From mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Wed Feb 27 08:45:08 2008 Message-ID: <20080227133313.rzmv4hmccgkw8c0w@pop.freeola.net> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:33:13 +0000 From: p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk To: mint@lists.fishpool.fi Subject: [MiNT] 68020-68060 or 68060 References: <47BC986B.7050704@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=; format="flowed" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.3) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi Errors-to: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi X-original-sender: p.slegg@scubadivers.co.uk Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-Id: X-List-ID: List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: I have always assumed that the 68020-060 target only uses instructions that are found on all 3 CPUs. If so then the code will be a compromise. A pure 68030 version would, I expect, run faster on a Falcon just as a pure 68060 version would run faster on a Hades60, Milan60 or CT60. In general I would say every little helps but I don't know how much of the system would feel the effects of the improved speed. Is anyone going to notice that bash is a little quicker if GEM apps aren't any quicker ? Is there any info about the speed differences on other 680x0 operating systems ? Peter