3 ms·
The 603 in the x200's was a 32-bit CPU, and it explicitly supported 32-bit memory bus interfaces. That was part of how it kept costs down. In short, not a bug,
by cbsmith 8y ago
The 603 in the x200's was a 32-bit CPU, and it explicitly supported 32-bit memory bus interfaces. That was part of how it kept costs down. In short, not a bug, but a feature (and there was support for interleaving to get you some of the benefits of a 64-bit bus). As per the link, the clock speed of the CPU was 90-120MHz. No PC was using 90-120MHz memory. They were all dropping to 1/2 & 1/3 (including Pentiums you are comparing against).
- amatecha 8y agoI think there is some confusion on the part of the author of that LEM post. The processor was indeed 32-bit but the data path was 64-bit. /shrug On that note, I finally found the link I was originally looking for - a later post which goes into way more detail as to the flaws of these systems. I can vouch for the unbelievable slowness of these machines as I used one for years. haha :( "Performa and Power Mac x200 Issues" http://lowendmac.com/1997/performa-and-power-mac-x200-issues/ http://lowendmac.com/1997/performa-and-power-mac-x200-issues...
- cbsmith 8y agoThe data path was 64-bit, but it was designed to support being married up to a 32-bit bus. That was part of how they were a more appealing choice than a 604 processor.