dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) (04/17/91)
Is there any use replacing 68000 with 68010? I've seen figures like 5-10% speed increase, but that would be on average. I know mul and div is faster, but how much? What other instructions are sped up? Shift, Bcc ? Thanks for any info / $DR.HEX$
dastrout@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (root@next1) (04/18/91)
In article <1991Apr17.114247.6446@cs.umu.se>, dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) writes: > Is there any use replacing 68000 with 68010? > I've seen figures like 5-10% speed increase, but that would be on average. > I know mul and div is faster, but how much? What other instructions are > sped up? Shift, Bcc ? Don't know about faster, but I asked a similar question a while ago about replacing a 68K with a 68010 on an already running box, and got the answer --Don't. Reason is that the '010 puts different stuff on the stack after an exception, so as to support VM, and 68000 code will break. Thus, for my system, unless I want to re-write the kernel, leave it a 68000. If this is a new design, however, go for the 68010. -- Dave Strout ->One needs only calculate to the nearest power of 10, except in salary discussions, where factors of 2 become important. <- dastrout@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu dastrout%miavx1.bitnet@pucc.princeton.edu root@next1.acs.muohio.edu 513-523-8245
jtr@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Jim Reinhart) (04/19/91)
In article <4900.280d4d72@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu> dastrout@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (root@next1) writes: >In article <1991Apr17.114247.6446@cs.umu.se>, dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) writes: >> Is there any use replacing 68000 with 68010? >> I've seen figures like 5-10% speed increase, but that would be on average. >> I know mul and div is faster, but how much? What other instructions are >> sped up? Shift, Bcc ? > >Don't know about faster, but I asked a similar question a while ago about >replacing a 68K with a 68010 on an already running box, and got the answer >--Don't. Reason is that the '010 puts different stuff on the stack after >an exception, so as to support VM, and 68000 code will break. Thus, for my >system, unless I want to re-write the kernel, leave it a 68000. If this is >a new design, however, go for the 68010. In all honesty, we really do not recommend using the 68010 for new designs. The big advantage of the 68010 over the 68000 was its ability to handle and recover from virtual exceptions. Yes it had some other minor benefits (MUL & DIV timing, and 'loop mode' operation), but VM capability was by far the biggest. Since the introduction of the 68020, 030, and 040 , the 68010 offers very little value to the general computer market and has very little volume behind it compared to its successors. If you are building a 'computer' we really recommend the 020 or later. You can actually buy 020's today for less than 010's. If you are building an 'embedded' something and liked faster MULs, DIVs or two instruction loops, our 68300 family products (68330, 68331, 68332, and 68340) all provide these nifty things and lots more to boot (and are also cheaper than 010s). Unlike that other members of the 68000 family, the 68010 WAS a point product and we consider it to be obsolete for most (but not all) purposes. -- Regards, Jim Reinhart Motorola Microprocessor Products Group Austin, Texas
dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) (04/20/91)
>In all honesty, we really do not recommend using the 68010 for new designs. >The big advantage of the 68010 over the 68000 was its ability to handle and >recover from virtual exceptions. Yes it had some other minor benefits >(MUL & DIV timing, and 'loop mode' operation), but VM capability was by far >the biggest. Since the introduction of the 68020, 030, and 040 , the 68010 >offers very little value to the general computer market and has very little >volume behind it compared to its successors. > >If you are building a 'computer' we really recommend the 020 or later. You >can actually buy 020's today for less than 010's. If you are building >an 'embedded' something and liked faster MULs, DIVs or two instruction loops, >our 68300 family products (68330, 68331, 68332, and 68340) all provide these >nifty things and lots more to boot (and are also cheaper than 010s). > >Unlike that other members of the 68000 family, the 68010 WAS a point product >and we consider it to be obsolete for most (but not all) purposes. > >-- >Regards, >Jim Reinhart >Motorola Microprocessor Products Group >Austin, Texas I was not planning to construct a new system, but instead use the 68010 as a cheap way of speeding up an existing 68000 system (my A1000) I would like to know *which instructions are faster* and *by how many cycles* If i execute label: move.w (a0)+,(a1)+ dbra d0,label on the 68k it will take 22 cycles for each loop. What will this be with a 2 instruction cache? As good as 8 perhaps? /$DR.HEX$