Transwarp GS vs. Zip GSX
Paul H. Lee
community... sounds like an interesting subject to me.
Exegete
Paul H. Lee wrote:
> Which ACCELERATOR is better?
The one you own.
The one you don't doesn't matter, since you'll almost never lay your
hands on it anyway.
Roy
I just want the opinions of the
> community... sounds like an interesting subject to me.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Tim Haynes
than Transwarp and is smaller, with less chips). However, you can speed up
the Transwarp if you are so inclined. Can you speed up Zip...? I'm not
sure...
Tim
"Paul H. Lee" <earnhar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:121791b5.02123...@posting.google.com...
Long Hoang
Zip can do 15MHz reliably with the current WDC/Sanyo 14MHz W65C816S. It's
designed to support 64K cache and up to 128K cache broken down as 64K data
and 64K tag. The board is designed with provision for isolating and
increasing the CPU voltage beyond 5V.
"Tim Haynes" <timh...@alumni.NO.SPAM.PLEASE.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in
news:aavQ9.110959$E_.5...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
Exegete
> I guess it depends... Zip is better for size and heat (i.e. it runs cooler
> than Transwarp and is smaller, with less chips). However, you can speed up
> the Transwarp if you are so inclined. Can you speed up Zip...? I'm not
> sure...
Yes.
Some Zips can do 14 mhz or faster.
Alas, thus far mine only does 10 mhz.
Roy
>
> Tim
>
> "Paul H. Lee" <earnhar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:121791b5.02123...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Which ACCELERATOR is better? I just want the opinions of the
>>community... sounds like an interesting subject to me.
>
>
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
Willie Yeo
On a soup'ed up Transwarp GS and ZipGSX (9MHz/32k Cache), the Transwarp
has an edge over the Zip.
Both can upgrade their processors easily, and the crystal oscillator.
I loved the animated Transwarp GS graphics upon powering up the IIGS
(of course, you can disable it !). It draws more power (you can see by the
number of ICs on the board), and the upgradability is hard (not
impossible). You need to buy a daughter-card for the Transwarp for 32k
cache.
The ZipGSX is better as the power consumption is lower, so it does not
generate more heat than a Transwarp GS on a stock IIGS. And it is easily
expandable, a matter of replacing the cache on the card rather than a
daughter board, You'd be able to bump the speed higher on the ZipGSX, and
more cache (I am still too chicken for the 128k split cache.
In article <121791b5.02123...@posting.google.com>,
Scott Alfter
Hash: SHA1
In article <aavQ9.110959$E_.5...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
Tim Haynes <timh...@alumni.NO.SPAM.PLEASE.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>I guess it depends... Zip is better for size and heat (i.e. it runs cooler
>than Transwarp and is smaller, with less chips). However, you can speed up
>the Transwarp if you are so inclined. Can you speed up Zip...? I'm not
>sure...
You can replace the processor, cache, and oscillator on a ZipGS to speed
things up. Mine's been somewhat flaky since I upgraded from 8 MHz and 16K
cache to 12.5 MHz and 64K cache, though...it's been bad enough that I've
removed it and have my GS poking along at 2.8 MHz. (It's maddeningly slow
at running GS/OS apps, but at least it's running fairly reliably now with
both SCSI and LocalTalk enabled.) I think it might be the cheap-ass sockets
(junk-bin parts salvaged from other boards) I used...I've had half a thought
of removing the sockets and soldering the cache and oscillator directly to
the board.
IIRC, I replaced the 74F00 with a 74HCT00 out of the junkbox, and put that
in a socket as well. That's also a candidate for soldering to the board.
(One recommended mod for pushing the ZipGS past 12 MHz is to replace the
74F00 at the bottom of the board with a 74HC00. AFAIK, the only difference
between HC and HCT parts is that the signals on an HCT are TTL-compatible.
That would match the signal levels of the F part it replaced...but what was
the idea behind the 74F00->74HC00 swap? Was it to get faster switching
speeds, or was it to get CMOS-compatible signaling?)
_/_ Scott Alfter
/ v \ sal...@salfter.dyndns.org
(IIGS( http://salfter.dyndns.org Top-posting!
\_^_/ pkill -9 /bin/laden >What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+FH+dVgTKos01OwkRAhM9AKDfKLv8cXxn4l0pJecc73vmsgUMUACgnlGR
fOpPUmJDqMfVsNw30H17wI0=
=F5Jo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----