Page 15 of 21
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:10 pm
by pjw
Whopper wrote:pjw wrote:Wake me up when there are plans for a 500MHz+ QL, with 128+ Mb RAM, 2x2Gb SD, HDMI, SMSQ/E.. Nothing less would turn me on. Sorry guys, but youre building a horse carriage in the age of electric cars. As stated above, I might just settle for a hand crafted diesel..
<>I'll also enjoy using the BBQL with any and all upgrades compatible with that available in the late 1980's. I neither want, nor need, a GUIfied QL, I have better. I want a retro QL. This expansion will help increase my stock of QL systems and expansions, for me to play with when I want
I am interested in this new expansion even though I have just purchased a Super Gold Card (and am champing at the bit to receive it.) I see the QL, and other retro computers, as a hobby a harmless interest.
Well, from day one I wanted a faster, better QL. I never wanted a Mac, or later, Windows or Linux. I like the QL GUI, because I evolved with it via QRAM. To me the QL is the OS. The hardware was a typical Sinclair job except that it was the first from that stable that actually worked for me until its dying day without any problems! (I guess I was just lucky.)
The QL was never a toy for me. Until a few years ago it was my main computer. Its only with great reluctance I go with Windows (which, with V10, seems to be going down the same totalitarian path as the rest in trying to turn me into the product).
So, a compact, fanless QL type computer, fast enough, say, to give a decent rendering of a web page, is where I want to go. I am of course happy about the retro brigade, as you/they at least help to keep the scene alive. Hopefully some of you, your kids or grandkids may be inspired to continue developing the OS and software in a forward direction.
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:13 pm
by Dave
Sounds like a Q68 with a wifi dongle meets your requirements?
You better get started on that web browser!
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 11:41 pm
by pjw
Dave wrote:pjw wrote:Wake me up when there are plans for a 500MHz+ QL, with 128+ Mb RAM, 2x2Gb SD, HDMI, SMSQ/E.. Nothing less would turn me on. Sorry guys, but youre building a horse carriage in the age of electric cars. As stated above, I might just settle for a hand crafted diesel..
See, that's the funny thing. How fast does a QL have to be to match the performance of a 2GHz+ PC? It's so lean and efficient, and the guts are so easily accessible. I honestly suspect the answer would be surprisingly low in most areas. The only three areas we're fast playing catch up on right now are video and encryption as part of modern communication.
I think a 200MHz equivalent machine would get your attention. That would only be around 4x faster than the fastest Q60. And that could realistically be done in FPGAs if people would just co-operate. I understand the maximum possible FPGA configured 680X0 is ~400 MHz equivalent to 68060.
I once calculated that 100 PC MHz was about the same as 1 QL MHz using QPC. The current QPC2 may be more efficient, but I have nothing to compare with anymore. If the relationship still holds, QPC2 on a 5GHz PC would be similar to a 500MHz hardware QL. But of course no direct comparison can be made, as QPC2 executes some functions directly on the PC rather than in emulated MC68 code, and the PC has other asynchronous hardware to alleviate the burden on its CPU(s).. However, I may open one eye if you pull off a 200MHz QL
Now, if we ported SMSQ to ARM....
The only way to do that would be through emulation, or at best some sort of compiler. I doubt it would be worth the trouble seeing we already have QPC2, SMSQmulator, etc
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:09 pm
by Pr0f
But a 40 or 50MHz 68030 with 128Mb RAM and USB interfaces plus IDE interface and a half decent video board could easily run QDOS / SMSQ at very good speed, and probably also ulinux. Such a board might also be persuaded to work with a BBQL in place of a Gold or Super Gold card...
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:55 pm
by Peter
Pr0f wrote:But a 40 or 50MHz 68030 with 128Mb RAM and USB interfaces plus IDE interface and a half decent video board could easily run QDOS / SMSQ at very good speed, and probably also ulinux. Such a board might also be persuaded to work with a BBQL in place of a Gold or Super Gold card...
The Q68 outperforms a good 24 MHz 68020 design (SuperGoldCard) even without cache. From internal SRAM, it runs 4 times faster. So I guess if I find the time to implement cache, we'd be there.
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 3:32 pm
by Dave
Pr0f wrote:But a 40 or 50MHz 68030 with 128Mb RAM and USB interfaces plus IDE interface and a half decent video board could easily run QDOS / SMSQ at very good speed, and probably also ulinux. Such a board might also be persuaded to work with a BBQL in place of a Gold or Super Gold card...
The large stock of 68EC030FE40s I have do not have the MMU, so Linux won't happen with *those*.... The nice thing about the '030 and '040 is the increase of instructions per clock each generation as they really got into pipelining the instructions and using the cache efficiently.
If someone more knowledgeable could even do a block diagram of what's happening in a SGC, particularly within INGOT, it would benefit the whole community. It's something of a black box for most of us.
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:43 pm
by Peter
Dave wrote:The large stock of 68EC030FE40s I have do not have the MMU, so Linux won't happen with *those*....
Prof wrote "ulinux", probably meant ucLinux, which is doable. The Q68 has been designed with ucLinux in mind also. However, ucLinux has no X Server, only nanoX and the likes, so the benefit is debatable.
Dave wrote:The nice thing about the '030 and '040 is the increase of instructions per clock each generation as they really got into pipelining the instructions and using the cache efficiently.
68020 and 68030 are pretty much the same in instructions/clock. You'd need a 68040 to get significantly better.
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:26 pm
by mk79
pjw wrote:I once calculated that 100 PC MHz was about the same as 1 QL MHz using QPC.
As QPC was originally developed on a 486DX2 66 Mhz and even there performed better than a BBQL I would contest this figure
Marcel
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:46 pm
by Pr0f
Peter wrote:Dave wrote:The large stock of 68EC030FE40s I have do not have the MMU, so Linux won't happen with *those*....
Prof wrote "ulinux", probably meant ucLinux, which is doable. The Q68 has been designed with ucLinux in mind also. However, ucLinux has no X Server, only nanoX and the likes, so the benefit is debatable.
Dave wrote:The nice thing about the '030 and '040 is the increase of instructions per clock each generation as they really got into pipelining the instructions and using the cache efficiently.
68020 and 68030 are pretty much the same in instructions/clock. You'd need a 68040 to get significantly better.
I did mean uclinux - but been looking at what is required to get a pmmu on the 68e030 for full porting a bigger linux
68030 offers better pipelining and faster burst fill memory access that the 68020 doesn't offer. It also supports faster clock rates than the 68020, and still offers the dynamic bus sizing, which makes it significantly easier to connect to a QL bus, than say a 68040 or later variant.
Re: QL 34th Anniversary new hardware.
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:33 pm
by Dave
Peter wrote:68020 and 68030 are pretty much the same in instructions/clock. You'd need a 68040 to get significantly better.
For everyone else...
Code: Select all
Instructions per clock:
CPU IPC %gain over previous generation
68000 .175 baseline
68020 .303 73.14% gain
68030 .36 18.81% gain <--- 2x IPC of 68000 at same clock speed
68040 1.1 308.33% gain <--- big jump happens here
68060 1.33 20.9% gain
I could not find a figure for the 68008. It has the 68000 core, but I don't know how much doing double 8-bit fetches slowed it down.