6502 vs Z80, round 97

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Mon Apr 12 18:21:16 1999

It's true, what you say about the value of discussing performance without
discussing the task. Keep in mind, though, that Motorola's favorite trick
was to boast how fast its processors could execute no-op's.

The 6502 core is in as many libraries as it is because it is small and
thrifty, not because it's fast. It's fast because it's small and thrifty.
It was included in a wide range of cell libraries, particularly the Rockwell
incarnation. I'm not sure why this was the case. Perhaps it's because they
(Rockwell) had stopped producing the CPU and were using it as a core
themselves.

Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Ford <mikeford_at_netwiz.net>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp_at_u.washington.edu>
Date: Monday, April 12, 1999 3:21 PM
Subject: 6502 vs Z80, round 97


>>I was pointing out that is the processor was running fast enough even a
>>dog can look good. ;) Obviously using a 8mhz z80 as the standard your
>>comparison CPU had better be of similar generational speed or it may fail
>>the test. the inverse is with a 33mhz z185 I know I can blow the 65c02
>>out of the water unless someone has at least a 25-30mhz 6502!
>
>I think I remember reading that the 6502 was eventually included in gate
>array logic libraries, so that GaaS parts with Ghz clocks likely exist
>(perhaps only embedded in other designs though).
>
>One of the things I have noticed is that great similarity exists between a
>couple of instruction sets, the 6502 and the Sparc, and the IBM 360 and
>68000. Kind of the classics of RISC and CISC, and I love them both.
>
>Arguing about the 6502 vs Z80 makes about as much sense as arguing about
>which cart is faster without discussing the horse or load. As I remember it
>speed was a big "talking" point, but the real issue for most power users
>was capacity, not speed.
>
>
Received on Mon Apr 12 1999 - 18:21:16 BST