Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: 68EC030 vs 68030  (Read 4924 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sim085Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 958
    • Show only replies by sim085
68EC030 vs 68030
« 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
 

Offline meega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 952
    • Show only replies by meega
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #1 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.
:)
 

Offline sim085Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 958
    • Show only replies by sim085
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #2 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
 

Offline CLS2086

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2003
  • Posts: 1456
    • Show only replies by CLS2086
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2008, 01:41:31 PM »
EC produce less heat..
Keep the Faith !
VG 5000/A1000/500/500+/600/2000/CDTV/1200PPC-GREX/1200PPC -ATEO-BV/4060D/CD32/Aone/Peg 1/Peg2 G4/ various funny machines too  :-) http://www.mo5.com/collection/index.php?pseudo=CLS2086
I also repair drives of our old beloved Amiga
 

Offline bloodline

  • Master Sock Abuser
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 12114
    • Show only replies by bloodline
    • http://www.troubled-mind.com
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #4 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

Offline sim085Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 958
    • Show only replies by sim085
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #5 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
 

Offline meega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2006
  • Posts: 952
    • Show only replies by meega
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2008, 02:28:03 PM »
No, it definitely does not.
:)
 

Offline sim085Topic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2008
  • Posts: 958
    • Show only replies by sim085
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2008, 02:29:48 PM »
Thanks ... I should have thought that :)

Regards and Many Thanks,
Sim085
 

Offline Lorraine

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 304
    • Show only replies by Lorraine
/
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2008, 02:59:23 PM »
/
 

Offline A4000_Mad

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 1392
    • Show only replies by A4000_Mad
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #9 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!
A4000 Mad
 

Offline Ideal

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Join Date: Dec 2006
  • Posts: 82
    • Show only replies by Ideal
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2008, 03:08:50 PM »
I believe blizkick requires MMU.
 

Offline spirantho

Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #11 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.....
--
Ian Gledhill
ian.gledhill@btinternit.com (except it should be internEt of course...!)
Check out my shop! http://www.mutant-caterpillar.co.uk/shop/ - for 8-bit (and soon 16-bit) goodness!
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
    • Show only replies by Piru
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #12 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.
 

Offline Kin-Hell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2005
  • Posts: 624
    • Show only replies by Kin-Hell
Re: 68EC030 vs 68030
« Reply #13 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!  :-)
Getting 0lder is Mandatory..... Growing up is an option.