← Back to context

Comment by bryanlarsen

13 days ago

For efficient graphics routines on a 32 bit machine, it's important that the scan line direction (aka horizontal for normally mounted CRT's) be a factor of 32, preferably one that's a power of 2.

The article mentions the desire for square pixels. So presumably they chose the horizontal resolution first and then chose the vertical resolution that gave them square pixels for a 512 pixel horizontal resolution.

It was 32bit?!

  • The 68000 is 16 bit internally, and can access memory only 16 bits at a time, but the instruction set was designed with future iterations in mind, and most instructions can operate on 32 bit quantities - with a performance penalty. (Because in essence it has to do the work in 2 stages.)

    Whether this is enough to make it count as actually 32 bits is one for the philosophers.

    • The 386SX was a similar story, and is normally thought of as basically 32bit. I think the perception difference may be down to timing; the 386SX came out _after_ the DX (with 32 bit data bus), so was thought of as a cheap 32bit chip, vs the 68000 which started off life with a 16bit data bus.

      (Fun fact: there was also the 68008, which was a 68k with an 8 bit bus!)

      4 replies →

    • It started out as 16bit enhancement to previous product, and evolved into being a 32bit architecture over development time.

      The separation of Data and Address registers are also result of how it evolved over time, AFAIK, ultimately because it allowed to make the CPU cheaper/easier to make. Another element is that 68000 at least has two layers of microcode - first microcode engine generates instructions interpreted by second microcode engine which finally actually drives execution units.