A600 Motorola 68010 cpu.

[sanjyuubi]

PCMCIA ram used for A600 is not much slower than LVDs fast ram board, PCMCIA RAM - 701 dhrystones (it may differ with specific models and its access time); LVDs ram board - 710 dhrystones


It is not worth to replacing original CPU to 68010, beacuse speed increase is almost not noticable in many cases and this CPU have some buggy assembler command wchich require some patching or some software will not work or hangs amiga.

[alexh]

Originally Posted by rafgc

it is not worth to replacing original CPU to 68010, beacuse speed increase is almost not noticable in many cases and this CPU have some buggy assembler command wchich require some patching or some software will not work or hangs amiga.

Not to mention it is totally impractical on A600 due to a PLCC packaged surface mount CPU.

Difficult to find a PLCC 68010

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...m=330270546501

Equally difficult to solder a surface mount part without the right equipment.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by rafgc

and this CPU have some buggy assembler command wchich require some patching or some software will not work or hangs amiga.

I almost choked on my coffee when reading that. Thank you for some good Saturday morning entertainment. <3 Seriously though, it's not the fault of the CPU when software doesn't work due to some more or less stupid coding (dbf delays, not taking care of the VBR etc.). Blame it on the coder, not the CPU!

[kipper2k]

Originally Posted by Andymiga

That 14MHz CPU upgrade (for an A600), is there any info here on EAB on that? I have this A600 I'm pimping (as Zetr0 knows), and I would want to look into that -- how much work is it and what kind of soldering skills it requires...

I tried the forum search function but to no avail...

Cheers

I would be very interested in that too. I have no problem removing the 68000 cpu and putting in a socket. Heres a piccie of my latest little project. I am trying to convert a Pal A600 to an NTSC version by replacing\removing some of the components. Here are some pics of the preps i done for the Agnus chip so i can swap that out for an NTSC Agnus...

before...



during...




after...



a hot air rework station, some flux, and solder paste works a treat. Only issue i had was with the little plastic dividers between each pin on the socket, it was a cheapie socket and a couple of the plastic dividers had to be trimmed, but all works good

[cosmicfrog]

wow

thats some good work there kipper

[sanjyuubi]

Originally Posted by StingRay

I almost choked on my coffee when reading that. Thank you for some good Saturday morning entertainment. <3 Seriously though, it's not the fault of the CPU when software doesn't work due to some more or less stupid coding (dbf delays, not taking care of the VBR etc.). Blame it on the coder, not the CPU!

You're wlecome But at first, as i'm not using english often i didn't know how to say or write that properly. Of course it is a coder fault but often you can read or hear that using 68010 cause some compatibility issues (not the software, except for whdload where you can use quit button in propably every game) that can be fixed with patches (except for games with custom bootloader) and thats why it is better to install 020 or 030 than 010.



Desoldering CPU with hot-air shouldn't be much of a problem.

[Photon]

Since it's standard leg spacing, it would be far safer for a novice to get a small cutter and nip the legs off until it's loose, then unsolder each half-leg.

If you really decide to do this (wreck compatibility for no increase in speed), then put in a socket instead of soldering on the 68010. Just in case you find "nothing" works as it used to anymore.

[StingRay]

Originally Posted by rafgc

You're wlecome But at first, as i'm not using english often i didn't know how to say or write that properly. Of course it is a coder fault but often you can read or hear that using 68010 cause some compatibility issues (not the software, except for whdload where you can use quit button in propably every game) that can be fixed with patches (except for games with custom bootloader) and thats why it is better to install 020 or 030 than 010.

Don't worry, I understood what you meant! It's just, when I read your post I just had to laugh as it was funny to read, for me as coder at least. =) No hard feelings or anything, quite the opposite! <3

[Toni Wilen]

Most common compatibility issue is MOVE SR/CCR:

MOVE from SR = privileged on 68010, not on 68000
MOVE from CCR = does not exists on 68000..

[sanjyuubi]

Originally Posted by StingRay

Don't worry, I understood what you meant! It's just, when I read your post I just had to laugh as it was funny to read, for me as coder at least. =) No hard feelings or anything, quite the opposite! <3

I didn't worry at all It was funny for me too to imagine how you are choking with that cofee reading my not in 100% wise post

But anyway, don't you think that creators of 010 mess something around? I mean it is like software for pentium 1 had problems on pentium 2 and works fine on pentium 3 again.


Thanks Toni, this is exacly that problem with 010 i wanted to post but i forgot which instruction are a troublemakers.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by Thorham

True, but a simple 4mb ram board will not only give you extra memory, but it will also double the 68000's speed!

Fastram in A600 reports "1.33" compared to "1.00" with only chipmem. IDE increased similarly, since it uses the 68000; from 600-something KB/s to 824.

[Photon]

Originally Posted by StingRay

I almost choked on my coffee when reading that. Thank you for some good Saturday morning entertainment. <3 Seriously though, it's not the fault of the CPU when software doesn't work due to some more or less stupid coding (dbf delays, not taking care of the VBR etc.). Blame it on the coder, not the CPU!

I count a total of 1 (one) expansion that had a 68010 for Amiga. In this expansion (EXP 8000+), the 68010 was even optional!

Also, rafgc probably meant the majority of software, which was written when there were 3 million 68000-based Amigas aaaand about 300 non-68000 Amigas in the world None of which were bought to run the above software (ie.-> games!)

If coders should be future-compatible, then CPU-makers shouldn't CHANGE STUFF AROUND! And don't say "68030 was available this and that date" because NOBODY HAD IT, and even the pros failed, and advice in HRM hardly covers every single then-and-future configuration, as misc. patches to Commodore's own kickstart code shows.

So don't point a finger against non-future-compatible code, point it instead at silly CLI apps that require 68020+ or some Kickstart. It's a hell of a lot easier to be backwards compatible.


But heed Stingray's advice for any new software you write, it's good that we have someone skilled to keep an eye on us

Originally Posted by rafgc

But anyway, don't you think that creators of 010 mess something around? I mean it is like software for pentium 1 had problems on pentium 2 and works fine on pentium 3 again.

The 68010 fixed flaws in the 68000. The main fix was only allowing MOVE from SR to execute in supervisor mode. That fix was to allow the 68010 to support virtual memory.

The other significant change was allowing movement of the VBR from low memory. These are the main 2 things that break 68000 code. The 010 adds a few new instructions, but these all appear on later 680x0 processors.

Every change in the 68010 was carried on to later (020, 030, etc.) processors. Every 68000 Amiga program that did not work on the 68010 was also incompatible with the 020 and later. I believe you could catch the incompatibilities on later processors with an MMU (and correct them). Any 68000 program that was also compatible with the 020+ is also compatible with the 68010.

The problem was that Commodore never released an Amiga with a 68010. So, there was no motivation to compile code specifically for the 68010, and the 020+ introduced many more instructions which developers would build optimized versions for. Very rarely, someone would take a program that was only compatible with the 68000, create a new version that was 020+ optimized, and by not fixing the old 68000 version, the 010 would be left in between.

I have a 68010 in my CDTV and almost never find 68000 programs that don't work because of the processor (and certainly not ones I cared to use). An A600 with an 68010 would be kind of a cool oddity! I'd be scared off by replacing the surface mount chip, but it'd be a neat upgrade.