bragvax.UUCP (David DiGiacomo)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: 4->8->16->32->64? bit micros
Message-ID: <282@bragvax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Dec-84 15:33:17 EST
Article-I.D.: bragvax.282
Posted: Fri Dec 21 15:33:17 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Dec-84 07:56:51 EST
References:  <280@oakhill.UUCP> <466@intelca.UUCP> <18341@lanl.ARPA>
Organization: Brag Systems Inc., San Mateo, CA
Lines: 22

In article <18341@lanl.ARPA> James Giles writes:

>The main problem with 64 bit micros is the pin count on the chip
>32 address lines and 64 data lines already make
>96 pins on the chip!  
This is not too bad-- 144 and even 216 lead packages are defined and
will be fairly common by the time 64 bit micros are practical.
Peripheral chips tend to require many more leads than processors.

>Multiplexing these lines only defeats the purpose 
>behind going to 64 bits to begin with.  
Not necessarily true-- most current (and future) 32 bit microprocessors
and system buses use multiplexed addresses and data.  There is very
little performance penalty; addresses and data are naturally separated
in time so they can share a bus effectively.

-- 
--
One moment of pleasure, a lifetime of regret: Usenet Madness

David DiGiacomo, BRAG Systems Inc., San Mateo CA  (415) 342-3963
{cbosgd hplabs intelca rhino}!bragvax!david