bazyar@ernie (Jawaid Bazyar) (01/31/91)
I just got off the horn with none other than Tony Fadell, co-creator of the 20-25MHz '816. Things are getting close. Right now, they have their chip installed in a GS along with a WDC part- in parallel. They're doing this to make sure their timing is okay. So far, what they've seen is timing just as good as or better than the WDC part. This phase will continue for another week or so. After that, testing in as many different machine configurations as possible will occur, and after that- blammo. Can you say, "the GS went to hell, but came back alive and ready to kick butt". Just wanted to let y'all know, to keep up the faith! -- Jawaid Bazyar | "I'm sure K&R have never heard of Mike." Senior/Computer Engineering | bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu | "That's okay. I'm sure Mike's never heard of K&R". Apple II Forever! | (discussion about Orca/C)
mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan30.202122.22109@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> bazyar@cs.uiuc.edu (Jawaid Bazyar) writes: >I just got off the horn with none other than Tony Fadell, co-creator of the >20-25MHz '816. Things are getting close. Right now, they have their chip >installed in a GS along with a WDC part- in parallel. They're doing this >to make sure their timing is okay. So far, what they've seen is timing >just as good as or better than the WDC part. And then what? A THIRD brand of accellerator? Hmmm... Besides, the price will be phenominal, and you know what its like to own the new toy when you find out that it works like hell and then they release 19 upgrades which cost you ~$100 each. I would be interested, but I think the TWGS and the Zip are overpriced at ~$275 so I dunno... If this was around ~$350 then I might consider it, otherwise, I bet the audience base will be a mute point. >This phase will continue for another week or so. After that, testing >in as many different machine configurations as possible will occur, and >after that- blammo. Can you say, "the GS went to hell, but came back alive >and ready to kick butt". When we have statements like "Apple Inc will never produce another stand-alone ][ again", and these 25 MHz accellerators will be so damn expensive... I'm still more interested on the MMU project running at 8MHz... I don't think that it will revive the GS, but the GS will become a cult object similar to VW Bugs and Dr. Who and Startrek. A bunch of die-hard junkies thinking that it wont be long before the rest of the world comes to it's senses. Proof? Well with VWs, it was the semi-hemi cut of the heads to lower the CR to about 6 or 6.5 - some dorks still think that they really *want* a higher CR and everyone gets divided and you break up the base of die hards... Anyway, the point is this - don't expect too much. A better marketing strategy for these folks since you know them is to try to get the lower profit margin, wider base than to try and initially build a name with a high price and fewer sales. (problem with software) The number of GSs is shrinking faster than its growing, and something like this may not be affordable to me for 2 or 3 years. Will this new company be out of business by then because the few left couldn't afford what they produced? >Just wanted to let y'all know, to keep up the faith! Call me a skeptic... ("You're a skeptic" Now noone has to say that to be funny.) Dan Gross >Jawaid Bazyar | "I'm sure K&R have never heard of Mike."
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (01/31/91)
mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: >And then what? A THIRD brand of accellerator? Hmmm... Besides, the price And then Zip and AE buy from Fadell instead of WDC and we get faster, more reliable accelerators for a reasonable price. Tony Fadell's project is making the CPU itself run faster. He doesn't make accelerators. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu (Eric Hsu) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.065813.25807@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: > >>And then what? A THIRD brand of accellerator? Hmmm... Besides, the price > >And then Zip and AE buy from Fadell instead of WDC and we get faster, more >reliable accelerators for a reasonable price. I'm really glad this project is going through... but as far as the price goes, it seems like a big problem might be fast memory. To really run at 25 MHz, wouldn't you need something like 40 ns RAM?? It might be kind of expensive. I guess you could have a small cache of on-chip fast RAM. Also, what are the chances of someone making a //e accelerator out of an ASIC 65816? Greater than Zero, I hope. >Todd Whitesel >toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu Eric Hsu ehsu@husc4.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu Eric Hsu ehsu@husc4.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu
jpenne@ee.ualberta.ca (Jerry Penner) (02/01/91)
In article <5544@husc6.harvard.edu> ehsu@husc9.UUCP (Eric Hsu) writes: >In article <1991Jan31.065813.25807@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: >> >>>And then what? A THIRD brand of accellerator? Hmmm... Besides, the price >> >>And then Zip and AE buy from Fadell instead of WDC and we get faster, more >>reliable accelerators for a reasonable price. > >I'm really glad this project is going through... but as far as the price goes, >it seems like a big problem might be fast memory. To really run at 25 MHz, >wouldn't you need something like 40 ns RAM?? It might be kind of expensive. >I guess you could have a small cache of on-chip fast RAM. Yup, you need fast RAM but static RAMs are available and that's what the ZIP uses already. A 25 MHz GS would be mighty hilarious. I mean, can you see the Gackintosh people's jaws drop below their shoes!? Show Mr. Sculley one of those and he might have a heart attack. Heh heh. >Also, what are the chances of someone making a //e accelerator out of an >ASIC 65816? Greater than Zero, I hope. I never thought about that. That is actually a really good idea. >>Todd Whitesel > >Eric Hsu ehsu@husc4.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu -- ------------- Jerry Penner alberta!bode!jpenne Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.065813.25807@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >Tony Fadell's project is making the CPU itself run faster. He doesn't make >accelerators. Well, Todd, I trust you know what you are talking about. But I don't understand the whole workings of an accellerator (as long as it works! :-) But isn't a faster CPU in effect an accellerator? Or how do they do it now? Sorry about the dumb question, but I really don't understand! >Todd Whitesel Daniel Gross
6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Parik Rao) (02/01/91)
However is in contact with Mr. Fadell - please get them to send a evaluation unit to *someone* at Apple (the hardware team, Rob Moore, Jim Merritt, etc, etc. Nonono, NOT SCULLEy!). The reason is they tend to doubt that such a product exists. A statement from them stating "Yeah folks...its real" would be a great endorsement... -- Parik Rao, University of California Santa Barbara 6600prao@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu
daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) (02/01/91)
In article <9261@uwm.edu> mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: >In article <1991Jan31.065813.25807@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>Tony Fadell's project is making the CPU itself run faster. He doesn't make >>accelerators. > >Well, Todd, I trust you know what you are talking about. But I don't >understand the whole workings of an accellerator (as long as it works! :-) >But isn't a faster CPU in effect an accellerator? Or how do they do it >now? Sorry about the dumb question, but I really don't understand! Just plugging a faster CPU into your computer won't make it run faster. It requires a lot of support circuitry, cache RAM and other stuff. The "ASIC" is just a CPU. If you plug that into your GS, you'll still be running at 2.8Mhz (or maybe you won't be running at all, the ASIC has a differeng packaging than what's in the GS, right?). You need an accelerator to speed up your computer. >Daniel Gross -- David Huang | Internet: daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu | "My ganglion is stuck in UUCP: ...!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu!daveh | a piece of chewing gum!" America Online: DrWho29 |
dcw@lcs.mit.edu (David C. Whitney) (02/01/91)
In article <43536@ut-emx.uucp> daveh@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David H. Huang) writes: >In article <9261@uwm.edu> mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: >>In article <1991Jan31.065813.25807@nntp-server.caltech.edu> toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) writes: >>>Tony Fadell's project is making the CPU itself run faster. He doesn't make >>>accelerators. >>Well, Todd, I trust you know what you are talking about. But I don't >>understand the whole workings of an accellerator (as long as it works! :-) > >Just plugging a faster CPU into your computer won't make it run faster. >It requires a lot of support circuitry, cache RAM and other stuff. The >"ASIC" is just a CPU. This is the same deal with RAM. The clock rates printed on the chip are extremes of functionality. It's the clock crystal in the computer which determines how fast everything goes. If you have 70ns RAM, it'll work in a device that requires 150ns. The 150ns restriction means that you can't have RAM slower than that. A 25mhz CPU means the chip can't be clocked faster than that. Since the clock in the GS goes at 2.8Mhz, that's as fast as it runs. Period. Accelerators have their own on-board clock crystal and faster rated CPU. They also have cache RAM which can be accessed very fast (much less than even 70ns - that is why you *can't* use regular RAM for cache memory - it's too slow). Whenever the accelerator has to talk to the rest of the computer, it slows down and does its thing. If your cache is small, then the accelerator doesn't do you much good. This is why accelerators cost as much as they do - it's not as simple as plug and play. So, the ASIC 65816 on an accelerator could be clocked as fast as 25MHz, but then you need to get cache ram that can be accessed at that speed. The original Macs were clocked at 8Mhz, but since RAM came only as fast as 150ns back then (I mean affordable RAM), the processor spent a lot of time waiting around for the RAM. These are called wait states and they effectively slow down the processor during memory accesses (nearly all the time). It's all a big mess. -- Dave Whitney Computer Science MIT 1990 | I wrote Z-Link and BinSCII. Send me bug dcw@lcs.mit.edu dcw@mit.edu | reports. I have a job. Don't send me offers. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" --Binky (aka Matt Groening)
hzink@alchemy.UUCP (Harry K. Zink) (02/02/91)
The real question on my mind concerning the ASIC '816 (and I'm sure I'm not alone) is what kind of productio quantity are they looking at, what is the maximum speed they will be able to go with production models, and, most of all, who is waiting in line to purchase the chip for inclusion in their products...? uucp : ucrmath!alchemy!hzink | Achieve True Wealth and Financial Independence! INET : hzink@alchemy.uucp | Intrigued? - Send E-Mail! -----------------------------+------------------------------------------------ Wesley: "Captain, this doesn't look like the holodeck to me." Worf: "Ready to cycle airlock, Captain." Picard: "Make it so."
anarch@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (The Anarch) (02/02/91)
In article <5544@husc6.harvard.edu> ehsu@husc9.UUCP (Eric Hsu) writes: >I'm really glad this project is going through... but as far as the price goes, >it seems like a big problem might be fast memory. To really run at 25 MHz, >wouldn't you need something like 40 ns RAM?? It might be kind of expensive. >[...] >Eric Hsu ehsu@husc4.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu Actually, 70 or 80 ns RAM ought to be OK, and I've seen 1 meg 70 ns SIMMs for as little as 40-45 dollars lately. You probably would have to replace whatever you have now, though.
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/02/91)
In article <9261@uwm.edu> mcgu5464@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Ronald J Mcguire) writes: >But isn't a faster CPU in effect an accellerator? Or how do they do it >now? Sorry about the dumb question, but I really don't understand! The "CPU" in question is a single integrated circuit ("chip") that can be used as the nucleus of a computing system but requires substantial supporting circuitry, for example a master clock that provides the timing "ticks" in units of which the rest of the logic circuitry operates. While the rumored ASIC chip would have the potential of operating correctly when clocked at speeds much greater than the 2.8MHz used on the Apple IIGS motherboard, merely replacing the CPU chip on the motherboard with one capable of faster clocking would not improve the throughput of the computer system so long as the same 2.8MHz clock continued to be used. There are various technical reasons why the clock speed on the IIGS motherboard itself cannot be increased. Thus accelerator add-ons like AE's TransWarp/GS (which connects to both an Apple II bus slot and the motherboard CPU socket) provide their own fast clock and other associated support circuitry. Because they have to cooperate with the circuitry still on the IIGS motherboard, there is some fairly tricky coordination required in the design of such accelerators. Because Apple IIGS RAM typically fails if clocked much faster than 2.8MHz, increased CPU speed alone would not be much of a gain, due to having to wait for the rest of the Apple IIGS to operate. Therefore, accelerator add-ons normally provide some fast RAM "cache" memory so that a good percentage of all memory accesses can be satisfied more quickly than would be the case if direct access to the standard IIGS RAM were required. Some IIGS operations simply require that the accelerator revert to normal IIGS speeds, for example 1MHz when accessing Disk II controller cards (whose firmware performs critical disk read/write timing using the "known" times taken for certain instruction sequences on the original 1MHz Apple II).
swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Feb1.174430.7516@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> anarch@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (The Anarch) writes: >In article <5544@husc6.harvard.edu> ehsu@husc9.UUCP (Eric Hsu) writes: >>I'm really glad this project is going through... but as far as the price goes, >>it seems like a big problem might be fast memory. To really run at 25 MHz, >>wouldn't you need something like 40 ns RAM?? It might be kind of expensive. >>[...] >>Eric Hsu ehsu@husc4.Bitnet, ehsu@husc9.harvard.edu > >Actually, 70 or 80 ns RAM ought to be OK, and I've seen 1 meg 70 ns SIMMs for >as little as 40-45 dollars lately. You probably would have to replace >whatever you have now, though. Seems to me, you take something like 1/25Mhz and that gives you the speed of the chips you need in ns....I think you have to account for some overheard in there as well...... Mike t h i s t e r m p r o g ram won't let me go up and edit anything...I just got it last night and havn't figured it all out. Anyway, sorry to those of you I promised I wouldn't do this anymore. Mike
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/02/91)
swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) writes: >Seems to me, you take something like 1/25Mhz and that gives you the speed of >the chips you need in ns....I think you have to account for some overheard >in there as well...... That's more or less how STATIC CACHE ram speeds are determined. The SIMMs everyone is buying for $40 contain memories of a totally different nature -- they are much larger than an accelerator's cache needs to be, and are slower than they seem because 80 ns is only a 'best case' access time (which you only get for consecutive accesses to the same 'page' of the chip; a DRAM page is usually the square root of the memory size, so 64K drams have a 256-location page, 256K drams have a 512-location page, and so on). DRAMs are used for main memory because they are big & cheap. Caches use static rams (which have a constant and usually short access time, depending on how much you want to pay) in order to avoid waiting for the DRAMs 90% of the time, and it works rather well. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/02/91)
>>>>>>
Seems to me, you take something like 1/25Mhz and that gives you the speed of
the chips you need in ns....I think you have to account for some overheard
in there as well......
<<<<<
Actually, the 65xxx requires memory accesses to take place in 1/2 a clock
cycle, so you would need somewhat less (because the clock is asymmetrical)
that 1/50Mhz (20ns). You are right about some additional overhead. The
decoding, address and data buffers, and stray capacitance all take away
nanoseconds. You'd probably need RAM faster than 5ns to work on a 25Mhz
65c816 without wait states. I have seen TTL compatible 7ns RAM, any faster
than this and you've got to go to incompatible logic families. Of course,
you'd also have to be filthy rich to afford any of this stuff.
*** Randy Hydeswiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) (02/02/91)
In article <11642@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: > +>Actually, the 65xxx requires memory accesses to take place in 1/2 a clock +>cycle, so you would need somewhat less (because the clock is asymmetrical) +>that 1/50Mhz (20ns). You are right about some additional overhead. The +>decoding, address and data buffers, and stray capacitance all take away +>nanoseconds. You'd probably need RAM faster than 5ns to work on a 25Mhz +>65c816 without wait states. I have seen TTL compatible 7ns RAM, any faster +>than this and you've got to go to incompatible logic families. Of course, +>you'd also have to be filthy rich to afford any of this stuff. >*** Randy Hyde How much are we talking here? I just can't believe 32K of RAM, no matter how fast, is that expensive. I mean, I'd pay $500 for a 25Mhz accelerator. Is that a lot? Mike
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/04/91)
>But isn't a faster CPU in effect an accellerator? Or how do they do it >now? Sorry about the dumb question, but I really don't understand! > >Daniel Gross How fast can a car go? 100 mph, 150mph? How fasst can it go in a school zone? 40MPH, 25? Just because something is capable running faster than allowable doesn't mean that it will. You might want to consider modems also, if you have a 9600 modem, but dial up a 300 baud board, you will only be able to D/L at 300. This is the bottleneck. Note that even with an accelerator your SYSTEM still only runs at 2.5MHz( or 1MHZ if doing I/O to disk). What the accelerator does is save often used code and data in an area of very fast memory on its card (or in its chip in the case of the Zip Chip). It can run all of the stuff here at full speed, but must slow down to normal if the code or data it needs is not present in this memory. It is a fact that 20% of the code of any given program is executed 80% of the time that the program is running. Keeping that 20% in the memory cache letsyou run the program as fast as physically possible, the trick is finding the right 20%. The Zip isn't too bad, with a 16k cache 8Mhz is a little more than twice as fast as a stock GS, about the equivalent of 6MHz. The 25Mhz ASIC chip would be around 20MHz, or about 8 times faster. Assuming that this is shipping speed and not maximum attainable with immersed in liquid nitrogen. :) UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
jlevitsky@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Joshua Levitsky) (02/05/91)
About that 20-25mhz... won't it slowly burn-out my equiptment? or anyone's equiptment? I heard that's why you should not put the 13mhz chip in your TransWarp GS. I was going to get the 13mhz, but my friend told me about the hardware burn-out aso I decided not to. Another thing... with this new chip... will I be able to plug it in to my TransWarp GS, or have to buy another accelerator card? -Joshie EMT INET: jlevitsky@gnh-applesauce.cts.com UUCP: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!jlevitsky ARPA: crash!pnet01!gnh-applesauce!jlevitsky@nosc.mil
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/05/91)
jlevitsky@gnh-applesauce.cts.com (Joshua Levitsky) writes: >About that 20-25mhz... won't it slowly burn-out my equiptment? or anyone's >equiptment? I heard that's why you should not put the 13mhz chip in your >TransWarp GS. I was going to get the 13mhz, but my friend told me about the >hardware burn-out aso I decided not to. The 20+ chip won't have that problem. The burn-out problem is with WDC produced chips (currently, only WDC sells chips 'rated' for that speed) because the chips' operating voltage must be increased from 5 to 6 volts in order to ensure correct operation at the higher speed. The ASIC 65816 uses a different design/fabrication process than the WDC chips, and will be able to run at rated speed without heating problems. The support circuitry on a TWGS might get really warm running that fast (if it even can) but a Zip GS built to run that fast won't have those heat problems (the 8 mhz version runs so cool it's beautiful). >Another thing... with this new chip... will I be able to plug it in to my >TransWarp GS, or have to buy another accelerator card? Sure, you can use it with the TWGS, but the TWGS may not be able to support it properly past 12-13 mhz. The Zip GS is far better adapted to high speeds than the TWGS, and I am betting that (using the new chip) a 20 mhz Zip GS will be available far sooner than a 20 mhz TWGS will. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/05/91)
>About that 20-25mhz... won't it slowly burn-out my equiptment? or anyone's >equiptment? I heard that's why you should not put the 13mhz chip in your >TransWarp GS. I was going to get the 13mhz, but my friend told me about the >hardware burn-out aso I decided not to. Another thing... with this new chip... >will I be able to plug it in to my TransWarp GS, or have to buy another >accelerator card? >-Joshie EMT > >INET: jlevitsky@gnh-applesauce.cts.com Get a fan. It is true that higher clock frequencies require more power and that more power generates more heat, however Fadell is not using TTL, but rather low power CMOS (I'm pretty sure that's what he said). The WDC '816 burns 4mA/MHz so it currently draws 10mA or so, at 25MHz it would draw 100mA which works out to about 1/2 a Watt of power. Not much, although it will obviously increase the ambient temparature inside your machine. However this is not to say that the ASIC '816 uses this formula, using low power technologies the heat generated and power drawn will be much reduced. You will have to ask AE about the TWGS, I would expect that it is possible, but expensive. Note that the TWGS draws a lot of power just by itself and the extra speed may put it over the top. The Zip GS apparently draws significantly less and there is a stated upgrade path (although not to the ASIC unless it is 110% compatible with the WDC design and the _ABORT thing might crimp that). I would say that unless the ASIC chip interferes with the GS's memory expansion slot (the only place the ABORT line is used), ZIP will support it and AE as well likely. If not then Harris labs or Chinnook will come out with their own accelerators. Right now all we are waiting for production quantities to become available. Just hope Ninetendo doesn't get dibs on the first batch. :) UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) (02/06/91)
In article <457@generic.UUCP> ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) writes: > >Get a fan. > >It is true that higher clock frequencies require more power and that more >power generates more heat, however Fadell is not using TTL, but rather low >power CMOS (I'm pretty sure that's what he said). The WDC '816 burns 4mA/MHz >so it currently draws 10mA or so, at 25MHz it would draw 100mA which works out >to about 1/2 a Watt of power. Not much, although it will obviously increase >the ambient temparature inside your machine. However this is not to say that >the ASIC '816 uses this formula, using low power technologies the heat >generated and power drawn will be much reduced. I have a Woz GS, 4M RAM, TWGS, DMA SCSI, and AE AA, and lately I've been having problems with my GS overheating (at least that's what I blame). I stuck it on the floor, so carpet was blocking the airflow...got that, things went OK for a while, then it started again. Looking a little closer I see the thing has sunk into the cardboard of the album I stuck it on, so I tossed some "lego's" under each of the feet and raised it about 1/2 inch. No problems since, but it still runs pretty hot. I was thinking about adding the Apple fan to accent my System Saver. Anyone have any experience with this combination? I've heard people say the Vulcan fan and System Saver fan "fight" each other, so thier is less air moved. Any input at all would be appreciated. Thanks, Mike -- "I own a Harley, not just a T-shirt!" Apple IIgs! I like to trade. Got anything you want to get rid of? Sun 2/120! I got _lots_ of motorcycle parts, whatcha need? Sun 2/50! swiers@plains.nodak.edu, mike@egf-bbs.UUCP, ud169430@ndsuvm1.bitnet
toddpw@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel) (02/06/91)
swiers@plains.NoDak.edu (Mike Swiers ) writes: >problems since, but it still runs pretty hot. I was thinking about adding >the Apple fan to accent my System Saver. Don't bother. The Apple fan is way too loud and it sits inside the case where it (a) blocks you from having long cards in slots 1 through 3, and (b) blocks half of the air intake to the System Saver's fan. I have my GS on the floor, with the bottom vents totally blocked -- three of back panels are open, and they let plenty of air in, which flows between the cards (the only hot one, really, is the RAMfast; the Zip never gets past warm and the whole card draws 200 mA at 8 mhz, supposedly) and up into the system saver. The air coming out of the system saver is warm if the room is not being ventilated, and cool if we have a draught going between the windows or the door. Todd Whitesel toddpw @ tybalt.caltech.edu
rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/07/91)
Actually, the real reason the 13 Mhz TWGS units burn up GS machines is that you`ve got to tweak the board to run at 6.0 volts instead of the normal 5.0v. A bad wiring job and Poof! Away goes your GS. Assuming the 25Mhz chip ever becomes reality, I would assume that it is going to run at standard TTL levels (e.g., 5.0volts). BTW, those of you thinking that a 25Mhz chip will let your machines catch up with faster PCs, think again. Next month Intel will be showing a 100 Mhz 80486 chip! They expect them to appear in systems as early as 1992 (yeah, probably *LATE* 1992). Don't forget, the rest of the world isn't standing still while the 65xxx tries to catch up... **** Randy Hyde
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (02/08/91)
In article <11750@ucrmath.ucr.edu> rhyde@feller.ucr.edu (randy hyde) writes: >BTW, those of you thinking that a 25Mhz chip will let your machines catch >up with faster PCs, think again. Next month Intel will be showing a 100 >Mhz 80486 chip! They expect them to appear in systems as early as 1992 ... I don't think it's a matter of "catching up" with other systems, but rather of enhancing the systems we already own. The TWGS significantly improved the IIGS for many practical applications. Note that at speeds such as you are talking about, caching techniques become extremely important. Nobody is likely to pay for a PC/AT clone with 10ns DRAM and a 100MHz-capable bus; therefore to attain anything like the rated CPU throughput there will have to be heavy use of cache.
ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/09/91)
>faster PCs, think again. Next month Intel will be showing a 100 Mhz >80486 chip! They expect them to appear in systems as early as 1992 >(yeah, probably *LATE* 1992). Don't forget, the rest of the world >isn't standing still while the 65xxx tries to catch up... >**** Randy Hyde Yeah right, you know how much heat even a 16MHz 386 puts out? At 100MHz, it wouldn't burn your computer, it would burn down your HOUSE!!!!! Actually, I think that it was ALR that attached a Piezo-cooler to a stock 486 and got it running up to 50MHz (I think the brand name was Ice Cube). They said that they had no intention of putting this is a production machine though. I expect Intel is getting a special chip from their 40MHz 486 batches and doing the same thing. I'm sure this thing will pass FCC regualtions!!!!! It certainly won't make CSA certification, if teh cooler ever fails then it becomes a fire hazard immediately. It likely exceeds 10W of power dissipation (this is more than the speakers in my stereo :). Personally I think that it would take at least a 100MHz '486 to emulate a complete GS system even at 2.8MHz. This is the criterion for speed that interests me, the fastest machine in the universe is useless unless it runs the software that I have now. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com (Laer Haider) (02/10/91)
In-Reply-To: message from rhyde@feller.ucr.edu [...snip] >Next month Intel will be showing a 100 Mhz 80486 chip! They expect them to >appear in systems as early as 1992 (yeah, probably *LATE* 1992). [snip...] Will these systems come with lead shielding too? / _______________________________________________ \ / / ProLine: pro-beagle!lhaider \\\' , / // INET: lhaider@pro-beagle.cts.com \\\//, _/ //, UUCP: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider \_-//' / //<, ARPA: crash!pro-beagle!lhaider@nosc.mil \ /// <//` / >> \\\`__/_ The opinions expressed here belong to nobody! /,)-^>>_\`, \\\ (Anybody see nobody lately?) (/ \\ /\\\ ----------------------------------------------- // _//\\\\ ((` ((
rhyde@ucrmath.ucr.edu (randy hyde) (02/10/91)
>>>>
Yeah right, you know how much heat even a 16MHz 386 puts out? At 100MHz, it
wouldn't burn your computer, it would burn down your HOUSE!!!!!
<<<<
100/16 is about 6. So you're going to mistakenly claim the 100mhz 486 puts
out (say) six times as much heat as a 16 Mhz 80386sx. Does this mean that
a 25Mhz 65816 will put out 25x as much heat as a 1Mhz 6502?
C'mon, we're talking new technologies here. You shouldn't make up stuff like
this just to gripe about the 80x86 processors. There are enough reasons to
gripe about them without inventing bogus reasons!
As for your emulation question, II on a Mac ran at about the speed of a
0.5 Mhz 6502 on a Mac Plus. I haven't run the program in years, but I'd bet
on my Mac II fx it's quite respectible (like a 4-6Mhz 6502). Taking into
consideration the additional instructions on the '816 (which wouldn't really
slow things down that much), I suspect you could write a 65816 emulator which
performs as fast as a 10Mhz 65816 (including crazy Apple video and I/O
simulation) with no problems on a 100 Mhz 486. Of course, you'd have to write
the code in assembly language! SoftPC on my Mac II fx simulates an 8Mhz
80286. The 80286 is quite a bit more complex and certainly more difficult to
simulate than the 65816 (I know, I've written some of this simulators). I would
suspect that a good program could do at least as good a job with the 65816.ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com (Eric Mcgillicuddy) (02/11/91)
>100/16 is about 6. So you're going to mistakenly claim the 100mhz 486 puts >out (say) six times as much heat as a 16 Mhz 80386sx. Does this mean that >a 25Mhz 65816 will put out 25x as much heat as a 1Mhz 6502? A 16MHz 386sx puts out about 25 times the heat of a 1MHz 65c02. 6 times this is 150 times the heat of a 65c02. A this is using new technologies, how else do you think they can get the speed that high to begin with? Intel chips do not run warm, they run HOT. They have the highest power dissipation of any general purpose microprocessor family. In fact some clone companies have included fans attached directly to the '386 chip just to keep it cool enough to run at the speeds it is running (granted, some push the chip beyond its rated speed). II in a Mac runs a 6502 at 1/32 the speed of the host processor, assuming no additional overhead for the '816, this gives the speed of a 3MHz GS on a 100MHz 486. The advanced features of the '486 will not help that much (math coprocessor or MMU) and pipelining is already in use on the 68030 while using 2 in a Mac. OOPs, sorry 1/16 the speed giving a 6MHz '816. Even so... the cost differential is much greater than a Zip GS which produces the same performace boost. BTW the ASIC may just run that hot, we won't know until production is begun. UUCP: bkj386!pnet91!ericmcg INET: ericmcg@pnet91.cts.com
whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) (02/16/91)
About 100Mhz 486s... I think it's suppose to COME OUT in '92... the chip it self... there were no mention when systems built around would come out. 486 aren't even running 50Mhz, yet without the ICE CAP device which also has a 5.2V voltage regulator. A major draw back to a 100Mhz CPUs... finding memory fast enough to keep up with it... I'm pretty sure you need something close to 1ns maybe faster just for main memory... well at least for the cache... with wait states... There is some slight good news for the 65816 and CMOS chips... IBM has comeup with a process to boost CMOS performance by placing a insulator layer under the CMOS... it was mentioned in a recent BYTE article. Speed improvements were 3 times faster and just silicon CMOS chips... the process involves growing the silicon on top of the insulator and then etching the circuit. It looks very promising... I think if similar types of processes done for the 65816 we could see some vast improvements... most other CPUs ddon't use CMOS so maybe they won't benefit as much. Another thing is the the insulator also reduces power comsumption... and CMOS is pretty low power drawing type of circuits as it is... more as they come availible. whitewolf@gnh-starport!info-apple
kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Dave Sim's Ugly Brother) (02/20/91)
In article <m0j7N1r-00003iC@jartel.info.com> whitewolf@gnh-starport.cts.com (Tae Song) writes: >About 100Mhz 486s... I think it's suppose to COME OUT in '92... the chip it >self... there were no mention when systems built around would come out. No. Intel is only going to release the chip as a performance/test/whatever. According to Intel, they will market a 50 Mhz chip sometime late this year for clone machines, but the 100Mhz will not be produced in that quantity. >There is some slight good news for the 65816 and CMOS chips... IBM has comeup >with a process to boost CMOS performance by placing a insulator layer under the >CMOS... it was mentioned in a recent BYTE article. Speed improvements were >3 times faster and just silicon CMOS chips... the process involves growing the >silicon on top of the insulator and then etching the circuit. It looks very >promising... I think if similar types of processes done for the 65816 we could >see some vast improvements... most other CPUs ddon't use CMOS so maybe they >won't benefit as much. Another thing is the the insulator also reduces power >comsumption... and CMOS is pretty low power drawing type of circuits as it >is... more as they come availible. That does sound interesting. Howeverm I would think that this type of process would be hellaciously expensive. Expensive enough to preclude any development in this area for the 65C816. -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |The Coven BBS (303) 777 2911 PCP via CODEN Stalr*nk too| |---------------------|100 Megs of storage. Areas for IBM/MAC/Apple. Games. | | If, several years from now you find me in an airport selling petunias and | | looking lobotomized, I'd appreciate your strangling me. |