drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) (04/06/91)
In a message From: erk@americ.UUCP (Erick Parsons) > I have come to these conclusions (be they right or wrong) > > o In order to fully utilize the potential of a 68030 accelarator > In this case the Mega Midget Racer by CSA, one needs at least > 256K of 32 Bit Static ram on board to realize any significant > bang for the buck, with 512K being optimum as that's max for > onboard ram without the addition of a daughter board. You will see an extreme speed increase with 32 bit Dynamic RAM added as well. > o 32 bit microprocessors are kludgy on 16 bit busses like that > of the A500. True, but the 68030 has a dynamic bus size so it is not really a "kludge" to use it in a 16 bit system. However, this is true for the 68040 which has an exclusively 32 bit bus and requires external circuitry to address the standard 16 bit bus. > ? What is in fact the minimum amount of 32 bit wide ram necessary > to make the 68030 a blazingly fast, efficient accelarator ? > Is static ram preferable to Dynamic Ram ? According to my info, Static RAM _used_ to be inherently faster than Dynamic RAM. Since Dynamic RAM uses less current and can be squeezed into a smaller package, it has been preferable to Static RAM. As a result, research has allowed Dynamic RAM to be manufactured as fast as Static RAM (or very close) for a cheaper price, too. Anyway, what this means to you is that NO, Dynamic RAM is not necessarily preferable to Static RAM. Fill the Static RAM area of that card and then add as much Dynamic RAM as you can afford when you have the money for it. For "blinding" efficiency, you should have at least 512K of 32 bit memory (WorkBench 2.0 has a 512K ROM and you should plan ahead). This won't speed up all of every program (depending on it's system usage) but it will make a VERY noticable improvement in system operation. To notice further improvements you need to run the actual programs from 32 bit RAM. > ? Is my 16 bit ram going to slow things down? I have a sizable > investment in ram to date (5 megs) Well it depends on how you look at it. The 16 bit memory won't speed up things, so in a way that is true. However, if the memory is of the same format as the 32 bit card requires, you can use it as 32 bit memory (there is no difference between 32 and 16 bit memory, just their buses) and you won't lose the money you've invested in RAM. If not, check comp.sys.amiga. marketplace :-) > ? Do these accelarators use the same simm memory expansion modules > that other expansion boards use ? i.e. 1M x 8, and is the fact that > it is 80ns access time a detriment to burst mode caching ? Sorry, I can't help you with the particulars of the Mega Midget Racer. I understand, however, that most accelerator boards take into account the burst mode and work with it as they can. I doubt that 80nS RAM will be a detriment to the system (80nS is rather fast after all). > ? Will I realize any significant increases in speed in general with > Caching disabled on a 33 MHZ '030' / 68882 / 512K 32Bit Static Ram ? I really don't notice a great deal of difference in speed during real- world program execution with or without my cache installed. It makes a great deal of difference when a loop of 256 bytes or less is being executed, but it looks like in real life, this is rarely the case (this can become a factor with the 4K cache in the '040). > ? " Caching enabled ? > > > o A math co-processor will speedup dramatically CAD, 3D-rendering > programs and Spreadsheets that are floating point intensive. Yup. > ? Will the addition of a 68882 co-pro. do anything for such things > as flight simulators and or simulations. (Standard answer to almost any computer/electronics question:) Depends. If the program recognizes and uses the co-processor if it's there, of course it will help. Otherwise, it might not. I found a library replacement for the mathtrans.library that will use the 68881/2 for calls to this library. If the simulator uses this library as it should, this will speed up the simulator as well. (I think it is called fasttrans.library) > o There seem to be two versions (if not more) of '030's floating > around these days. There is the MMU and non MMU. ????????? I haven't heard of a 68030 without the MMU. That would probably be a totally different number (68020? :-) > ? Would it be worth it at some later date to have gotten the MMU > '030' ? i.e. Unix implementations running rampant in the forseeable > future. I don't know whether there are really many progs out yet that use the MMU other than a couple of debuggers and the developer software boot program. I feel certain that there will be MMU requiring programs in the future so it could come in handy. > Opinions Wanted Provided :-) > o There are a thousand things that I would like to get for my Amiga > but only so much money. Would I be better off buying an AdSpeed > accelarator for a little over 200.00 and increasing data storage ? > > -or- > > o Should I go with a 33 MHZ MMU w/ 68882 co-processor and 512K of > Static Ram as a package for well over a thousand dollars and > forget about buying anything else for expansion till next April ? I'd suggest if you have a hard drive, you get the latter, if not the former. Rick Tillery (drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu)
monty@sagpd1 (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr5.194147.25387@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: > >> o There seem to be two versions (if not more) of '030's floating >> around these days. There is the MMU and non MMU. > >????????? I haven't heard of a 68030 without the MMU. That would probably >be a totally different number (68020? :-) > I am not sure of the numbering, but... The Makers of the midget Racer came to our users group in March and announced a "users group special" version of the new midget racer that had a "special" 68030 that had no MMU. They were working with Motorola and this product and had been given a good price that they were passing on to us. ($695.00 for the basic new midget) I can't remember the real name for the new Midget racer :) Anyway this board had a pin compatible '030 clone that could be updated when ever the need for the MMU became apparent. For what it's worth, This was NOT at our APRIL meeting!!!!!!!!! Monty Saine
skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com (Skipper Smith) (04/10/91)
In article <1991Apr9.153404.21751@sagpd1> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: >In article <1991Apr5.194147.25387@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu> drtiller@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.edu (Donald Richard Tillery Jr) writes: >> >>> o There seem to be two versions (if not more) of '030's floating >>> around these days. There is the MMU and non MMU. >> >>????????? I haven't heard of a 68030 without the MMU. That would probably >>be a totally different number (68020? :-) >> > > I am not sure of the numbering, but... The Makers of the midget Racer came > to our users group in March and announced a "users group special" version > of the new midget racer that had a "special" 68030 that had no MMU. They > were working with Motorola and this product and had been given a good > price that they were passing on to us. ($695.00 for the basic new midget) > I can't remember the real name for the new Midget racer :) Anyway this > board had a pin compatible '030 clone that could be updated when ever > the need for the MMU became apparent. > > > For what it's worth, > This was NOT at our APRIL meeting!!!!!!!!! > > Monty Saine The chip you are talking about is not an '030 clone and it is not an '020. It is a rehash of the '030 that has metal-masked out the MMU by permananently disabling it. The MMU is still there (for now, at least), but it is not powered (actually, there is some debate about that. It may still be powered) or tested. Because the MMU normally takes a great deal of time to test and time is money, since we don't have to test it we pass those savings on to the people who buy the chip. It is in every other way an '030, though. The part number is MC68EC030 where the EC stands for embedded control- a computer application that almost never needs an MMU but always need to be as cheap as possible. This is a standard Motorola part. -- Skipper Smith | skipper@motaus.sps.mot.com Motorola Technical Training | 8945 Guilford Rd Ste 145 All opinions are my own, not my employers | Columbia, MD 21046
rich@documail.UUCP (Rich McCallister) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr9.153404.21751@sagpd1> monty@sagpd1.UUCP (Monty Saine) writes: > I am not sure of the numbering, but... The Makers of the midget Racer came > to our users group in March and announced a "users group special" version > of the new midget racer that had a "special" 68030 that had no MMU. They I talked to the head of sales at CSA a few weeks ago. I understood him to say that the new "economy" version used the 68030's MMU to do the memory mapping needed to use the MMR. The older version uses special circuitry to do this remapping, leaving the 68030's MMU free to be used for other things. One thing you cannot do with the new "economy" version is run UNIX, since it uses the 68030's MMU. Thus, the money savings you get is from the fact that the CSA circuitry to do the memory mapping is not present in the "economy" version.