Re: 6502, 65816 = RISC ?

[nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates)]

In article <4v0pr0$5gp@majesty.lightlink.com>,
Edhel Iaur <drsmooth@baldcom.net> wrote:
>wbaguhn@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Will Baguhn) wrote:

[Snip.. 1Mhz 6502 feels faster than 4.77 Mhz 8086]

>>There's a reason for that.  It's not that the processor is quicker:
>>it's that the programming is better.  Apple was designed by hackers
>>trying to get every last smidgen of speed out of the inexpensive hardware
>>that they could; the others were designed by IBM who didn't need to
>>be fast.  They sold computers based on the logo, not based on what they
>>could actually do.

>I believe the Apple //c Technical Reference Manual attributed the
>65C02's "pipeline construction" to its "about 5" x speed boost.

   Pipeline? Uhnh. Repeat after me, kiddies:

   THE 8086 TAKES 4 CLOCK CYCLES TO READ A BYTE FROM MEMORY.
   THE 6502 TAKES 1.

   Not because of a pipeline, but because of a different design. End
of story.

Nathan Mates
--
<*> Nathan Mates http://www.visi.com/~nathan/      <*>
# What are the facts? Again and again and again-- what are the _facts_?
# Shun wishful thinking, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors
# think-- what are the facts, and to how many decimal places?  -R.A. Heinlein