Imagine, how things could have been...

[Dr_Righteous]

@bloodline

It makes me wonder what would happen if AMD replaced the x86 emulation with 68k emulation on the Athlon. I bet it'd use a hell of alot less transistors, allowing even faster speeds!  :-o

@Dan

I bet there'd be a hell of alot less bloat if XP had to run on a Z80!

[Hammer]

mdma wrote:
If it was possible to cool an 060 with something like liquid-nitrogen,

Find a similar processor which has a similar die/masking processing technology as with 68060. LN2 has limits on how a CPU is over clocked. Other limits would be transistor-switching technologies.

[patrik]

Talking about the limits in terms of the 68060's clockspeed.. has anyone tried raising the Vcc supplied to the 68060 to reach higher clockspeeds?

Normally when overclocking, if you are aiming at high clockspeeds  you have to raise the Vcc supplied to the processor. In the 68060 User Manual it says that the absolute maximum rating of the 68060's Vcc is 4.0V. It would be very interesting to see what kind of results a Vcc of maybe 3.8V would give... asssuming that the memory etc would cope with the higher clockspeed.


/Patrik

[bloodline]

patrik wrote:
Talking about the limits in terms of the 68060's clockspeed.. has anyone tried raising the Vcc supplied to the 68060 to reach higher clockspeeds?

Normally when overclocking, if you are aiming at high clockspeeds  you have to raise the Vcc supplied to the processor. In the 68060 User Manual it says that the absolute maximum rating of the 68060's Vcc is 4.0V. It would be very interesting to see what kind of results a Vcc of maybe 3.8V would give... asssuming that the memory etc would cope with the higher clockspeed.


/Patrik

I think you hit the nail on the head, the current 060 solutions will probably max out due to the Ram and supporting BUS logic before the 060 reaches it's upper limit.

[Dan]

@Dan

I bet there'd be a hell of alot less bloat if XP had to run on a Z80!

But it would have been a 3GHz Z80, 8bit but Ghz.
Actually I think windows has come a long way instead of a nasty crash each hour(win3.1) it´s a freeze every other day(winXP), but it´s still just as slow of course.

[iamaboringperson]

ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

iamaboringperson wrote:
ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

I installed DOS6.22 and Windows 3.0 on a P100 with 32MB EDO RAM about 5 or 6 years ago for a laugh, it booted in about 3 seconds and was fast as f*ck!  It'd fly on a P4, a bit like AROS does really! ;-)

[bloodline]

mdma wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:
ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

I installed DOS6.22 and Windows 3.0 on a P100 with 32MB EDO RAM about 5 or 6 years ago for a laugh, it booted in about 3 seconds and was fast as f*ck!  It'd fly on a P4, a bit like AROS does really! ;-)

Yeah, the AROS Gfx demos give you a good idea of how much power is reving under AROS... The Gfx drivers are a total bottle neck at the moment, they have no acceleration what-so-ever. When the PCI drivers improve I think the gfx drivers will mature and you might even poop your pants at the speed :-D

The IDE drivers are really crappy too, PIO-0.. Can't wait to get DMA on those  :-D

bloodline wrote:

mdma wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:
ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

I installed DOS6.22 and Windows 3.0 on a P100 with 32MB EDO RAM about 5 or 6 years ago for a laugh, it booted in about 3 seconds and was fast as f*ck!  It'd fly on a P4, a bit like AROS does really! ;-)

Yeah, the AROS Gfx demos give you a good idea of how much power is reving under AROS... The Gfx drivers are a total bottle neck at the moment, they have no acceleration what-so-ever. When the PCI drivers improve I think the gfx drivers will mature and you might even poop your pants at the speed :-D

The IDE drivers are really crappy too, PIO-0.. Can't wait to get DMA on those  :-D

Still faster than Gayle though! :-D

[bloodline]

mdma wrote:

bloodline wrote:

mdma wrote:

iamaboringperson wrote:
ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

I installed DOS6.22 and Windows 3.0 on a P100 with 32MB EDO RAM about 5 or 6 years ago for a laugh, it booted in about 3 seconds and was fast as f*ck!  It'd fly on a P4, a bit like AROS does really! ;-)

Yeah, the AROS Gfx demos give you a good idea of how much power is reving under AROS... The Gfx drivers are a total bottle neck at the moment, they have no acceleration what-so-ever. When the PCI drivers improve I think the gfx drivers will mature and you might even poop your pants at the speed :-D

The IDE drivers are really crappy too, PIO-0.. Can't wait to get DMA on those  :-D

Still faster than Gayle though! :-D

Yeah, but the Royal Mail is faster than Gayle :-)

[Dan]

ive always wanted to set up a pentium 4 machine and run win3.11 on it

That would be intresting but hardware drivers would be a problem.
Start both Netscape and a VT100terminal and crash it in nanoseconds :lol:

[Waccoon]

Motorola would not have had the ruthlessness of Intel, and desire to improved the Chip. Right now we would all be using 100Mhz 68040s...

That might have been true if the PC CPU market dictated all advances in technology.  I'm sure some embedded or supercomputer hotshots would have plowed ahead, and the PC CPU market would just be forced to go with the flow.  No market intentionally holds back without getting their butt kicked eventually.

Besides, if IBM had gone 68K, that's no guarentee the machine would be very good if we all had to run MS-DOS.  Somebody would have made something better.  Apple might have contracted another company to build a new CPU.  Atari might have bought the Amiga.  Commodore might have done very well making clock radioes.  :-D

Whatever would have happened, I'm sure nobody would sit around wondering, "What if IBM had chosen the 8086?  We'd be stuck with 8Mhz CPUs, and have to get all our entertainment from Coleco Vision 2!"

[meerschaum]

things would be pretty sad... in my opinon motorola would have changed its way of thinking due to their situation and new management ideas... we would probably be paying 600+ dollars for chips with very little performance gain each year... I doubt we would be over 500mhz... although I think 100 is to low...Linux/3D animation/DTP/DVD's and everything like that wouldnt have emerged to such a degree... as computers would be costly...and first world nations rich would be the only ones with them to a large degree... much like the macintosh... I think IBM knew what they where doing when they chose X86....its proven to be scaleable... and because of the politics of it ... there has been massive competiton...since its not consolidated its given rise to many other markets...

on another note... I wonder how high you could theoretically clock an 060 if had a die shrink to .13 or lower micron and used copper interconnects and some of the new age technology without changing it very much or adding instructions?

[Dan]

Atari might have bought the Amiga. Commodore might have done very well making clock radioes.

CBM= Commodore Business Machines
IBM=International Business Machines
It was typewriters and calculators. Why did they left the calculator market???
The texas instrument graphing calculators are real cool and programmable in Basic, C and assembler.
The even got 68000 10Mhz 256kb Ram and 768 kb flash ram. thats the ti-89 version
the Z80 based calcs sucks and is much harder to program.