English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.Hardware

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 28 December 2012, 06:26   #1
k4lmp
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Church Hill, TN USA
Posts: 51
68010 In A500+

I just found a pretty good deal on some 68010 CPUs, so I ordered a few. I am wanting to replace the 68000 in my A500+ with the 68010. Any problems, or considerations I should know about. I've read it is a direct replacement for the 68K, with the downside being some games not playing. I realize that I am not overclocking it, and it will run at the same speed as the 68K, but it is supposed to make the machine a bit faster. Any input before I make the mod? Thanks.
k4lmp is offline  
Old 28 December 2012, 06:35   #2
s2325
Zone Friend

s2325's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gargore
Age: 39
Posts: 17,789
Maybe look here http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?t=42122
s2325 is offline  
Old 28 December 2012, 10:37   #3
mombasajoe
Registered User

mombasajoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: D
Age: 44
Posts: 522
I think it depends on the system. I´d never place a 68010 into a A500 without harddisk. Increase of speed? Forget it. SysInfo says: about 7%. There are also some problems with some games. The problems can be solved by a software patch (decigel). So the patch hast to be loaded first (no problem with a harddisk).


E. g. I´ve got a 500+ with 2 MB chipmem, 8 MB fastmem and a harddisk as a whdload-machine. Here the 68010 makes much sense because it contains an opcode that is needed for "quit to workbench" from many whdload-installs.
mombasajoe is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 02:03   #4
Adropac2
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 840
I recall when I had an 68010 for my A500, the increase while there seemed barely noticable which was surprising at the time. Makes me wonder what the difference is that people see when they notice the 'faster' Atari ST version of 3d games

Last edited by Adropac2; 29 December 2012 at 05:50.
Adropac2 is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 02:33   #5
robinsonb5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norfolk, UK
Posts: 626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adropac2 View Post
Makes me wonder what the difference is that people see they notice the 'faster' Atari ST version of 3d games
The placebo effect, maybe?
robinsonb5 is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 03:28   #6
k4lmp
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Church Hill, TN USA
Posts: 51
Well, I got 3 of them on the way. It should be a straight swap from what I've read. I'll let you know what SysInfo says when I get it changed.
k4lmp is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 05:58   #7
Adropac2
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinsonb5 View Post
The placebo effect, maybe?
Yeah pretty much.Loved my ST but I sure didn't see any noticable change to how these games ran

There is the slightest boost however with the 68010 and I was eventually pleased with it.Unless I imagined it too
Adropac2 is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 15:38   #8
hooverphonique
ex. demoscener "Bigmama"

 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fyn / Denmark
Posts: 1,001
ironically, the 'extra speed' of the 010 is often what breaks old games/demos, since it has a feature for speeding up small loops, causing delay loops to be to fast compared to a vanilla 68k.
hooverphonique is offline  
Old 29 December 2012, 21:54   #9
b0lt-thrower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: US
Posts: 89
I remember when I got a 14mhz AdSpeed...God I was in heaven Rendering in Vista flew! Games...broke, spectacularly!

Last Amiga I had was a 28mhz 030 A1200 with 4mb RAM.
b0lt-thrower is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 05:37   #10
k4lmp
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Church Hill, TN USA
Posts: 51
I got my 68010's, and installed one in my A500+. It does seem a bit faster. Not blazing fast, but a bit. Using SysInfo 4, it shows a speed of 1.25. I don't remember what it showed with the 68000.
k4lmp is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 10:44   #11
mombasajoe
Registered User

mombasajoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: D
Age: 44
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by k4lmp View Post
Using SysInfo 4, it shows a speed of 1.25. I don't remember what it showed with the 68000.
With or without 8 MB FastRam? If you had turned the GVP-RAM (seen in your sig) on you should try SysInfo again without FastRam.
mombasajoe is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 14:21   #12
8bitbubsy
Registered User

8bitbubsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by robinsonb5 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adropac2 View Post
Makes me wonder what the difference is that people see when they notice the 'faster' Atari ST version of 3d games
The placebo effect, maybe?
The Atari ST ran at 8MHz while the Amiga 500/600/1000/2000 ran at 7.14~MHz. The Atari ST's CPU was clocked around 12.67% faster. This helped a tiny bit with 3D stuff, although the Amiga owned the Atari ST in the other factors.

Last edited by 8bitbubsy; 05 January 2013 at 14:35.
8bitbubsy is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 17:58   #13
Hewitson
Registered User
Hewitson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,398
In a number of ways the ST was inferior to the Commodore 64. It may have been clocked faster, but it didn't have a fraction of the capabilities. It was an absolutely terrible design.
Hewitson is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 18:25   #14
k4lmp
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Church Hill, TN USA
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mombasajoe View Post
With or without 8 MB FastRam? If you had turned the GVP-RAM (seen in your sig) on you should try SysInfo again without FastRam.
That was with the 8 mb of fast ram, and the extra 512k in the trap door.
k4lmp is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 18:44   #15
Adropac2
Zone Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 840
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8bitbubsy View Post
The Atari ST ran at 8MHz while the Amiga 500/600/1000/2000 ran at 7.14~MHz. The Atari ST's CPU was clocked around 12.67% faster. This helped a tiny bit with 3D stuff, although the Amiga owned the Atari ST in the other factors.
Sure but it really doesn't show is more the point, at least going from one machine to the other. Never actually done a side to side though which would be interesting to see From my experience though it's not something you notice
Adropac2 is offline  
Old 05 January 2013, 22:29   #16
Geijer
Oldtimer

Geijer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: VXO / Sweden
Posts: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by k4lmp View Post
That was with the 8 mb of fast ram, and the extra 512k in the trap door.
Then it is the presence of Fast Ram that makes most of the difference when compared to a A600 in SysInfo.
Geijer is offline  
Old 06 January 2013, 06:11   #17
mc6809e
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8bitbubsy View Post
The Atari ST ran at 8MHz while the Amiga 500/600/1000/2000 ran at 7.14~MHz. The Atari ST's CPU was clocked around 12.67% faster. This helped a tiny bit with 3D stuff, although the Amiga owned the Atari ST in the other factors.
The key to making the Amiga competitive (or better) than the ST in 3D is to carefully time any blits so that they overlap with all the MULs and DIVs that you find in a lot of 3D code. Typically, though, programmers just replaced any software line-drawing or frame buffer clearing code with blits while the CPU just waited. Terrible waste of the Amiga's capabilities.

But even for typical codes the clock rate difference doesn't have as big an effect as the numbers suggest. The Atari ST blocks the CPU on every other memory access cycle, even during the blanking intervals and overscan areas. The Amiga will actually allow the CPU to get at these cycles if they're available. It doesn't happen very often, but sometimes the CPU can take advantage of these "odd" cycles. This closes the gap somewhat between the machines. I seem to remember someone finding that the CPU in the Atari ST was blocked 7% of the time while running one particular game waiting for access to memory during "odd" cycles.

All this is very code dependent, of course but there are even situations where (very improbable) code will run much faster on the Amiga. An unrolled loop of CLRs, for example, will often take fewer cycles to run than on an ST if the code is being executed during the top or bottom overscan areas.

I wonder if WinUAE can track of the number of times the CPU is allowed access to an "odd" cycle. It would be interesting to see just how often this happens when running typical codes.

My guess is: on average about 4% of the time, but better or worse depending on the code.

Tight loops might be interesting since branch instructions can take 10 cycles, though instruction pairing rules can make cycle timing analysis difficult.

Interesting thing: for some codes the Amiga might be faster or slower than the ST depending on whether or not some part of the code runs during blanking/overscan or during audio/sprite/disk/bitplane DMA.
mc6809e is offline  
Old 12 January 2013, 16:47   #18
mombasajoe
Registered User

mombasajoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: D
Age: 44
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally Posted by mombasajoe View Post
With or without 8 MB FastRam? If you had turned the GVP-RAM (seen in your sig) on you should try SysInfo again without FastRam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geijer View Post
Then it is the presence of Fast Ram that makes most of the difference when compared to a A600 in SysInfo.

That´s right. I´ve had some spare time today so I will show you that effect with my real A500+ I´ve used SysInfo 3.24 though.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	sysinfo.jpg
Views:	1453
Size:	124.6 KB
ID:	33838  
mombasajoe is offline  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Killing game show and the 68010 kipper2k support.Games 5 25 April 2013 11:10
WHDLoad on a 68000 a500 - should I go to a 68010? AB Positive project.WHDLoad 4 13 February 2010 22:18
WTB: Cheap (not working?) 68020 and 68010 desantii MarketPlace 0 01 December 2009 19:03
A600 Motorola 68010 cpu. lolafg Hardware mods 32 16 October 2009 05:53
Motorola 68010 CPU whiteb MarketPlace 0 26 September 2002 06:37

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 12:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Page generated in 0.11004 seconds with 14 queries