65C816 vs 68000
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
GARTHWILSON wrote:
True—but what was the price of those? It was getting into the thousand-dollar-processor era.
GARTHWILSON wrote:
rather than wasting resources to get the next software product to market, just because "memory/GHz/whatever is cheap."
Cat; the other white meat.
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
My work PC has a million times more RAM (16GB) than the very first IBM PC (16KB), so why does it feel like I only have 16KB then.. sigh.
- BigDumbDinosaur
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: 28 May 2009
- Location: Midwestern USA (JB Pritzker’s dystopia)
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Tor wrote:
My work PC has a million times more RAM (16GB) than the very first IBM PC (16KB), so why does it feel like I only have 16KB then.. sigh.
x86? We ain't got no x86. We don't NEED no stinking x86!
-
DerTrueForce
- Posts: 483
- Joined: 04 Jun 2016
- Location: Australia
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Oh, it has a lot to do with that, if you're on Windows. Win7 uses about 1.5-2GB of RAM when idle, IIRC.
Linux(Ubuntu MATE) uses only 600 MB, but it doesn't feel much more responsive to me. The difference is there; it's just not huge.
I haven't tried Kolibri yet, but I suspect that the difference will be immense. It's supposed to be really fast.
Linux(Ubuntu MATE) uses only 600 MB, but it doesn't feel much more responsive to me. The difference is there; it's just not huge.
I haven't tried Kolibri yet, but I suspect that the difference will be immense. It's supposed to be really fast.
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
I don't know about Windows, but Linux will use RAM for disk buffers when not using it for anything else.
- BigDumbDinosaur
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: 28 May 2009
- Location: Midwestern USA (JB Pritzker’s dystopia)
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
DerTrueForce wrote:
Oh, it has a lot to do with that, if you're on Windows. Win7 uses about 1.5-2GB of RAM when idle, IIRC.
Linux(Ubuntu MATE) uses only 600 MB, but it doesn't feel much more responsive to me. The difference is there; it's just not huge.
I haven't tried Kolibri yet, but I suspect that the difference will be immense. It's supposed to be really fast.
Linux(Ubuntu MATE) uses only 600 MB, but it doesn't feel much more responsive to me. The difference is there; it's just not huge.
I haven't tried Kolibri yet, but I suspect that the difference will be immense. It's supposed to be really fast.
Speaking of Linux, we use SLES here.
x86? We ain't got no x86. We don't NEED no stinking x86!
- BigDumbDinosaur
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: 28 May 2009
- Location: Midwestern USA (JB Pritzker’s dystopia)
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Arlet wrote:
I don't know about Windows, but Linux will use RAM for disk buffers when not using it for anything else.
x86? We ain't got no x86. We don't NEED no stinking x86!
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
Of course, Bill Gates denies to have said something like that back in 1981.
But seriously: when building a 65816 PC, please try to have 16MB RAM.
Of course, Bill Gates denies to have said something like that back in 1981.
But seriously: when building a 65816 PC, please try to have 16MB RAM.
- BigDumbDinosaur
- Posts: 9425
- Joined: 28 May 2009
- Location: Midwestern USA (JB Pritzker’s dystopia)
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
ttlworks wrote:
But seriously: when building a 65816 PC, please try to have 16MB RAM.
x86? We ain't got no x86. We don't NEED no stinking x86!
- GARTHWILSON
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 8773
- Joined: 30 Aug 2002
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
BigDumbDinosaur wrote:
ttlworks wrote:
But seriously: when building a 65816 PC, please try to have 16MB RAM.
With 90° pins, so the module goes perpendicular to the motherboard:

with straight pins, so the module goes parallel to the motherboard:

except if you order this way, you'll get gold-plated pins, not tin-plated. You'll get this one: Here's the bare board, to show the size:
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Hmm... now this brings up an interesting question:
When the 65816 would be available in TQFP...
would it be possible to make a module with a similar form factor
and a somewhat similar pinout like the memory module containing:
But this brings up another interesting question: 5V or 3.3V power supply ?
When the 65816 would be available in TQFP...
would it be possible to make a module with a similar form factor
and a somewhat similar pinout like the memory module containing:
- 65816
- reset circuitry
- CPLD (address decoder, maybe SPI, maybe video signal generation, maybe a "background debugger" too)
- ROM
- UART
But this brings up another interesting question: 5V or 3.3V power supply ?
- GARTHWILSON
- Forum Moderator
- Posts: 8773
- Joined: 30 Aug 2002
- Location: Southern California
- Contact:
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
I'm working on a couple of related ideas. The '816 is indeed available in PQFP now. I just got three of them a couple of weeks ago. One of the ideas is to make a 65802 module but possibly add memory that is available to the programmer although not addressing it offboard (since the module goes into a 6502 socket), and also possibly adding some I/O by way of separate connectors on the module. Since I expect the demand will be too low to justify the set-up cost for automated assembly, it would be assembled by hand which will be very labor-intensive. I'm not looking for any kind of corner on the market. If someone else wants to do it, please do! Another thing I'm very slowly working on is an '816 board with Jeff Laughton's ultrafast bit I/O. I'll be doing it in 5V. After his circuits are published, I hope someone will implement them in programmable logic.
http://WilsonMinesCo.com/ lots of 6502 resources
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?
The "second front page" is http://wilsonminesco.com/links.html .
What's an additional VIA among friends, anyhow?
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Maybe I missed it, I haven't seen it posted here, but this is the link to the QFP 65816 at Mouser:
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Wes ... ttV3O4k%3d
They are not in stock but can be backordered (really a good idea to do this, I think).
http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Wes ... ttV3O4k%3d
They are not in stock but can be backordered (really a good idea to do this, I think).
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
Hmm, I'm seeing non-stocked as opposed to out-of-stock, so I'd read that as the distributor not taking any risk on volume and the supplier possibly even manufacturing to order. (It could be that WDC has stock of tested die and is not packaging until they have volume. There are various places in the production of chips that you can stall the process and wait.)
Re: 65C816 vs 68000
It's a pity, that the W65C265 microcontroller (65816 core) hasn't evolved to nowadays standards.
8kB ROM and 576 Bytes RAM ain't much compared to a PIC32 with 2MB Flash and 512kB RAM.
Since WDC seems to have sold quite a few licences for 65816 cores,
there are microcontrollers more powerful than the W65C265 supposed to be... somewhere...
but I can't remember to ever have seen something like that.
Hmm... I just wonder, what size a 65816 computer might have when bonding all the chips on a ceramic substrate.
But machines for bonding wires on chips probably won't be cheap, and bonding wires to chips also requires some experience...
to prevent the wires from falling off the chip after half a year or such.
Edit: Spotted something neat at Singer Elektronik for 2320,50€. Have fun...
8kB ROM and 576 Bytes RAM ain't much compared to a PIC32 with 2MB Flash and 512kB RAM.
Since WDC seems to have sold quite a few licences for 65816 cores,
there are microcontrollers more powerful than the W65C265 supposed to be... somewhere...
but I can't remember to ever have seen something like that.
Hmm... I just wonder, what size a 65816 computer might have when bonding all the chips on a ceramic substrate.
But machines for bonding wires on chips probably won't be cheap, and bonding wires to chips also requires some experience...
to prevent the wires from falling off the chip after half a year or such.
Edit: Spotted something neat at Singer Elektronik for 2320,50€. Have fun...