3 ms·
Yeah, I second that 16 bit or 16/32 was far more commonly used than 32, due to the 16 bit bus.
by vidarh 6mo ago
Yeah, I second that 16 bit or 16/32 was far more commonly used than 32, due to the 16 bit bus.
- kstrauser 6mo agoThe bus always seemed like the oddest part to zero in on. By analogy, an Opteron in 2003 was a 64 bit CPU with a 32 bit HyperTransport bus, but no one called an Opteron system 32 bit. The width of a particular internal implementation detail is a strange duck IMO.
- wk_end 6mo agoI think part of it was that to hardware companies the bus width is actually extremely important - the whole system is built around it, and the programming model the software guys work with less so. And then the other part of it is the marketing angle: everyone knew full 32-bit inside and out chips were just on the horizon. Downplaying the 68k’s 32-bitness would give them a selling point for the 68020.
- feffe 6mo agoAll ALU operations are also more expensive with 32 bit operands. So 16 bit data bus, 24 bit address bus. Slower arithmetic with 32 bit operands. I never though of it as a 32 bit CPU.