Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: OoO execution
Date: Thu, 29 May 2025 22:20:07 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <101amin$374e$1@dont-email.me>
References: <100apst$hsll$1@dont-email.me>
	<afa210f16ab3d6795c61787ad914e7ba@www.novabbs.org>
	<100bs7t$rna2$1@dont-email.me> <20250518182303.00003542@yahoo.com>
	<76948d869e78f8cb511809bd159008fd@www.novabbs.com>
	<100e352$1d61i$3@dont-email.me>
	<e5fc3f66c40e74c1cf09ba5ed5a53c14@www.novabbs.com>
	<2025May19.082242@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at> <101aavj$kij$2@dont-email.me>
	<6e113c5312a5933bd51ff549a99b6869@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 30 May 2025 00:20:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ae5667b32e6ec6b7f81ed22a40ff8cdf";
	logging-data="105614"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+InX0EaOTZQZBN0KvEGSfB"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:jQT7DBXlHKzRjib0BHGe534ga4M=
Bytes: 2397

On Thu, 29 May 2025 20:06:21 +0000, MitchAlsup1 wrote:

> quadibloc <quadibloc@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Eventually, IBM caught up with the Control Data 6600 by perfecting
>> pipelining in the IBM 360/91,
>
> At the cost of about 3× the number of gates and power along with a 60%
> increase in the clock rate (60ns versus 100ns). This advantage vanished
> about the time of first /91 deliveries with CDC 7600 going to a ~27ns
> clock along with pipelining and concurrent calculation.

Like I said, part of IBM’s tradition of overpromising and
underdelivering.

But it served its purpose, that of dissuading customers from buying
the CDC product.

> Mc68010 had a "loop buffer" of a couple handful of instructions.
> Mc68020 had 256B instruction cache no TLB
> Mc68030 had 256B I$ 256B D$ and ~32E TLB tablewalks in HW

As I recall, the ’030 wasn’t that much of an advance over the ’020.
But the 68040 was a major step forward. And the 68060 wasn’t too bad,
either. But by that time the major customer (Apple) had lost interest.
I think it was used in some Amiga machines.