Hello, I've been catching up on 8 bit machines and was wondering if the CPC Plus was the last 8 bit machine to be made. Was it the most powerful? Or was there another machine that was on sale that slipped under the radar?
Thanks!
Hmmm, don't think so, the Amstrad PCW 16 came out around 1994 I think and was 8bit. The Amstrad NC based notebooks would have been 8bit too, when the 200 came out I'm not sure, the NC100 was reviewed in AA in 1992? Maybe 93? Don't think it was 91. For games the CPC Plus might have been one of the last in that it's competition was with the Atari ST's and Amiga's and perhaps the games consoles. In games consoles 8bit processors were in the NES, Sega Master System II, Gameboy and Atari Lynx was I think 8bit as well, but the Sega Game Gear I think might of had a 16bit processor in it which followed the Mega Drive and Super Nintendo, Atari went from a 7800 to a Jaguar I think which had a 32 bit processor!
Quote from: sigh on 13:21, 23 December 10
Hello, I've been catching up on 8 bit machines and was wondering if the CPC Plus was the last 8 bit machine to be made. Was it the most powerful? Or was there another machine that was on sale that slipped under the radar?
Thanks!
Enterprise 128?
There was the sam running at 6mhz, the nc100 also at 6mhz, there is the v6z80p running at 16mhz being produced in small batches now, soon to be followed by an ez80 based computer which will be a lot faster, there may be others.
Quote from: CP/M User on 13:33, 23 December 10Atari went from a 7800 to a Jaguar I think which had a 32 bit processor!
The Jaguar main processor is a 16bits one , the Motorola 68000 , but owns several 32/64bits co-processors for graphics and sound.
.
Thanks for the replies. I also had a look at that MSX Turbo R (1990); it really seems like a wonderful machine. The 128 Enterprise (1985) looked impressive for it's time too. It kind of makes me wonder why CPC+ didn't have an even more advanced spec sheet. ie more advance graphics, sound, memory, CPU etc. MSX to MSXR Turbo is quite a leap. C64 to C128 seems like quite a leap too. The leap in specs from CPC to CPC+ doesn't seem as much as the other two.
It's was such an interesting decade seeing all these different makers of computers and consoles making their mark on the industry, especially when it came to games. It seems as if there was more choice back then.
Just to make some jealous: I have both an Enterprise (64 though, not 128) and a Sam Coupe. The E64 has one of the sleekest designs around. The SAM is a bit silly, but cute too. Both fantastic little machines...
Quote from: sigh on 14:38, 23 December 10
It kind of makes me wonder why CPC+ didn't have an even more advanced spec sheet. ie more advance graphics, sound, memory, CPU etc.
Cost!
I think the Plus was a reasonably good spec, but because they wanted to maintain backwards compatibility a lot of the original Arnold restraints couldn't be sorted out.
This guy selling his GX4000 on eBay (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Amstrad-GX4000-system-boxed-/120661508545?pt=UK_VintageComputing_RL&hash=item1c17fc81c1) wouldn't agree with me though (check out the description).
The last was probably the Gameboy Color, which was probably also the most powerful 8 bit machine in general circulation. As to the CPC+, it's probably about as far as you could push the CPC design. Anything else would have required major redesigns of the system architecture, at which point abandoning backwards compatability and producing a 16-bit machine, which would have been a far more expensive project than Amstrad could commit to.
fano wrote:
The Jaguar main processor is a 16bits one , the Motorola 68000 , but owns several 32/64bits co-processors for graphics and sound.
That's probably what I'm thinking of! :-[
I just had a feeling that the 8bit chip is still being used in something today, but I guess that's different to an 8bit computer. Wouldn't suprise me if there were Mobile Phones which used them though! Would make a good question for Stephen Fry and the QI show! ;D
I think that new Z80 editions are used quite widely, even in aeronautics...
BTW.: Because it's Christmas some secret info:
I am actually working on a new website which should contain several 8bit systems in Java.
All emulators are modified by me and have a similar GUI so this makes it easier for playing games.
Actually installed systems:
- CPC
- C64
- Spectrum (48/128k)
- Thomson MO5
- Thomson TO8
I am still searching for good Java-emulators. But important for me is that there also exist the sources.
So, please post any suggestions.
A little test for you:
Death Wish 3 on CPC (http://retropower.eu/cpc.php?disc=Deathwish3.dsk)
Death Wish 3 on C64 (http://retropower.eu/c64.php?disc=Deathwish3.d64&start=*)
Death Wish 3 on ZX Spectrum 128k (http://retropower.eu/zx.php?file=Deathwish3.tap)
Roland in Space (With Amstrad SSA-1 speech (http://retropower.eu/cpc.php?disc=rolspace.dsk&sys=SSA1)
Aigle D'Or on Thomson MO5 (http://retropower.eu/mo5.php?file=aigle.k7&boot=RUNzxzm) (No sound emulation!)
Turbocup on Thomson TO8 (http://retropower.eu/to8.php?zip=turbocup.zip&s0=turbocup.sap&key=143) (No sound emulation!)
Have fun and happy easter!
Edit: Ehm.... Merry Christmas!
.
Thank you!
Well the most important secret is, that we also plan to add highscore storage to some emulators so we could make a highscore competition online....
Means: Every registered user can play a couple of games which support highscore storage to database and the highscores are listed then in a "Hall Of Fame" site!
(But this is still a long way to do)
.
Just out of interest (and not to start a flame war as I like both machines) was the PLUS more powerful or less powerful than the C128? Now - after giving away all my amstrad software and my friend giving away his C64 software, I'm thinking of purchasing both machines at somepoint.
Heh...that viscous cycle of selling stuff, only to buy it back again!
This will be a huge project if you can pull it off! Unique and really useful and fun - and global, too!
Wasn't the c128 just a c64 in a modern case with a Z80 thrown in?
It had another chip for enhanced graphics display as well as the obvious extra 64k of ram. Also the CPU ran at 2Mhz instead 1. It's was around far longer than the amstrad plus, but it's abilities wasn't really expolited either.
Hmmm...on paper/tech sheets they both have unique features.
Quote from: Devilmarkus on 12:55, 24 December 10
BTW.: Because it's Christmas some secret info:
I am actually working on a new website which should contain several 8bit systems in Java.
All emulators are modified by me and have a similar GUI so this makes it easier for playing games.
Actually installed systems:
- CPC
- C64
- Spectrum (48/128k)
- Thomson MO5
- Thomson TO8
So, basically, a Java version of MESS, huh? :D
Quote from: phi2x on 15:22, 24 December 10
Interesting. :P
In fact, I know someone that can help you with that, at least for the CPC. If you agree, I can tell him to contact you about that.
He was really interested to add such a feature to CPCBox, but I had to decline his offering (various reasons here).
Well we already have a routine for that. (Getting highscores from CPC games)
Now we need to create the database enhancements to add the scores to the correct users etc.
Sadly the guy, who helps me with that, has very little time :(
We are using XML configurations for each game which the emulator can read and so find the correct addresses for highscores.
(I really dont exactly know how this works :D )
Getting the highscores/scores itself is childsplay. You just need to check some ram addresses and need to know how the scores are stored (As WORD, as INTEGER or so on...)
.
In my opinion, the C128 and 128D added very little that the C64 didn't have as a game machine. Maybe you could access the extra 64 kB AND use the C64 graphics, but you couldn't use the processor at 2 MHz with the C64 graphics. In 128 mode you could only use text-mode
The Enterprise, wasn't it incredibly slow? I remember seeing BASIC-benchmarks that was out of this world for speed (SLOW!!!) Has the machines any games at all that uses the hardware well, like Robocop 2 on the CPC plus? The joystick was kind of cool, but when I saw the machine at the time, my impression was that the stick wouldn't last long, but I guess it was instead of cursorkeys and not for gaming
You could use text mode and graphics mode in 128. Yes, it was only 1Mhz with the C64 for backwards compatibility, but 2Mhz for it's native.
Enterprise computers were sold to Hungary, were the fanbase is stiff present..
They mostly ported games from CPC and Speccy...
C128 was concieved as a proffessionnal C64...
More RAM, and Z80 so you could get CP/M... (at a terrible 2mhz Z80 rate)
But the major C64 flaw was still there : the far too limited palette...
That's true of the colours! That's one of the things that the PLUS had revised very well. Reading more, I'm putting these 2 machines at pretty much the same level.
To be fair, a C64 with +64k RAM, this could only be awesome... but also with a 4096 palette... this would have been the ultimate 8bit.
It wasn't really.
That's what was good with all those old machines : none were perfect (perhaps the Amiga ? well...)
Hmmm. Well the C128 still only had room for 8 hardwars sprites compared to the PLUS 16 hardware sprites. However, the dimensions were larger on the C128. The ultimate 8bit is looking like the MSX Turbo R at the moment.....
What about the PC Engine / TG-16? I'm pretty sure the Hu6280 CPU it uses is only 8-bit...
Quote from: sigh on 19:19, 26 December 10
Hmmm. Well the C128 still only had room for 8 hardwars sprites compared to the PLUS 16 hardware sprites. However, the dimensions were larger on the C128. The ultimate 8bit is looking like the MSX Turbo R at the moment.....
True, it must be hard for the CPC+ to compete with a machine with processor equal to a 28MHz Z80, 512 kB RAM. From its spec, it seems to have hardwaresprites and registers for scrolling, so I assume it can animate the screen at a rapid pace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcZBtk7JkSc
Here's a shmup on the MSX called Space Manbow. Very nice graphics and the sound is excellent.
The PC engine indeed had an 8bit CPU but a 16 bit GPU. More like a hybrid machine. I never really felt that the PC engine was an 8 bit machine...
Quote from: sigh on 03:06, 27 December 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcZBtk7JkSc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcZBtk7JkSc)
Here's a shmup on the MSX called Space Manbow. Very nice graphics and the sound is excellent.
The PC engine indeed had an 8bit CPU but a 16 bit GPU. More like a hybrid machine. I never really felt that the PC engine was an 8 bit machine...
The turbo R must surely qualify as a 16bit computer, as the R800 processor had a 16bit ALU which makes it a 16 bit processor and the 9958 graphics controller probably also uses 16bit processing to speed up screen drawing.
The modern successor to the z80 is the eZ80 which can execute up to one instruction per clock cycle by using a 16 bit ALU and a pipelined architecture with a top speed of 50mhz, but I will not argue if anyone produces an accelerator for the cpc/+ using it, I would jump at the chance of a compatible machine running at a speed equivalent to a 200mhz z80, add a blitter and 16 bit DAC with DMA for sound and we may have a machine that is faster than an accelerated Amiga.
And for 100% compatibility it should load software from cassette tapes. :laugh:
Quote from: steve on 04:24, 27 December 10
The turbo R must surely qualify as a 16bit computer, as the R800 processor had a 16bit ALU which makes it a 16 bit processor and the 9958 graphics controller probably also uses 16bit processing to speed up screen drawing.
The modern successor to the z80 is the eZ80 which can execute up to one instruction per clock cycle by using a 16 bit ALU and a pipelined architecture with a top speed of 50mhz, but I will not argue if anyone produces an accelerator for the cpc/+ using it, I would jump at the chance of a compatible machine running at a speed equivalent to a 200mhz z80, add a blitter and 16 bit DAC with DMA for sound and we may have a machine that is faster than an accelerated Amiga.
And for 100% compatibility it should load software from cassette tapes. :laugh:
Yup, your right! It is 16 bit!
Okay - I vote Amstrad Plus as being the most poweful 8 bit machine :laugh:
Quote from: sigh on 04:41, 27 December 10
Yup, your right! It is 16 bit!
Okay - I vote Amstrad Plus as being the most poweful 8 bit machine :laugh:
Not so fast, the sam coupe is probably the most powerful, if you don't count hobbyist projects like the v680p+ @ 16mhz with blitter, there are even people building new S100 systems using a 10 mhz z80, not the fastest, but an interesting project if you want that type of system.
There is no reason, other than commercial failure, why a multiprocessor system could not be built with 17 eZ80's based on the S100/IEEE 696 standard and it could run the first microcomputer operating system CP/M (or MP/M), which microsoft copied and called MS-DOS.
Quote from: steve on 05:51, 27 December 10
Not so fast, the sam coupe is probably the most powerful, if you don't count hobbyist projects like the v680p+ @ 16mhz with blitter, there are even people building new S100 systems using a 10 mhz z80, not the fastest, but an interesting project if you want that type of system.
Not a chance. The SAM may be clocked marginally faster but it's video ram is significantly larger and without hardware assistance for things like sprites and scrolling it is massively underpowered for the kind of data it needs to push around. It's even worse than the original CPC in that respect. To make matters worse you can't even get away with choosing a lower res video mode, since that increases memory contention deliberately to slow the machine down for Spectrum compatibility. Rumour had it that, at the time, it would have cost just £2 more per machine to add hardware scrolling. Had MGT done that rather than excessive cost cutting, it might even have been a contender. I'd still quite like to get one though. ;)
The only real competition for the 6128+ in the 8-bit home computer market would have been the C65. However I don't think that can really count as only a handful of prototypes ever saw the light of day and they aren't even entirely compatible with each other.
.
Try "The Swiss Demo" ina TurboR or in BlueMSX in TurboR emulation mode.
Sweeeeeeeeeet! 8)
Were 8 bit "duocore" ever crafted ?
Many of those actually had many CPUs...
exemple : TurboR is like a 16bit with a Z80 for retro-compatibility...
Even the SEGA Megadrive has a Z80 (as a sound card... coupled with an AY psg) that could be used for retrocompatibility (SMS...)
Thre C128 had 2 kind of CPU, yet couldn't properly get them working together...
But a machine based on a set of two Z80...
this would be a 2x8bit = 16bit... sort of.
This could have worked well.
Alway wondering what if the Amstrad Plus had actually 2xZ80 and 2 Asics (one for video, the other for the rest)...
One of those Z80 would have been handicaped by the display (wait states and -16K...) as in a proper CPC but the other would not.
Of course designing softwares could get triky... but. ::)
such a machine with 256K RAM and an upgraded set of video modes (32K based ones, 160x200x256, 320x200x16, 640x200x4... and overscan trick still availlable... 8) )...could certainly rape an Atari ST IMO.
Quote from: phi2x on 12:20, 27 December 10
R800 is Z80 compatible, uses the same 8-bit registers, and has an 8-bit data bus.
It's true that it has an internal 16-bit ALU but that doesn't make it a 16-bit processor.
It's even better than that. According to Wikipedia, eZ80 has a 24-bit ALU.
Processor definitions are something people have argued over for decades, I think the size of the ALU is the important factor, the 68008 and 8088 both have 8 bit databusses yet are classified as 16 bit processors, the 8-bit databus only affects the speed of the chip, not it's 16-bit status.
The eZ80 has a 24-bit address bus but for data it only uses a 16 bit ALU since it can only handle 8 or 16-bit data, it (and the z80) has 16bit instructions and a few 16-bit registers, so the 16-bit ALU makes the eZ80 a 16-bit processor, but you can think otherwise if you choose.
Quote from: MacDeath on 13:18, 27 December 10
Were 8 bit "duocore" ever crafted ?
Many of those actually had many CPUs...
exemple : TurboR is like a 16bit with a Z80 for retro-compatibility...
Even the SEGA Megadrive has a Z80 (as a sound card... coupled with an AY psg) that could be used for retrocompatibility (SMS...)
Thre C128 had 2 kind of CPU, yet couldn't properly get them working together...
But a machine based on a set of two Z80...
this would be a 2x8bit = 16bit... sort of.
This could have worked well.
Alway wondering what if the Amstrad Plus had actually 2xZ80 and 2 Asics (one for video, the other for the rest)...
One of those Z80 would have been handicaped by the display (wait states and -16K...) as in a proper CPC but the other would not.
Of course designing softwares could get triky... but. ::)
such a machine with 256K RAM and an upgraded set of video modes (32K based ones, 160x200x256, 320x200x16, 640x200x4... and overscan trick still availlable... 8) )...could certainly rape an Atari ST IMO.
The Fairlight CMI used two 6800 processors, it's successor used "multiple" 6800's, the fourth machine used 16-bit 68000 and 8-bit 6809 processors, it sold for about £18,000 to £50,000.
In the late 70's businesses used iee696 systems which could have up to 17 processors which could be a mix of processors 8080, z80, 8085, 8088/8086 and 68000 these were multi-user systems used in offices.
The c64 had a disk drive that had it's own 6502 as a disk controller.
The BBC microcomputer could be extended with a second processor which used a z80 to run CP/M software.
Quote from: MacDeath on 13:18, 27 December 10
But a machine based on a set of two Z80...
this would be a 2x8bit = 16bit... sort of.
This could have worked well.
I'm not sure Z80s were ever made with suitable bus arbitration logic to make them effectively work in parallel. You could probably use them in a NUMA style architecture, so they aren't accessing the same memory for the most part, but I'm not sure you'd really get much advantage and certainly not enough to make it worthwhile over just sticking a 16-bit processor in instead.
.
Quote from: phi2x on 14:22, 27 December 10
True. It depens whether you look at the processor with a programmer's point of view (ie: the instruction set and the registers), an Electrical Engineer POV (ie: databus), or from a microprocessor designer's view (ie: the internal ALU).
Motorola 68008 is a really puzzling thing. It has a 32-bit ALU, with a 32-bit instruction set, but has an 8-bit databus, and 24-bit adressing. So good luck classifying that beast :D
From what I understand, eZ80 really handles 24-bit datas. Wikipedia says that most registers (HL, BC, DE, IX, IY, SP, and PC) are extended from 16 to 24 bits.
The 68008, 68000, 68010 and 68012 all have three 16-bit ALU's, 2 work on address calculations and the third is for data processing, 68020 is the first in the family to get 32 bit ALU's, and the ability to use register pairs to process 64-bit data.
So, the programmer could think of the 68008 as a 32-bit processor and the 68020 as a 64-bit processor as it has 64 bit instructions and pairs of registers to hold 64-bit data.
The only use of 24-bit registers on the eZ80 is for addressing, the instruction set is still limited to 1/8 or 16 bit data.
.
QuoteWere 8 bit "duocore" ever crafted ?
I think the Dragon Data Beta prototypes had twin 68E09 processors.
The Fujitsu FM-7 has dual 6809 CPUs. And that was in 1982.
The FM-77AV (released in 1985) added an MMU that allowed you to access the second CPU's address space, including the video hardware. The FM-7 was limited to only communicating between CPUs via shared RAM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_65
Commodore 65 specs!!! Also a few prototypes out in the wild. Surely the most powerful 8 bit machine?
I think the MSX Turbo R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSX_turbo_R#MSX_TurboR) still remains the most powerful 8-bit machine.
If you think the Turbo R should be cataloged as a 16-bit machine, then the C65 would fall in that category :D
Anyway, the C65 does look suspiciosly like the CPC6128, isn't it?
Yeah, it does have a slightly 6128 feel with the disk drive.
Looking at the C65 specs, aren't both the cpu and vic III operating only as a 8 bits with nothing relating to 16bit processing?
In the text file linked in the wikipedia article, I found this:
Quote
Although all registers are still just 8 bits wide, the 65CE02 provides
some 16 bit instructions, mainly in Red-Modify-Write instructions:
ASW $nnnn CB Arithmetic Shift Left Word
DEW $nnnn C3 Decrement Word
INW $nnnn E3 Increment Word (ERROR IN 64NET.OPC?)
PHW #$nnnn F4 Push Word
$nnnn FC
ROW $nnnn EB Rotate Right Word
Note that some of these instructions support the 16-bit rotate/shift
instructions of the 65SC02 mentioned above.
There was also a 6502 16-bit upgraded version that was the 65816, which was used on the SNES.
And of top of that, the R800 in the turboR ran at 7.16 mhz and it took 4 times less clock cycles to execute the instructions.
Quote from: robcfg on 20:30, 31 December 10
In the text file linked in the wikipedia article, I found this:
There was also a 6502 16-bit upgraded version that was the 65816, which was used on the SNES.
And of top of that, the R800 in the turboR ran at 7.16 mhz and it took 4 times less clock cycles to execute the instructions.
Ahhhh, so it was more like a hybrid again like the MSX Turbo R and PC engine. Made sense to scrap it and build the reputation on Amiga's to some extent.
Found a good few demos of the C65 in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL4iX_iuBO8&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL4iX_iuBO8&feature=related)
...and that one sold for 10,000 euro!
Edit: Further lengthy description on the C65 chip:
http://archive.6502.org/datasheets/mos_65ce02_mpu.pdf
QuoteCommodore 65
lol it looks like a CPC664/6128 setting...
The z80 has some 16bit instructions and yet it is an 8bit processor.
The 65ce02 with some 16bit instructions is still an 8bit processor.
The 68000 with 32 bit registers and instructions is a 16BIT processor.
It is not easy to classify CPU as 8 or 16 bits.Taking a look to the chip pinout can give an answer :)
For example the SNES cpu is named as a 16 bits CPU but its data bus width is 8bits so does SNES is a 8 or a 16 bits machine ?
Quote from: MacDeath on 13:18, 27 December 10Were 8 bit "duocore" ever crafted ?
I remember Amstrad Cent Pour Cent spoke (an showed a picture) about a double Z80 CPC at TITUS software compagny.I can not remember exactly the issue but that was an article about TITAN if my memory is not too bad.
Quote from: fano on 10:24, 02 January 11
For example the SNES cpu is named as a 16 bits CPU but its data bus width is 8bits so does SNES is a 8 or a 16 bits machine ?
You are right, it is difficult. The SNES would definitely be classed as 16-bit though ;)
I always thought the PC Engine was 8-bit and the best one there is, but it appears that is debatable.
The one that always made me smile was the Atari Jaguar because they said it was "64-bit" but really that was only the data bus size too if I remember correctly.
Hi There
I thought that the amount of bits a given CPU is, depends on how many bits the CPU can move during a cycle (The actual time it takes to execute a cycle depends on the clock frequency of the system, so in theory a 4Mhz 8bit CPU would be just as fast as a 2Mhz 16bit CPU)
This way it has nothing to do with either width of the data nor width of the address bus!
But maybe i remember wrong!!
Regards,
CPCLER
Quote from: redbox on 12:35, 02 January 11
You are right, it is difficult. The SNES would definitely be classed as 16-bit though ;)
I always thought the PC Engine was 8-bit and the best one there is, but it appears that is debatable.
The one that always made me smile was the Atari Jaguar because they said it was "64-bit" but really that was only the data bus size too if I remember correctly.
To my mind the most logical way of categorizing a processor is by the number of bits a processor can "crunch" in one machine cycle, which is the size of the ALU.
External databus size is irrelevant, the 8088 is a 16bit processor with a 16bit internal databus and an external 8bit databus.
Yes , ALU is another important thing too.
For me , it is important as the bus width as a CPU is not alone in a system , if the data to read/write is larger than the bus , it will need to process multiple operations.Same thing , if the operation size is larger than ALU , that will be needed to process several operation.
Commercially 8-bit computers may no longer be built, though Hobbyists who are using the Internet to show off their 8-bit computer creations. I recall one site having a Z80 based machine with the mainboard the size of a 3.5" Disk Drive and could indeed run CP/M with the necessarily hardware, unfortunately I can no longer find the site! ??? Since it's well known that 8-bit computers began as a DIY project which you would build, it's only fair to say that DIY has somehow keep a bit of a scene for that sort of thing to happen! ;D
Yeah, there's a few new 8-bit designs using the Z80, some RAM and a more modern Atmel AVR for other logic. Or even just the AVR (as it is a full 8-bit RISC at 16MHz) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13201254
As for the bittiness of a CPU, I think these days you would look at the register size first, then the ALU width, and lastly the data bus width. You would also want to consider things more holistically in terms of the features, etc.
68000 - 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU, 16-bit data bus and 24-bit address bus (but address registers were 32-bit). It's always been referred to as a 16/32 bit processor. The Amiga/ST/Megadrive labelled themselves 16-bit, but that's also because of the support chips.
68008 - 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus and 20-bit address bus (IIRC)
Z80 - 8 bit registers with pairing capability and some 16-bit instructions, 8-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus, 16-bit address bus. The Z180/R800 showed that the instruction set and design could be extended to full 16-bit. The eZ80 extends it to 32-bit IIRC.
6502 - 8-bit registers, 8-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus, 16-bit address bus. Again, extended later on.
The downside of having an ALU width half the size of the registers was merely that instructions took longer to execute when operating on the full register width. Therefore it's just an implementation issue - saving transistors at the cost of instructions per clock.
With that in mind, was the Z80 8-bit or 16-bit? Holistically you would say it's 8-bit - it's designed from an 8-bit heritage, the registers are all 8-bit accessible, the 16-bit instructions take a lot longer to execute, it only addresses 64KB, etc. But it's more 16-bit than the 6502!
Quote from: Briggsy on 22:17, 30 April 11
Yeah, there's a few new 8-bit designs using the Z80, some RAM and a more modern Atmel AVR for other logic. Or even just the AVR (as it is a full 8-bit RISC at 16MHz) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13201254 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13201254)
As for the bittiness of a CPU, I think these days you would look at the register size first, then the ALU width, and lastly the data bus width. You would also want to consider things more holistically in terms of the features, etc.
68000 - 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU, 16-bit data bus and 24-bit address bus (but address registers were 32-bit). It's always been referred to as a 16/32 bit processor. The Amiga/ST/Megadrive labelled themselves 16-bit, but that's also because of the support chips.
68008 - 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus and 20-bit address bus (IIRC)
Z80 - 8 bit registers with pairing capability and some 16-bit instructions, 8-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus, 16-bit address bus. The Z180/R800 showed that the instruction set and design could be extended to full 16-bit. The eZ80 extends it to 32-bit IIRC.
6502 - 8-bit registers, 8-bit ALU, 8-bit data bus, 16-bit address bus. Again, extended later on.
The downside of having an ALU width half the size of the registers was merely that instructions took longer to execute when operating on the full register width. Therefore it's just an implementation issue - saving transistors at the cost of instructions per clock.
With that in mind, was the Z80 8-bit or 16-bit? Holistically you would say it's 8-bit - it's designed from an 8-bit heritage, the registers are all 8-bit accessible, the 16-bit instructions take a lot longer to execute, it only addresses 64KB, etc. But it's more 16-bit than the 6502!
Interesting the 68008 is 8bit cause it's Bus will only allow it! ??? Surely if it only has an 8bit data bus though has 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU and 20-bit address bus, there must be some advantage in having those things?
Quote from: CP/M User on 23:34, 30 April 11
Interesting the 68008 is 8bit cause it's Bus will only allow it! ??? Surely if it only has an 8bit data bus though has 32-bit registers, 16-bit ALU and 20-bit address bus, there must be some advantage in having those things?
The advantage of the 8-bit bus is that a computer system is cheaper to manufacture than a 16-bit bus system, yet the 68008 can execute 68000 code only 30% slower then the 16-bit 68000, and therefore a reasonable compromise between speed and cost.
If a version of the Z80 were made with a 16 or 32 bit data bus, it would execute code faster, but would still be an 8-bit processor.
Quote from: steve on 23:50, 30 April 11
The advantage of the 8-bit bus is that a computer system is cheaper to manufacture than a 16-bit bus system, yet the 68008 can execute 68000 code only 30% slower then the 16-bit 68000, and therefore a reasonable compromise between speed and cost.
Yeah there probably wasn't too many high end businessmen back then that wanted maximum performance and would have it at any cost! ;D
QuoteIf a version of the Z80 were made with a 16 or 32 bit data bus, it would execute code faster, but would still be an 8-bit processor.
I guess that would be harder to do if you had limited space on the mainboard, so for something like a Nintendo Gameboy I'm presuming it only has 8bit data bus too
Weren't some Z80 built to run at (impressive) 16mhz ?
The later PCWs (PCW16 ?) got them if I remember well...
Quote from: CP/M User on 11:30, 01 May 11
Yeah there probably wasn't too many high end businessmen back then that wanted maximum performance and would have it at any cost! ;D
The Sinclair QL used a 68008, it was also manufactured as the ICL "one per desk" and sold to the corporate world, it was functionality that counted then, speed came later, in fact few people demanded more speed, what they had was fast enough, but they were persuaded that getting something faster would increase productivity, and they have been falling for the same lie ever since.
Quote from: MacDeath on 12:50, 01 May 11
Weren't some Z80 built to run at (impressive) 16mhz ?
The z80 is currently available in speeds up to 33mhz last time I looked, and there is now the eZ80 which runs at up to 50mhz.
A single board computer is available called the v6z80p+ which has a 16mhz z80, blitter, VGA, sound and 1152 KB ram for under £100.
Quote from: steve on 00:25, 02 May 11
The Sinclair QL used a 68008, it was also manufactured as the ICL "one per desk" and sold to the corporate world, it was functionality that counted then, speed came later, in fact few people demanded more speed, what they had was fast enough, but they were persuaded that getting something faster would increase productivity, and they have been falling for the same lie ever since.
I always recall reading a description about that machine where a Sinclair QL was expandable to 640k and that was in a book done in 1984! (Probably allows more these days! ??? ) Unexpanded the machine had 128k, would have been a costly thing back then just to have the full 640k! 8) (But then an Apple Lisa which came out in 1983 had 1 Megabyte and had a cool 10 grand! ;D ).I presume it would be able to use CP/M-68k, though I'm guessing it had it's own OS/BASIC included?
Quote from: CP/M User on 11:30, 01 May 11
Yeah there probably wasn't too many high end businessmen back then that wanted maximum performance and would have it at any cost! ;D
It's those effin businessmen in particular that don't need any kind of max performance. We've had the equivalent of Word, Excel and Powerpoint already back then, and they worked ok. Performance is needed for games, technical jobs or video and sound editing and the like.
Even non-technical people are starting to realize that 2GB, 4GB, or even 8GB of RAM doesn't make much of a difference for everyday tasks anymore. The only reason I can come up with to use 8GB would be virtual machines.
It also makes no sense buying ever faster processors these day, when the main bottleneck of computers is the hard-drive.
Back to the topic:
Personally, I prefer to give the data bus the highest priority. My taxonomy of processors would not differ much from Briggsy's however. You really can't sum up a processor better than to give at least those for values (data bus width, alu width, register width, address bus width).
MaV
Quote from: MaV on 09:34, 02 May 11
It's those effin businessmen in particular that don't need any kind of max performance. We've had the equivalent of Word, Excel and Powerpoint already back then, and they worked ok. Performance is needed for games, technical jobs or video and sound editing and the like.
Completely agree! :)
QuoteEven non-technical people are starting to realize that 2GB, 4GB, or even 8GB of RAM doesn't make much of a difference for everyday tasks anymore. The only reason I can come up with to use 8GB would be virtual machines.
Having more RAM & Speed is only a further excuse for more sloppy programming.
QuoteIt also makes no sense buying ever faster processors these day, when the main bottleneck of computers is the hard-drive.
I've had 3 Hard Drives die on me and the Hard Drive that's in my old Pentium is on it's last legs! (Fortunately I was able to back up all the important stuff from it!). It really hurts when they go though, if someone comes up with a modern Hard Disk (without the problems Hard Drives have) with ISA interface I'd be quite interested! 8)
Regarding performance, it depends. Try telling my entire marketing department, running Photoshop on each workstation, that they don't need more than 1GB :D
In the era, many companies had a programmer to manage the computers they may have.
I mean, so many companies (not especially the biggest) had to produce their own softwares... because "easy to run" softwares weren't that "easy to run" and ready to use solution not yet the norm (as so many different computers with uncompatibles specs existed...).
So yep, the "Computer manager" (often called the Alpha Geekz) often asked for better machines.
So while nowadays, getting a "biggest" is just some ego trip for white collars...(compensate) unless "techlabs" and so on...
At the time, language like Cobol were actually used in so many companies (banks ?).
Having +64K, disk drives and Colour monitor could really be helpfull...
Hence CPC6128 was really some bizness stuff at first.
Just imagine if it were released 3 years before... :P
Quote from: Gryzor on 07:47, 03 May 11
Regarding performance, it depends. Try telling my entire marketing department, running Photoshop on each workstation, that they don't need more than 1GB :D
And there in lies the problem... ;)
I must admit that I do find it very annoying when I'm at work using 3DS MAX and task manager tells me that it's alreday using over 400 MB before I've even opened a file!!!
Quote from: MacDeath on 07:58, 03 May 11
At the time, language like Cobol were actually used in so many companies (banks ?).
Having +64K, disk drives and Colour monitor could really be helpfull...
COBOL for me was horrible, even some of the modern forms of the language enforced a standard structure because that language had been going since the 50s when they used Computer Punchcards to write your programs. Early BASIC (1964) probably expected the same, though Forth is another one, and this was even happening when Forth-77 came out! ???
Though their okay once you now the layout, though they are simply not like BASIC, Pascal, C or whatever modern language where you could put your code anywhere. I think they stuck with this structure because businesses and scientists accepted it and deemed it suitable for presenting a fairly readable language.
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html (http://www.pbm.com/%7Elindahl/real.programmers.html)
QuoteReal Programmers use Fortran. Quiche Eaters use Pascal.
:laugh:
Also :
http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Category:Cobol (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Category:Cobol)
QuoteThe COBOL specification was created by Grace Murray Hopper during the second half of 1959. Yes, it's a woman's creation...
Yet a Badass woman... ???
Cobol sticked because...
Bank and Financial companies were amongst the bigger user of computers...since the begining.
COmmon Business Oriented Language
Hehe, these Douchebags never heart about machine code ;)
Quote from: redbox on 10:14, 03 May 11
And there in lies the problem... ;)
Um... yeah, we did try moving to Gimp but gave up after it crapped out trying to load all those layers in the creative materials :D
Quote from: MacDeath on 18:48, 03 May 11
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html (http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html)
:laugh:
Quiche is very nice when done properly, FORTRAN & COBOL is designed for perfectionists & OS/360 is only okay if you're running a series of Office Blocks (what do you think used to run Traffic Lights in the 60s? ;D ).
QuoteAlso :
http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Category:Cobol (http://www.cpcwiki.eu/index.php/Category:Cobol)
Yet a Badass woman... ???
Undoubably since it was Grace Hopper's fault for jamming a computer bug into a Harvard Mark I - "A Moth". ???