65c02 vs 65816
Mathy van Nisselroy
(This message is cross-posted)
I've been hearing about upgrades for the 8 bit Atari and Commodore using the
65816 and am told the 65816 are getting rare. Then I read an article about
the Atari Lynx using a 65C02 at 16MHz (I checked the net, seems like 3.6 MHz
would have been closer to the truth.) and started thinking. Back when they
still sold magazins about the Apple II gs, it was filled with upgrades using
faster 6502's. IIRC they talked about 12MHz. And 6502 seem to be very
popular still. IIRC the Apple II gs came with a 65618.
So my question is:
- Why is everybody using 65816's when 6502's seem to be better and more
available?
- Are these faster 6502's really better then 65816's?
- How fast is todays fastest 6502?
CU Mathy van Nisselroy
MagerValp
MvN> - Why is everybody using 65816's when 6502's seem to be better
MvN> and more available?
I'm not sure about availability, but the 65816 is the more capable
processor, as it has 16-bit registers and 24-bit address space.
MvN> - Are these faster 6502's really better then 65816's?
The fastest 65C02 I've seen is 8 MHz, the fastest 65816 I've seen runs
at 20 MHz (overclocked 16 MHz CPUs used in CMD's SuperCPU accelerators).
MvN> - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
8 Mhz is the fastest I've seen, but there are probably faster ones out
there.
--
___ . . . . . + . . o
_|___|_ + . + . + . . Per Olofsson, konstnär
o-o . . . o + Mage...@cling.gu.se
- + + . http://www.cling.gu.se/~cl3polof/
Andreas Magenheimer
a friend of a friend (ok, its a friend of Raimund Altmayer!) had an
Atari machine with a twice as fast CPU build-in. If I remember
correctly, ANTIC or GTIA or both run at approx. 3,6 Mhz, whereas the CPU
runs at approx. 1,8 Mhz. In an old german magazine and in the computer
of this "friend" both the CPU and graphic chip(s) were running with
3,6Mhz. He had a switch, so he could always switch back to the original
CPU (and original CPU speed).
With the fast 3,6MHz CPU turned on, a normal 1050 floppy ran almost as
fast as a Speedy or Happy - or at least it produced the same ultraspeed
sound (allthough it was a normal 1050 floppy, with no enhancements!).
Unfortunately, not all programs did run fine. Not only, that NONE of the
copy protected programs worked with this fast CPU, also quite some Pd
programs did not work alright or not at all. So, on one side a fast CPU
sounds fine, on the other side the compatibility problems does not sound
so fine. Damn, if I could only remember the name of this german magazin
which had the hardware enhancement printed (schematics and such). It was
a magazin around 1984-1986, so it is no wonder that I forgot about it...
Finally, I have not met this "friend" in the last 5 years. He is living
near Trier/Germany. Maybe you can ask Raimund Altmayer about him...
For all other Atarians: If you know more about the 3,6Mhz fast CPU or if
you know any magazin that has some info about it, let us know !!!
-Andreas.
Mathy van Nisselroy schrieb:
Andre Kaesmacher
Mathy van Nisselroy schrieb:
>
> - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
Free6502(FPGA-Core): 166 MHz.
http://www.free-ip.com/6502/implementations.htm
A.K.
Chris Martin
That is actually the TI ASIC core timing numbers. 166MHz is the
pre-layout number so
the actual ASIC would run slower, however TI now has the gs30 and gs40
processes, so
that would make it run faster. If you wanted to program an FPGA and
replace the 6502
in your Atari you could easily achieve 25MHz and possibly reaching a
clock speed of
60MHz or even faster.
Actually not a half bad idea.
--Chris
kie...@theriver.com
>>>>>> "MvN" == Mathy van Nisselroy <niss...@reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de>
writes:
>
>
>MvN> - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
>
>8 Mhz is the fastest I've seen, but there are probably faster ones out
>there.
>
I wonder why no one has developed a hack to plug one of these into a
C64?
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Pete
> I've been hearing about upgrades for the 8 bit Atari and
>Commodore using the 65816 and am told the 65816 are getting
>rare....
>....- Why is everybody using 65816's when 6502's seem to be
>better and more available?
Because the '816 is an upgraded 6502 with 16-bit registers and a larger
(24-bit?) address space.
> - Are these faster 6502's really better then 65816's?
Depends on what you mean by "better".
They're simple plug in replacements for the slower 6502s and are 100% software
compatible.
65816s have a different pinout and some software (OS in particular) needs to
be patched to run on them. But they are much faster and have 16-bit
capabilities.
> - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
Haven't looked for YEARS. Last time I checked they were up to 6MHz, but I
wouldn't be at all surprised if there were 8MHz or even 10MHz parts available
now.
TTFN - Pete.
Kelli Halliburton
news:a2h16h$o6o$1...@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE...
> Howdy folks
>
> (This message is cross-posted)
>
> I've been hearing about upgrades for the 8-bit Atari and Commodore using
the
> 65816 and am told the 65816 are getting rare. Then I read an article
about
> the Atari Lynx using a 65C02 at 16MHz (I checked the net, seems like 3.6
MHz
> would have been closer to the truth) and started thinking. Back when they
> still sold magazines about the Apple IIgs, it was filled with upgrades
using
> faster 6502's. IIRC they talked about 12MHz.
I don't know that I've ever heard of a 6502 nor 65C02 that could run that
fast. Maybe if you overclocked an 8MHz 65C02...
Back when they still sold magazines about the Apple IIgs, and even today, it
would be a *bad* idea to put a 6502 of *any* sort, into a II_gs_. The rest
of the Apple II series in general, however, did accept the 6502, and many
6502 and 65816 boards have been developed for those other machines. There
was even a logic-board upgrade that Apple offered to owners of the IIe that
basically swapped out the motherboard and made the system into a IIgs. This
is why many of the expansion cards developed "only for the IIgs" nonetheless
have the slanted front corner, despite the regular IIgs case being nice and
rectangular: some IIgs systems reside in IIe cases, and need the extra
clearance. :)
I get the feeling that you mean, in the above, to simply say "Apple II." Am
I right?
> And the 6502 seems to be very
> popular still. IIRC the Apple II gs came with a 65816.
That is correct.
> So my question is:
>
> - Why is everybody using 65816's when 6502's seem to be better and more
> available?
Because the 65816 is a 16-bit version of the 6502, and has a 24-bit address
bus. Not to mention the fact that the 65816 seems to be capable of speeds up
to 20MHz overclocked, 16MHz rated.
> - Are these faster 6502's really better than 65816's?
No, just faster. And the 65816 is capable of faster speeds, in general, than
the 6502. It's like asking if a 16MHz 65816 is better than an 8MHz 68000.
They both have 16-bit data busses, and 24-bit address busses, but the 68000
has lots more registers (32-bit ones at that), a more flexible stack
pointer, and two operating modes (user and supervisor).
> - How fast is today's fastest 6502?
8MHz, as mentioned above -- and that's IIRC.
Anyway, the C64 is a bit too tightly integrated to accommodate much in the
way of speed-up hardware hacks, unless you basically just make the
"accelerator" essentially a self-contained computer that just uses the C64
as an I/O peripheral. This is pretty much what the SuperCPU 64/128 is. The
Apple II is somewhat less integrated, and so it can accept such upgrades
more easily. The Atari 8-bits? Hmm. It's not a good idea to think of them as
all one group. That's like equating the VIC-20 with the 128, or the original
II with the IIc+ (to remove the 65816 from the question momentarily). The
400/800 is different from the XLs, and the XLs are different from the XEs,
all in subtle ways. Some of them may be more amenable to such hacks. Others
may be too integrated, like the C64.
And then, there's the issue of compatibility. If you do manage to shoehorn a
faster processor into your 6502-based vintage computer, what will happen to
your software? Will it run? Will the speed-up make it unusable (key repeat,
for example)?
At any rate, it makes the "roll-your-own" school of hardware hacking a bit
involved for the machines of this era.
David A Paterson
<a2h16h$o6o$1...@nets3.rz.RWTH-Aachen.DE>:
You may wish to check out:
http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/
There's a W65C02S clocked at 14MHz available, and a W65C816S clocked at
14MHz as well.
Datasheets, pinouts and such are also available.
Hope this helps,
David P
Mathy van Nisselroy
> > - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
>
> Free6502(FPGA-Core): 166 MHz.
> http://www.free-ip.com/6502/implementations.htm
Grin!!!!!
CU Mathy van Nisselroy
Mathy van Nisselroy
> I get the feeling that you mean, in the above, to simply say "Apple II."
Am
> I right?
Sorry, I seem to remember that these where 6502's (not sure which version)
on a PCB that were intended for use in the II gs.
> The Atari 8-bits? Hmm. It's not a good idea to think of them as
> all one group. That's like equating the VIC-20 with the 128, or the
original
> II with the IIc+ (to remove the 65816 from the question momentarily). The
> 400/800 is different from the XLs, and the XLs are different from the XEs,
> all in subtle ways. Some of them may be more amenable to such hacks.
Others
> may be too integrated, like the C64.
They are basically one group. If software doesn't use illegal addresses, it
runs on all 8 bit Atari's be it the 400/800, the XL or the XE. They share
the same 'big chips' (as in, not the stuff you get from every electronics
store), which are at the same location for all the 8 bit Atari's.
> And then, there's the issue of compatibility. If you do manage to shoehorn
a
> faster processor into your 6502-based vintage computer, what will happen
to
> your software? Will it run? Will the speed-up make it unusable (key
repeat,
> for example)?
> At any rate, it makes the "roll-your-own" school of hardware hacking a bit
> involved for the machines of this era.
I wasn't saying I wanted the CPU upgrade, I just asked why nobody wanted
6502's.
CU Mathy van Nisselroy
PS seems like somehow Outlook Express uses my old address. Forget it. Use
my new one. (See below) BTW anybody know how to change this? (I'm using a
computer in one of the computerrooms here at the university, so I can not
change software.)
--
My old email address will cease to exist as of the end of 2001, please use
my new address.
Meine alte Emailadresse wird Ende 2001 geloescht, bitte benutzen Sie meine
neue Adresse.
Mijn oude Emailadress wordt eind 2001 opgeheven, gebruikt aub vanaf nu mijn
nieuwe adres.
mathy.van...@post.rwth-aachen.de
http://www-users.rwth-aachen.de/mathy.van_nisselroy
Pekka "Pihti" Takala
>
>
> The fastest 65C02 I've seen is 8 MHz, the fastest 65816 I've seen runs
> at 20 MHz (overclocked 16 MHz CPUs used in CMD's SuperCPU accelerators).
Western Design Center produces the 65c02 and 65c816 models, maximum
speed is rated at 14 mhz.
In supercpu is not a 16 mhz cpu, there IS a 14 mhz version. I have a
supercpu and checked its cpu. yes, 14 mhz. But I know that the cpu can
hold much higher speeds, due to cmos technology it uses. They produce
still processors.
>
> MvN> - How fast is todays fastest 6502?
>
> 8 Mhz is the fastest I've seen, but there are probably faster ones out
> there.
WDC makes 14 mhz versions of 65c02.
--
Pekka "Pihti" Takala gsm +358405670465
Nothing can be so bad that you cannot find at least one good thing in
that.
If something can go wrong, it will. -Murphy
Scott
<niss...@reze-1.rz.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> - Why is everybody using 65816's when 6502's seem to be better and more
> available?
>
Well the 65816 could be switched into 16-bit mode while the 6502's were
8-bit chips.
> - Are these faster 6502's really better then 65816's?
>
Depends on what you want to do with them. The GS used the extra
instructions and such on the 816 to make GS OS fun. :-)
Mathy van Nisselroy
> Well the 65816 could be switched into 16-bit mode while the 6502's were
> 8-bit chips.
Hmm, why not use two super fast 6502's then. You get the availability of
the 6502 and still have 16 bits. :-))
CU Mathy van Nisselroy