Filter
Top Products
APPENDIX
In Table 5 the iAPX
88
and the
MC6809
are compared
for "Ease
of
Programming" by counting the number
of
lines
of
code required for each benchmark. The iAPX
88
used
a smaller number
of
lines
of
code than the
MC6809
for eight
of
the ten programs. As in coding ef-
ficiency, the greatest differences occurred in the two in-
terrupt response benchmarks, with the
MC6809
again
having an advantage in the
Single-Vectored Interrupt,
and the
iAPX 88/10 using fewer instructions in the
Multi-Vectored Interrupt. For the other programs, the
iAPX 88's use
of
string instructions, and its ability to
handle 8-bit or 16-bit data allowed the algorithms to be
implemented in
fewer
lines
of
code. The Adjusted
Average Normalized Lines
of
Code
was
2.67 showing
that the
iAPX
88
used
less
lines
of
code than the
MC6809 by a factor
of
more than 2.6 to
1.
Table
5.
Ease
of
Programming
Lines
of
Code Normalized Lines
Benchmark Program iAPX
88110
MC6809
iAPX
88/10
MC6809
Computer
Graphics
16-Bit Multiply
Vector
Add
Block Move
Block Translate
Character Search
Word
Shift
Reentrant Call
Single-Vectored
Interrupt
Multi-Vectored
Interrupt
15
4
8
7
10
8
2
26
15
Average Normalized
Number
of
Lines
of
Code·
Adjusted Average Normalized Number
of
Lines
of
Code·
·See notc. Table 2, for description
of
average calculations.
IAPX
88/10
1.00
6809
AVERAGE
.27
8809
ADJUSTED
AVERAGE
.54
HIGHEST
SPEED
IAPX
88/10
1.00
8809
AVERAGE
8809
ADJUSTED
AVERAGE
.48
SPEED
WITH
EQUAL
MEMORY
ACCESS
TIME
Graph I. Normalized Average Throughput:
5 MHz iAPX
88110
vs
2 MHz 6809
26
3
87
28
8
14
13
9
9
23
8
~
1.00
6809
A~E
alB
6809
ADJUSTED
A~E
2.10
BYTES
OF
CODE
UO
F
5.80
7.00
1.00
2.00
1.30
1.13
4.50
0.88
0.Q7
8.00
3.17
2.95
6809
AVERAGE
AD
::
ED
'2':i4
A~IlE
2.81
LINES
OF
CODE
Graph II. Normalized Average Memory
Use
and Lines
of
Code: iAPX
88/10
vs 6809
AFN
01532A