VOGONS


New processors for old sockets.

Topic actions

Reply 80 of 134, by Nexxen

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Error 0x7CF wrote on 2021-11-23, 17:39:
Not quite. On old systems like 086/088, 186, 286, 386, (and 486 before clock multipliers), the bus clock speed and CPU speed are […]
Show full quote
Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

I was thinking, isn't the increase in mhz going to yield a linear increase in performance?

Not quite. On old systems like 086/088, 186, 286, 386, (and 486 before clock multipliers), the bus clock speed and CPU speed are the same. So, for them increasing the CPU speed does yield a pretty much linear increase in performance, as long as you ignore any performance limited by ISA, which can only really clock up to 8-10MHz safely unless you're picking your ISA cards carefully. In simpler systems (some 8088, some 8086, some 286) where the CPU, Bus, and ISA are all run at the same frequency, a frequency increase is a completely linear performance improvement since it increases the frequency of everything in the system.

You won't reliably be able to exceed whatever Bus speed your board has for its maximum setting. So, after a certain point, you want to increase CPU performance without increasing bus speed.

One way to do this is to make your instructions take fewer cycles to complete. This technique is referred to as "Increasing IPC", increasing Instructions Per Cycle. Many x86 instructions take several clock-cycles to complete. In real CPUs, this was done with the NEC V20/V30, and is why those are known to be faster than their 8088/8086 counterparts at the same clock speed. IPC is improved with pretty much every new CPU generation (except the Pentium 4), and is why a 8MHz 286 system can outperform a 10MHz 8086 system.

Another option is to introduce/increase cache, and reduce dependence on the slow main memory. Even when the Bus and CPU ran at the same speed, DRAM is slow, so going out to memory to fetch a value is going to slow execution down. If you have a cache onboard or on-chip (and the value you want is inside the cache) you can read from the much faster SRAM cache memory and not have the CPU waiting for your slow main memory to respond.

Another option is to increase CPU clock speed without increasing the Bus speed. In real CPUs this happened in the 486 era when Intel started clock-doubling. This especially works well if you have a cache on-chip which can run at your doubled/tripled/etc clock speed, and prevent slow accesses to your now half/one-third/etc-speed Bus. Full-speed on-chip cache in combination with clock-multiplication is what makes the 65F02 fast. It has enough RAM inside it to almost never have to touch main memory, and all the ram inside it runs at 100MHz, vs the previously incredibly slow 1MHz system ram.

Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

186,286,386? Some FPGA could come with L1 + L2 cache, are the new performance results predictable?

The new results could be simulated and compared to a simulated version of the old results, but I'm not remotely smart enough to be able to do that. A cycle-accurate emulator would need to be implemented to be able to check, which is pretty much the same amount of work as implementing the device on an FPGA to begin with.

Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

Isn't a BIOS necessary for these new cpus? I can't get around the idea of some support updates.
Or being internally clocked x2/3/4... doesn't need?

Probably wouldn't need a BIOS update as long as it behaves mostly like the original chip. NEC V20/V30 don't need BIOS updates. 486DX2 in a system with a bios that only knows about 486DX doesn't need a bios update to clock-double.

Thanks a lot!
At some point you need to go with a whole new design. It's not only the increase of speed but a combination of factors.
IPC was the death of P4, I remember good old Tom's articles about it.

W.x. wrote on 2021-11-23, 20:52:
cyclone3d wrote on 2021-11-23, 00:40:

But that would have all been done by hand for the most part... now with way more advanced tools and faster computers, things more complex can be made much easier.

There are design tools, etc that can help out a ton. Plus if making something x86, because the instructions are already known it is feasible that somebody could design one from the ground up.

Again, you can design more complex CPU, or even new platform, but you won't make chip in home conditions, that is more advanced, than original one. Your chips would be larger, and thus, generate more heat, etc... How do you want to make more complex chip than 4004 in home condition... with limited budget. Without building a factory, or buying incredible expensive machines.... I've explained it once, it would be profitable only if you would sell thousands of them. For larger factory and machines, you need tons of water and energy. Not only buy machines. You need also personal, that know work with it, you need to buy waffers, pay for water, energy. It would go to millions. Just for making 10 or 20 or maybe 100 chips for 8086, 286 or 386? I just cannot imagine it in reality. Unless you buy machine, that can cost up to 10000$ or 20000$ (for you own money ... but I would guess no such cheap machine exists), and that all with energy, water and cost of waffers, you cannot make new chips, your initial investition needs to be millions to build factory that can produce at least one chip... but then, when you start that power and resource hungry factory, you just need to go and go with new chips, otherwise, it wont pay investition. So to make new 286 or 386 chip, it would possible only if equipment costs several thousands dollars. In reality, noone will pay so much money for enhanced 286 or something, you will need to mass produce it.

Economy stand point, it just costs too much.
Way too much to be a viable solution.

PC#1 Pentium 233 MMX - 98SE
PC#2 PIII-1Ghz - 98SE/W2K

Reply 81 of 134, by Victorkorp99

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I think it would be more feasible to replicate the adapters that came out for different sockets. There are few times when I thought how cool it would be to make some adapters like the ones from powerleap for socket 370 and assemble them at home, for example

Argentina, Córdoba

System: - Pentium III 600Mhz (Katmai) + 384mb RAM PC133 + DFI P2XBL REV B1 (440bx) + 3DFX Voodoo 3 3000 + SB Live! + Aureal Vortex 2+ Tekram dc315 SCSI + Generic Usb 2.0 Card + 3Com Etherlink III+ 15gb HDD (IDE to SD) + 250W Delta PSU

Reply 82 of 134, by cyclone3d

User metadata
Rank l33t++
Rank
l33t++
Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 23:28:
Thanks a lot! At some point you need to go with a whole new design. It's not only the increase of speed but a combination of fac […]
Show full quote
Error 0x7CF wrote on 2021-11-23, 17:39:
Not quite. On old systems like 086/088, 186, 286, 386, (and 486 before clock multipliers), the bus clock speed and CPU speed are […]
Show full quote
Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

I was thinking, isn't the increase in mhz going to yield a linear increase in performance?

Not quite. On old systems like 086/088, 186, 286, 386, (and 486 before clock multipliers), the bus clock speed and CPU speed are the same. So, for them increasing the CPU speed does yield a pretty much linear increase in performance, as long as you ignore any performance limited by ISA, which can only really clock up to 8-10MHz safely unless you're picking your ISA cards carefully. In simpler systems (some 8088, some 8086, some 286) where the CPU, Bus, and ISA are all run at the same frequency, a frequency increase is a completely linear performance improvement since it increases the frequency of everything in the system.

You won't reliably be able to exceed whatever Bus speed your board has for its maximum setting. So, after a certain point, you want to increase CPU performance without increasing bus speed.

One way to do this is to make your instructions take fewer cycles to complete. This technique is referred to as "Increasing IPC", increasing Instructions Per Cycle. Many x86 instructions take several clock-cycles to complete. In real CPUs, this was done with the NEC V20/V30, and is why those are known to be faster than their 8088/8086 counterparts at the same clock speed. IPC is improved with pretty much every new CPU generation (except the Pentium 4), and is why a 8MHz 286 system can outperform a 10MHz 8086 system.

Another option is to introduce/increase cache, and reduce dependence on the slow main memory. Even when the Bus and CPU ran at the same speed, DRAM is slow, so going out to memory to fetch a value is going to slow execution down. If you have a cache onboard or on-chip (and the value you want is inside the cache) you can read from the much faster SRAM cache memory and not have the CPU waiting for your slow main memory to respond.

Another option is to increase CPU clock speed without increasing the Bus speed. In real CPUs this happened in the 486 era when Intel started clock-doubling. This especially works well if you have a cache on-chip which can run at your doubled/tripled/etc clock speed, and prevent slow accesses to your now half/one-third/etc-speed Bus. Full-speed on-chip cache in combination with clock-multiplication is what makes the 65F02 fast. It has enough RAM inside it to almost never have to touch main memory, and all the ram inside it runs at 100MHz, vs the previously incredibly slow 1MHz system ram.

Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

186,286,386? Some FPGA could come with L1 + L2 cache, are the new performance results predictable?

The new results could be simulated and compared to a simulated version of the old results, but I'm not remotely smart enough to be able to do that. A cycle-accurate emulator would need to be implemented to be able to check, which is pretty much the same amount of work as implementing the device on an FPGA to begin with.

Nexxen wrote on 2021-11-23, 10:51:

Isn't a BIOS necessary for these new cpus? I can't get around the idea of some support updates.
Or being internally clocked x2/3/4... doesn't need?

Probably wouldn't need a BIOS update as long as it behaves mostly like the original chip. NEC V20/V30 don't need BIOS updates. 486DX2 in a system with a bios that only knows about 486DX doesn't need a bios update to clock-double.

Thanks a lot!
At some point you need to go with a whole new design. It's not only the increase of speed but a combination of factors.
IPC was the death of P4, I remember good old Tom's articles about it.

W.x. wrote on 2021-11-23, 20:52:
cyclone3d wrote on 2021-11-23, 00:40:

But that would have all been done by hand for the most part... now with way more advanced tools and faster computers, things more complex can be made much easier.

There are design tools, etc that can help out a ton. Plus if making something x86, because the instructions are already known it is feasible that somebody could design one from the ground up.

Again, you can design more complex CPU, or even new platform, but you won't make chip in home conditions, that is more advanced, than original one. Your chips would be larger, and thus, generate more heat, etc... How do you want to make more complex chip than 4004 in home condition... with limited budget. Without building a factory, or buying incredible expensive machines.... I've explained it once, it would be profitable only if you would sell thousands of them. For larger factory and machines, you need tons of water and energy. Not only buy machines. You need also personal, that know work with it, you need to buy waffers, pay for water, energy. It would go to millions. Just for making 10 or 20 or maybe 100 chips for 8086, 286 or 386? I just cannot imagine it in reality. Unless you buy machine, that can cost up to 10000$ or 20000$ (for you own money ... but I would guess no such cheap machine exists), and that all with energy, water and cost of waffers, you cannot make new chips, your initial investition needs to be millions to build factory that can produce at least one chip... but then, when you start that power and resource hungry factory, you just need to go and go with new chips, otherwise, it wont pay investition. So to make new 286 or 386 chip, it would possible only if equipment costs several thousands dollars. In reality, noone will pay so much money for enhanced 286 or something, you will need to mass produce it.

Economy stand point, it just costs too much.
Way too much to be a viable solution.

I wasn't saying that it could be produced just that it could be designed.

Last edited by cyclone3d on 2021-11-25, 00:03. Edited 1 time in total.

Yamaha YMF modified setupds and drivers
Yamaha XG resource repository - updated November 27, 2018
Yamaha YMF7x4 Guide
AW744L II - YMF744 - AOpen Cobra Sound Card - Install SB-Link Header

Reply 83 of 134, by CelGen

User metadata
Rank Member
Rank
Member

My only exposure to CPU's emulating other CPU's was the Transmeta Crusoe. A general purpose CPU that depending on which microcode was loaded could emulate virtually ANY cpu. I remember first hearing about it and watching the initial x86 release and was stoked for cheap ALPHA and PowerPC emulation but either because the ISA implementation licensing was too expensive or because the x86 chip was HORRIBLY, HORRIBLY SLOW it never got to any point beyond x86 support.

emot-science.gif "It's science. I ain't gotta explain sh*t" emot-girl.gif

Reply 84 of 134, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

Just thought of something that might have made sense 10 years ago... Bonnell on a slotket.

Edit: Oh before I lose the link again, to back up my BS of earlier in the thread, this is the hobbyist referred to.. https://thenewstack.io/meet-the-college-stude … -his-own-chips/

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 86 of 134, by Nexxen

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Error 0x7CF wrote on 2021-11-25, 21:08:

If there's gonna be new interposers, I want a CT-479 clone to let me install a Pentium M in a P4 board.

That is a nice idea 😀
I once let a 479 motherboard slip away from me for like 15€ because I forgot the end time of the auction. 1 bet only 🙁

PC#1 Pentium 233 MMX - 98SE
PC#2 PIII-1Ghz - 98SE/W2K

Reply 87 of 134, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

It impinged on my consciousness that QFP DX4 100 CPUs are relatively available and not (yet) crazy priced. Therefore there seems to be a marginal opportunity to put them on PCB interposers with 5V to ~3V regulators on for a few hundred piece run of DX4-100 overdrive equivalents.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 89 of 134, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

I am gonna assume that's a multi layer board since there don't appear to be enough connections on either the top or bottom.

Unicorn herding operations are proceeding, but all the totes of hens teeth and barrels of rocking horse poop give them plenty of hiding spots.

Reply 90 of 134, by rmay635703

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
BitWrangler wrote on 2021-11-30, 19:33:

I am gonna assume that's a multi layer board since there don't appear to be enough connections on either the top or bottom.

I was always disappointed there wasn’t a 286 version with ram onboard

I wonder if any aboveboard 286 clones were made?

Reply 91 of 134, by Sphere478

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
rmay635703 wrote on 2021-11-30, 19:21:

Whatvare those square chips?

Sphere's PCB projects.
-
Sphere’s socket 5/7 cpu collection.
-
SUCCESSFUL K6-2+ to K6-3+ Full Cache Enable Mod
-
Tyan S1564S to S1564D single to dual processor conversion (also s1563 and s1562)

Reply 93 of 134, by 1ST1

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
bakemono wrote on 2021-11-11, 06:17:

An FPGA CPU would be hard pressed to out perform existing Pentiums on socket 5.

Nice idea... A team of some crazy guys did that already.

But not based on x86 processor, but based on Motorola 68060. The project is called Apollo 68080 as it even enhance the 68060 by speed , functionality and compatibility (to older CPUs of the 680x0 line). With one of the more expensive FPGA they reach a speed of about 300 MHz. That 68080 is designed to replace a standard 68000, but until now they only got it to work in the small Amiga machines, not in Atari ST or Mac.

For Pentiums or 486 a speed 300 Mhz would be impressive. But on the other side, faster historic PCs are not that difficult to get.

Reply 94 of 134, by Gustl

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Guten Abend
Ich habe hier einen Adapter mit den man fpga2 CPUs auf fpga Mainboards bestücken kann ohne selber löten und Kabel ziehen muss.Siehe Bilder
--- GOOGLE TRANSLATE ---
Good evening
I have an adapter with which you can equip fpga2 CPUs on fpga mainboards without having to solder and pull cables yourself. See pictures

Attachments

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-12-02, 00:50. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 95 of 134, by Gustl

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Es ist natürlich nicht zu vergleichen mit einer neuen CPU aber es erleichtert die Sache.
--- GOOGLE TRANSLATE ---
Of course, it can't be compared to a new CPU, but it makes things easier.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-12-02, 00:51. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 96 of 134, by weedeewee

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
Gustl wrote on 2021-12-01, 16:15:
Guten Abend Ich habe hier einen Adapter mit den man fpga2 CPUs auf fpga Mainboards bestücken kann ohne selber löten und Kabel zi […]
Show full quote

Guten Abend
Ich habe hier einen Adapter mit den man fpga2 CPUs auf fpga Mainboards bestücken kann ohne selber löten und Kabel ziehen muss.Siehe Bilder
--- GOOGLE TRANSLATE ---
Good evening
I have an adapter with which you can equip fpga2 CPUs on fpga mainboards without having to solder and pull cables yourself. See pictures

That has nothing to do with fpga cpu's (field programmable gated arrays) nor is it an adapter for such cpus.
That looks like an adapter to support tualatin cpu's on mainboards that do not necessarily support tualatin cpu's.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-12-02, 00:51. Edited 1 time in total.

Right to repair is fundamental. You own it, you're allowed to fix it.
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
Do not ask Why !

Reply 99 of 134, by Doornkaat

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
Gustl wrote on 2021-12-01, 16:15:
Guten Abend Ich habe hier einen Adapter mit den man fpga2 CPUs auf fpga Mainboards bestücken kann ohne selber löten und Kabel zi […]
Show full quote

Guten Abend
Ich habe hier einen Adapter mit den man fpga2 CPUs auf fpga Mainboards bestücken kann ohne selber löten und Kabel ziehen muss.Siehe Bilder
--- GOOGLE TRANSLATE ---
Good evening
I have an adapter with which you can equip fpga2 CPUs on fpga mainboards without having to solder and pull cables yourself. See pictures

The adaptor is known and does indeed require some soldering and removing of pins. It's just a cleaner variant to the Tualatin wire mods.

Der Adapter ist bekannt und benötigt tatsächlich etwas löten und erfordert, Pins zu entfernen. Er ist eigentlich nur eine sauberere Alternative zu den Drahtmods an den Tualatins.

Last edited by Stiletto on 2021-12-02, 00:52. Edited 1 time in total.