sysop@insider.zer.sub.org (01/15/91)
>>I don't think so. The price for the 040 is just a bit too high in the >>moment. Additionally, putting an 040 in the 3x00 would lead to a total >>re-design of the motherboard. So, IMHO, No chance... Also, I suppose C= > Sorry, but this sounds wrong. Dave Haynie himself, not to mention >countless other CBM reps and Amiga experts have said that the Amiga3000's >CPU slot can handle an 040, and was designed with the 040 in mind. Sure... what I meant was putting an 040 on the motherboard. Anyway, if C= comes up with an 040-board, they should try to get the custom chips to do their work at 25MHz/32Bit... that would sure speed up our little baby... ;-) Amiga - What else ? | Garry Glendown The Insider HST/V32 0662177923 // | UUCP: cbmvax!cbmger!inside!garry Fido: 2:243/43.999 // | garry@fulmin.rhoen.sub.org Garry@DGIHRZ01.BITNET \X/ | Zerberus: SYSOP@INSIDER.ZER
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (01/18/91)
In article <9101140911.16.855@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >>...CBM reps and Amiga experts have said that the Amiga3000's >>CPU slot can handle an 040, and was designed with the 040 in mind. >Sure... what I meant was putting an 040 on the motherboard. As long as there is no speed difference, why would you care where a 68040 is physically located in any given machine? The coprocessor board concept is far from a kludge. It is something we intended to use from the beginning, in real system setups. We could have built a basic 68020 or 68030 based Amiga 2500, with the CPU on the motherboard rather than in a coprocessor slot. But that would have given you no advantage, and us several disadvantages: [1] no simple upgrade for A2000 owners, [2] too many different Amiga models. Once the need for a full 32 bit system in larger volumes became clear, we did the A3000. But that was quite a bit more work than simply having the CPU on the motherboard, and it took much longer (I started working on A3000 related things in August of 1988). And the main A3000 advantages aren't CPU speed related anyway -- except for burst mode on the A3000, the 25MHz 3000 runs the same memory cycle as the A2500/30. But along with that, you got faster Chip RAM, a much faster hard disk controller, a real 32 bit bus, and a lower cost. Because the A3000 was designed as a full new system, not just "68030 on the motherboard". I think its reasonable to expect the same basic paths to be followed with 68040s and Amigas. >Amiga - What else ? | Garry Glendown The Insider HST/V32 0662177923 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "Don't worry, 'bout a thing. 'Cause every little thing, gonna be alright" -Bob Marley
jap@convex.cl.msu.edu (Joe Porkka) (01/19/91)
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) writes: >In article <9101140911.16.855@INSIDER> sysop@insider.zer.sub.org writes: >>>...CBM reps and Amiga experts have said that the Amiga3000's >>>CPU slot can handle an 040, and was designed with the 040 in mind. >>Sure... what I meant was putting an 040 on the motherboard. >The coprocessor board concept is far from a kludge. It is something we >intended to use from the beginning, in real system setups. We could have >built a basic 68020 or 68030 based Amiga 2500, with the CPU on the >motherboard rather than in a coprocessor slot. But that would have given >you no advantage, and us several disadvantages: [1] no simple upgrade for >A2000 owners, [2] too many different Amiga models. Gee, If you guys had not thought of the coprocessor board for Amigas, we could be more like Macs, with about 3 dozen different models :-) What I'd like to see would be ADOS taking advantage of the two ( or more ) CPUs in a system with a coprocessor board installed.