Amiga.org

Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: sim085 on November 22, 2008, 12:15:06 PM

Title: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: sim085 on November 22, 2008, 12:15:06 PM: Hi,

I was looking at some accelerator cards and found that for example the VXL used to come with either a 68EC030 or 68030 processor. Now what is the main difference between these two type of processors? Does it have something to do with the Mhz that processor can reach?

Regards,
Sim085
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: meega on November 22, 2008, 12:27:09 PM: The EC is not rated to have a working mmu, the full 030 does have a working mmu.
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: sim085 on November 22, 2008, 01:11:55 PM: My knowledge is not that much on these things; but doesn't MMU mean 'Memory Management Unit'?

If so then how does an EC processor manage memory without an MMU? or 'not rated to have' means something else.

In short from your answer I understand that an 030 is better then an EC030 :)

Thank you,
Sim085
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: CLS2086 on November 22, 2008, 01:41:31 PM: EC produce less heat..
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: bloodline on November 22, 2008, 01:55:18 PM: Quote

sim085 wrote:
My knowledge is not that much on these things; but doesn't MMU mean 'Memory Management Unit'?

Yes it does :-)
Quote

If so then how does an EC processor manage memory without an MMU? or 'not rated to have' means something else.

With AmigaOS there is no memory management, the final nail in AmigaOS's coffin :-(

If to ever plan to run a UNIX OS on your amiga, not a great idea with an 030... Then the MMU is useful... Piru also wrote a few tools to use the MMU kickstart remapping... Etc... But I doubt you'll every really need an MMU :-)

[/quote]
In short from your answer I understand that an 030 is better then an EC030 :)

Thank you,
Sim085[/quote]

The non ec 030 were rated to run a bit faster... So in that regard the full 030 is better
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: sim085 on November 22, 2008, 02:22:11 PM: Thank you! Now I understand better :) So if my A500+ has a 68000 processor then does it mean that it has an MMU?

Regards,
Sim085
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: meega on November 22, 2008, 02:28:03 PM: No, it definitely does not.
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: sim085 on November 22, 2008, 02:29:48 PM: Thanks ... I should have thought that :)

Regards and Many Thanks,
Sim085
Title: /
Post by: Lorraine on November 22, 2008, 02:59:23 PM: /
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: A4000_Mad on November 22, 2008, 03:00:04 PM: I tried something recently and the Amiga displayed "WHERE'S YOUR MMU?" at me before quitting :lol: Can't remember what game or prog it was now. Oh well!
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: Ideal on November 22, 2008, 03:08:50 PM: I believe blizkick requires MMU.
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: spirantho on November 22, 2008, 03:37:19 PM: If you want to run Linux on a 68k you need an MMU - same with any UN*X system.

I believe from memory that the 68000 couldn't support an MMU at all, but the 68010 could which was why it was used in old UN*X machines. Could be wrong though.

In practice you'll rarely need an MMU but the occasional odd thing uses it.....
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: Piru on November 22, 2008, 04:04:10 PM: BlizKick doesn't require MMU. It uses the maprom feature of the blizzard, cyberstorm and other accelerators.

MMU can be used to map the KS ROM, though.
Title: Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
Post by: Kin-Hell on November 22, 2008, 05:51:54 PM: Afaik, the only commercially released program requiring an MMU was "GigaMem". - Virtual memory from your Hard drive space! :-)