3 ms·
The mismatch between the Ancient Specs of Yore is kind of interesting. The Commodore 64 had 64KB of RAM, but that RAM was attached to an 8-bit, 1MHz CPU. This t
by jerf 1y ago
The mismatch between the Ancient Specs of Yore is kind of interesting. The Commodore 64 had 64KB of RAM, but that RAM was attached to an 8-bit, 1MHz CPU. This thing has call it half the RAM of a Commodore 64, but it's attached to a 32-bit 24MHz CPU the 1980s could only dream of. And it's disposable in 2025. Pretty impressive in a weird way.
- justincormack 1y agoIts only got 3k of RAM, 24k of flash. Although modern flash is sometimes the same bandwidth as memory was if you go back a bit, although not latency of course.
- briansm 1y agoThe old 1980s computers also had no equivalent of flash storage though, the RAM had to store the program being run as well as act as scratch-space.
- Narishma 1y agoIt's got only 3KB of RAM, less than even the VIC-20.
- masfuerte 1y agoThe CPU isn't that fantastical for the 1980s. The Archimedes had an 8MHz ARM in 1987. It was expensive though and came with at least 512KB RAM. P.S. After I wrote that I looked at the Wikipedia page. Which helpfully reminded me that 1987 was 38 years ago :(
- xenospn 1y agoThe 386SX came out in 1985!
- jerf 1y agoFair enough. I've gotten out of the habit of thinking exponentially about computer performance. Modify my original post to that 1980s 8-bit era of personal computing. I did intend to compare it on the basis of the RAM available, which as is observed in another correction puts this more in the VIC-20 era... ... for those of us old enough to even have a mental distinction between "the VIC-20 era" and the "Commodore 64" era rather than just being a smear of bittyboxes all equally uselessly small....