[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Stupid question
mobrien@netcom.com (Michael O'Brien) writes:
>The 6502 and 65C02 processors executed about one instruction every 2-6
>clocks. The 486 does about one instruction every 1-3 clocks. So actually,
>a 1 MHz Apple is *slower* than what we think of as 1 MHz.
All 65c02 instructions took between 2 and 7 cycles. Most were 3-5.
A 1 MHz Apple II was a 1 MHz Apple II, period. It's certainly not
slower than that. MHz is a clock rate measure, not a productivity
measure.
It did, however, do less than 1 MIPS (Millions of Instructions Per
Second).
>On the other hand it could do reasonably fast graphics, mostly because the
>frame buffer was just so small.
Small graphics screen size had a lot to do with it, yes. There's just
not as much computation in 280x192x2 as there is in 800x600x256.
--
Anthony J. Stuckey stuckey@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
"And if you frisbee-throw a universe where does it go?" -- Steve Blunt.
GCS/S -d+@ p c(++) l u+ e+(-) m+(*) s+++/-- !n h(*) f+ g+ w+ t+@ r y?
KiboNumber == 1