thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (06/29/90)
gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) in <2695@zipeecs.umich.edu> writes:
Has anybody got any info on the 030 in 68000 package?
Not directly. BUT there's an interesting item in the June 1990 APDA Bulletin
(APDA = Apple Programmers' Developer Association) concerning assumptions
when the CPU (in a Mac) is "> 68000".
Previously, it appears programmers have been assuming that a math co-processor
accompanies any 68020 or 68030 based system. They (Apple) have added a new
system call that specifically returns a value indicating whether such a
co-proc is installed or not (regardless of the CPU). They didn't say WHY
they're doing this, but it seems to me that a system using the "new" 68030
in the 64-pin "68000" package would be a likely suspect, er... candidate.
If the new chip is as compatible to the 68000 as is the 68010, then this
presents some interesting possibilities for upgrading present 68000 and 68010
systems!
Thad Floryan [ thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad ]phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) (06/29/90)
In article <31234@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) in <2695@zipeecs.umich.edu> writes: > >> Has anybody got any info on the 030 in 68000 package? > >If the new chip is as compatible to the 68000 as is the 68010, then this >presents some interesting possibilities for upgrading present 68000 and 68010 >systems! Is this just a standard 68030 in a 64-pin package, or is it heading in the direction of the 68000to68010 upgrade?, ie. unplug one plug in other - excluding clock problems. Even at standard clock speeds, the maths-co-pro would be usefull (and eventualy the MMU). Except for the cost! ***************************************************************************** * Stuart Millington * "A Mind Is A Terrible Thing, Remember * * UUCP:...!mcsun!ukc!warwick!phupp * That." - David Bryan, Bon Jovi * * JANET:phupp@uk.ac.warwick.cu ***************************************** * ? :phupp%warwick.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk * *****************************************************************************
krooglik@moroka4.ecr.mu.oz (Alex KROOGLIK) (07/02/90)
In article <31234@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > They didn't say WHY > they're doing this, but it seems to me that a system using the "new" 68030 > in the 64-pin "68000" package would be a likely suspect, er... candidate. I would love to know how you could physically fit a 68030 in a 68000 package. For starters, the 68030 has 32 physical address lines, and using simple grade 2 arithmetic, that leaves 32 pins. I would love someone to tell me how you could add all of the complex external pin outs and ins of the 68030 into a 64 pin DIP. Even the standard 68030 has around 114 pins (I think). If I have in someway misconstrued what you have asked, please forgive me. Else, someone has been ear-bashing you. krooglik@gondwana4.ecr.mu.oz.OZ.AU [128.250.64.1] +- Melbourne University, Dept. of Chemical Engineering -+
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (07/02/90)
In article <1990Jun29.134104.13876@warwick.ac.uk> phupp@warwick.ac.uk (S Millington) writes: > In article <31234@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > >gilgalad@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) in <2695@zipeecs.umich.edu> writes: > > > >> Has anybody got any info on the 030 in 68000 package? > > > >If the new chip is as compatible to the 68000 as is the 68010, then this > >presents some interesting possibilities for upgrading present 68000 and 68010 > >systems! > > Is this just a standard 68030 in a 64-pin package, or is it heading in > the direction of the 68000to68010 upgrade?, ie. unplug one plug in other - > excluding clock problems. Even at standard clock speeds, the maths-co-pro > would be usefull (and eventualy the MMU). Except for the cost! It's largely a figment of the rumor mill. A much better explanation is that the 68040 has an integral math "coprocessor" that Apple needs to accommodate. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren) (07/02/90)
In article <4699@munnari.oz.au> krooglik@moroka4.ecr.mu.oz (Alex KROOGLIK) writes: > >In article <31234@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > >> They didn't say WHY >> they're doing this, but it seems to me that a system using the "new" 68030 >> in the 64-pin "68000" package would be a likely suspect, er... candidate. > > I would love to know how you could physically fit a 68030 in a 68000 package. (...list of physical incompatibilities between '030 & 68000 deleted...) Well, I don't know if there is any such thing as this rumored '030 in a 68000 package, since this news group is the only place I've seen it mentioned, and EE Times is usually the first place I hear about interesting new products like this. However, it is certainly not impossible. It would be done the same way that plug-in-the-68000-socket '030 boards work right now. ie, some glue logic, drop the extra address lines, fini. If it included a 68882 in the same package everyone with a 68000 machine would probably go out and buy one. The required glue logic is inconsequential in comparison to the internal logic of the 68030 chip. -- _. --Steve ._||__ DISCLAIMER: All opinions are my own. Warren v\ *| ---------------------------------------------- V {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM
mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) (07/03/90)
In a previous article, krooglik@moroka4.ecr.mu.oz (Alex KROOGLIK) writes: > >In article <31234@cup.portal.com>, thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: > >> They didn't say WHY >> they're doing this, but it seems to me that a system using the "new" 68030 >> in the 64-pin "68000" package would be a likely suspect, er... candidate. > > I would love to know how you could physically fit a 68030 in a 68000 package. > For starters, the 68030 has 32 physical address lines, and using simple > grade 2 arithmetic, that leaves 32 pins. I would love someone to tell me > how you could add all of the complex external pin outs and ins of the 68030 > into a 64 pin DIP. Even the standard 68030 has around 114 pins (I think). They could do it the same way that Intel slimes a 16 bit processor onto an 8 bit bus with the 8088, or the way a 68008 runs the 68000 instuction set from a 48 pin chip. You cut a little here, you feature-reduce a little there..... :-) Seriously, I think you would have a problem with such a thing. Lots of the speed improvements are due to the seperate address and data busses. limiting pins and timing to conform to a 68000 standard kind of defeats the purpose. A huge cache would be nice, though, as well as faster divide and multiply instructions. > krooglik@gondwana4.ecr.mu.oz.OZ.AU -dave
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (07/03/90)
In article <4699@munnari.oz.au> krooglik@moroka4.ecr.mu.oz (Alex KROOGLIK) writes: > I would love to know how you could physically fit a 68030 in a 68000 package. > For starters, the 68030 has 32 physical address lines, and using simple > grade 2 arithmetic, that leaves 32 pins. I would love someone to tell me > how you could add all of the complex external pin outs and ins of the 68030 > into a 64 pin DIP. Even the standard 68030 has around 114 pins (I think). There's a rumor going around now that Motorola is preparing a "68025" chip that offers a 68030 architecture (PMMU, co-processor interface, all the 030 instructions and addressing modes) in a package that is pin-compatible with the 68000 (which means a 24 bit address bus, 16 Meg, and a 16 bit data bus). This is supposed to be used by Apple in their also-rumored low cost Mac. So far it's all rumor, but who knows? There were rumors once upon a time that Intel was making a 386 in a 286-pin-compatible package. They were half true; Intel introduced the 386SX, which has the same size address and data bus as the 286 (24 address, 16 data) but the package is *not* pin compatible. Motorola may do that, so that they can salvage the 68030 synchronous bus modes... -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) (07/04/90)
In article <11485@netcom.UUCP> mcmahan@netcom.UUCP (Dave Mc Mahan) writes: >Seriously, I think you would have a problem with such a thing. Lots of the >speed improvements are due to the seperate address and data busses. limiting >pins and timing to conform to a 68000 standard kind of defeats the purpose. >A huge cache would be nice, though, as well as faster divide and multiply >instructions. As well as the 68030 MMU too. Future AmigaDOS versions might support memory protection and you might do this easily on the older machines if there was a plug-in-and-play version of the 68030. That's why the 80386SX (16bit version) gets its place in the market despite of much faster 80286 chips. -- Michael van Elst UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve Internet: p554mve@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de "A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."