Re: You guys are NUTS !

[supertimer@aol.com (Supertimer)]

Blake Patterson <blake@blakespot.com> wrote:

>	Interesting that you mention the Super Nintendo.  I think it used the
>WDC 65C816 as its processor--the only other machine that I know of,
>other than the IIgs, to use that CPU.  I'm almost certain that this is
>the case.  (And you Palm III was likely 16MHz -- but still, that's 2x
>the CPU power of the first Macintosh!)
>
>	I dunno about the //c, but I did hear that the GS' 65C816 (at 2.8MHz)
>was roughly equivalent to an i8086 @ 10MHz.  Not too bad, at the time.

I've done some tests with an IBM XT (4.77Mhz 8088), a genuine
IBM AT (8Mhz model with 80286), a Turbo XT clone (the PC
Transporter with 10Mhz V30, an 80186 clone) versus the
8-bit Apple II at 1Mhz and the 16-bit IIGS at the standard
2.8Mhz.  Tests were done unzipping files, decoding JPEGs,
and running GUIs (with CGA or Hercules adapters in the IBM
units).

Basically, the results suggest that the effective speed of a
1Mhz 8-bit Apple II such as the IIc is about on par with the
4.77Mhz 8088/8086.  The stock Apple IIGS is about on par
with an IBM AT with 8Mhz 80286, except when running a
GUI (GEM on the IBM AT, GS/OS on IIGS) in which case
the IIGS comes out faster.

The stock IIGS seems very much faster than the Turbo XT
(PC Transporter) decoding zip and jpeg files.

All tests were done without math coprocessor chips in the
IBM units (or the PC Transporter).