>ARM3 vs i486
The Spandex Kid
Richard Emerson writes..
> The i860: 80 MegaFLOPS. Not MIPS, not MHz. MFLOPS.
Yeah I know. Excellent chip! You should look at some of Inmos's new transputer
range though...
>The i486 typically executes every instruction at one instruction per clock
>cycle, ie 33MIPS. *EVEN* the complex ones. The ARM3 just doesnt cut it.
Sadly, this is true. The arm chips look pretty pathetic these days. It is
recommended for use in laser printers and network controllers, and for this
it is very good due to low interrupt latency due to RISC design. It is also
very cheap and uses very little power. We are running computers based around
a laser printer!
I am beginning to wonder if the arm has ANY plus points at all compared to
other RISC chips, apart from the price.
The archie is also not very well designed, and adfs is pretty crap too. I was
trying to get the archie to transfer files up from another computer recently
(a Spectrum in fact!). It took me 3 minutes to get the spectrum to do what I
wanted, and about a DAY to get the archie to do it! There seems to be no way
to get the OS to do something like that without writing a program in machine
code or C to do it. BASIC is too slow.
I eventually did it by using "print serial: { > file }" but once the speccy
had finished then the archie wouldn't return! Escape did nothing at all, so I
had to reset the machine. Not very impressive. None of the (three) comms
packages I could find would transfer in anything less than x-modem, which I
don't have on the speccy! Likewise kermit.
Even RISC-OS is beginning to fall behind. Practically none of our programs
support things like hotlinking, and the multitasking is terrible. Almost all
of the new programs being bought out for Windows on the PC support hotlinking
and more, plus it has decent multitasking, although the present versions are
very slow indeed, eg a recent test on a windows word processor spell checking
took thirty seconds to find the first mis-spelt word, and that was the first
word in the file! It should be pointed out that this is exeptionally bad, and
another similar word processor did the same in 5 seconds.
The archie graphics are also rotten. The only good thing about them is that it
can move them very fast, but this is only good for games playing, not much cop
in the real world. 1152 by 900 in 256 colours? Be serious!
While writing this letter, the mail tool crashed without warning, like
impressions does sometimes. The difference is, before it crashed, it saved my
letter. Most UNIX applications do this, not often you actually LOSE work. This
is why in a year or two I am going to go for a decent unix workstation. I will
keep my archie probably as there is not too much software around that I can
afford for UNIX, but that will hopefully change as machine prices drop.
In the not too distant future, IBM will most likely stop selling the PC and
dump a cheap, low end RISC workstation on the market to take over from the PC.
With the name and power of IBM behind it they will sell well, and IBMs risc
chip is a lot better than the ARM. (This was taken from a recent PC magazine,
can't remember which one!). IBM and lots of others have been getting together
and agreeing on lots of software and interfacing standards to ensure that the
PCs of the future can interconnect easily and perhaps run each others
executables. With the money and research teams behind them, they will
manageit, no doubt about it.
Acorn, on the other hand, are doing very little. Not enough money to invest in
major research, so they will get left behind very quickly. The Intel chips of
the present are very fast, and the new P5 (codename for the 586) is a
super-scalar, 100-mip monster.
>And if any idiot points out that a 50Mhz ARM3 might be on the way, just
>remember that the i486 is *already* there, and a 100Mhz version is pretty
>close. Ok?
What do you mean, close? It's here! If you put a 486 doubler chip in between
the 486 and the bus then the 486 can be clocked at 100MHz on a normal PC. The
486 based machines have a space for this chip. This is possible as, like the
arm-3, the 486 uses only a fraction of the bus bandwidth of the 386 due to
cache memories. Intel have taken advantage of this and so you can already
clock the 486 at 100 MHZ. Apparently speeds it all up by only about 1.5 times
though.
It is sad that because the Archie was toted as being the fastest micro around
that most archie owners still think this is the case. It isn't, not by a long
stretch. Acorn are WAY behind and don't have the money to catch up. I am
getting increasingly disillusioned by the archie, and it's not a good idea to
get into an argument with a power-PC user. A 486 running windows NT is faster
than any archie. It isn`t as nice to use as RISC-OS 3 (but more functional,
supporting VM, hotlinks etc), but that's due to the fact that PC users are
still amazed by it. Once they get used to it then they will demand better
things of it, just like RISC-OS 2 and people upgrading from BBC computers. Why
do you think acorn are trying to move into the low-cost UNIX workstation
markets? With their attitude to customers I don't think they will do very
well.
Most programs on the archie are written with a 1-meg floppy user in mind, most
windows programs on the PC are written with a 4-meg hard disc machine in mind,
so they are normally a lot better.
I personally am waiting for an affordable workstation based around either an
intel i860 or an inmos H1 (I think that's the name!). Until then the archie is
still the nicest machine that I can afford. I can't afford a Unix workstation
based around a 486 so that it can run IBM programs at full speed (SUN make
these).Thats what it'll take to beat my archie, and currently it's too
expensive.
Right, I've run out of steam now. Doubtless I will think of more anti-archie
stuff when I get home, but I am hungry and need to go and eat.
Note that a lot of the above is written from memory, so some details may be
slightly incorrect, but not significantly.
I am not an archie hater, I have owned an A3000 (1 year) a 310 (1.5 years) and
am now attempting to get an A5000. In about 1 year or 2 years, I will be
selling it. Any offers?!
Ian
=+=+=+=+=+ 8< =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ 8< =+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ 8< =+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Mr Ian Rawlings, Telephone Reading (0734) 662301
EMAIL ssur...@susssys1.rdg.ac.uk
Q: How long does it take an IBM field service engineer to change a
lightbulb?
A: It depends on how many bad ones he brought with him!
Ashley Oliver
>
>Most programs on the archie are written with a 1-meg floppy user in mind,
most >windows programs on the PC are written with a 4-meg hard disc machine
in mind, >so they are normally a lot better. > Pardon?
Have I got a program for you! Only runs on a machine with 100-meg of tightly
coupled memory and does need a 200-giga optical disc, but it's a lot better
than your current software!
If there's enough interest I'll sit down and write it. It's *easy* to write
software that needs more resources. The trick is writing better software
using the same resources.
Now, if the argument is that some software is blatantly *not* going to be
run on a 1-meg floppy machine, because it's meant for quote power-users
unquote (e.g. compilers), and that therefore the design should not be
compromised to support such machines, then I have some sympathy with that
case. On the other hand I'm quite fond of the current situation where any
(commercial) software will run on anything from an A3000 to an A5000. It
makes buying software a much less fraught experience.
[I remember a bad experience some years back when working for another
company. We upgraded from Windows to Windows/386 (remember *that* donkey!)
assuming that it would support the same screen modes as Windows (and
possibly some new ones). Nope. No support for monochrome glassware. Wouldn't
run at all on any of our 386 machines. I could go on about Microsoft and
software anti-compatibility for hours...]
Going back to 'power users', i860s, and other recently discussed issues,
there's certainly no danger of having a 1-meg floppy based i860. The i860 C
compiler I was looking at the other day had an executable that was over
1.2-meg (not including the front end!). If all of that code is actually
doing something it really must be a bitch to program ... And as for power
users, have you noticed how often 'power user' equates to 'too
unimaginative to find a non brute force solution'. {If you are reading this
then that last statement did not apply to you. I was making an observation
about a small minority, and you do not need to point out on the network
that you are not a member of said set}. I know somebody that added an i860
expansion card to his Archie to do a bit of serious number crunching. The
most expensive add-on I know of. I couldn't bring myself to tell him that
there was a non-numerical method of solving his particular problem ...
-Ashley Oliver
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:Breac aig na h-uile fir-stiuiridh!!:
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::