flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > home-built

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1606
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
somebody do this! Wink :

http://www.diycalculator.com/sp-hrrgcomp.shtml
http://www.holmea.demon.co.uk/Mk1/Architecture.htm
http://members.iinet.net.au/~daveb/simplex/simplex.html
http://www.galacticelectronics.com/Simple4BitCPU.HTML

[ i just do not wish to continue that topic in the test area, and i have not met there cpus on transistors with GHz clocks Smile ]

_________________
UNICODE forever!
Post 12 Nov 2007, 15:36
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Thank you very much shoorick, I enjoyed reading about the
Heath Robinson Rube Goldberg Computer, as described in the first reference. I especially found the photograph, there, of the wooden clock, fascinating.
My interest is not that far away from these guys. I seek a modern implementation of an ultra simple cpu. They seek an ultra simple implementation of an ancient computer design. We are similarly confused people!!
Smile
Post 12 Nov 2007, 16:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
I will seek the same soon...

The next logical step is to have my own modern 32bits CPU.

Maybe we could cooperate on this issue.
Post 12 Nov 2007, 17:34
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
I've done that type of work in the past. I designed/built mini-computers with all ttl logic. In some cases we had an alu chip but there was one time we had an all ttl alu. Some of those handwired boards were nothing compared to what we did.

I find it amazing to myself to think back and wonder how I got all that done and how did I find the time to do it.
Post 13 Nov 2007, 03:54
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1606
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
i think best work did Motorola. as far as i do know by Soviet clones, it produced parts for sectioned CPU-s. i even read in old Soviet magazine about 286 reproducing with these parts (there was time when modern cpu exporting to us was restricted and their price was astronomic here Wink )
Post 13 Nov 2007, 05:43
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
I have also build many computers with my "bare hands" . 6 or 7 of them I think and I have also debugged them with a logic probe and a scope.

I used TLL chips, ROMs and RAMs but the CPU was always a prefabricated one even if it was a "small" Z80. So i never did my own CPU from TLL logic. I know how to do it but never did it "bare hands".

Romania did have a CPU factory during the communist times.

I do not like the Motorola architecture or the RISC "concepts". AFAIK Intel did a good/great job with his CPU's (maybe Zilog did slightly better at times). Lately Intel started to get "infected" by RISC concepts and probably will "loose it" in the long run.
Post 13 Nov 2007, 07:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
To the contrary, we despised the Intel architecture and loved Motorola's. I can't think of a single person who had anything positive to say about Intel back then. I agree the Z80 was much better than Intel, too.
Post 13 Nov 2007, 14:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
Dr. Fine wrote:
...I can't think of a single person who had anything positive to say about Intel back then.....
And, correct me if I am in error, but further, we also (relatively) disliked IBM, and liked DEC. In fact, in my opinion, maybe I am in error also on this point, the Motorola 32 bit cpu, 68020, so far as I am aware, was modeled after the DEC VAX cpu. Certainly, to this day, I prefer the old way of programming the VAX in assembly language to the 80x86. What I hope to devise is a cpu which takes advantage of the tremendous opportunity to exploit memory, which we did not have three decades ago, when these cpu architectures were devised, including the 80x86. Back then, the mantra was all about SAVING memory, and reducing execution times. Today, we should be harnessing the cheap memory, to access huge data bases via USB flash memory storage devices, so that computations become problems in looking up tables stored in memory. CPU architecture without FPU or even arithmetic instructions!!! Programming then becomes a matter of assigning operands to tabular coordinates! Such a cpu design will turn the entire industry upside down. It is only possible because of the incredible advances in electronics. We, on the software end of things, are a full three decades behind the times.....
Smile
Post 13 Nov 2007, 17:42
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
Quote:

To the contrary, we despised the Intel architecture and loved Motorola's. I can't think of a single person who had anything positive to say about Intel back then.


Well, You have found one such person.

I honestly believe Intel CPU to be the much better design and implementation of a CPU when compared to Motorola and other RISC architectures.

I can think of a few improvements to Intel CPU but overall they did a very good job.

Alternatively other CPU's are very poor in design and features (unless they do copy Intel that is).
Post 13 Nov 2007, 19:09
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
bogdan: you think Intel x86 is better design than ARM for example?!? If ARM CPU would be manufactured to run at same frequency x86 CPUs do, it would heavily outperform x86
Post 13 Nov 2007, 19:12
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
shoorick



Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 1606
Location: Ukraine
shoorick
some cool things (esp. clock Smile )
http://www.homebrewcpu.com/projects.htm
Post 14 Nov 2007, 09:40
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
vid wrote:
bogdan: you think Intel x86 is better design than ARM for example?!?


YES I do. ARM is pathetic in many aspects.

Quote:

If ARM CPU would be manufactured to run at same frequency x86 CPUs do, it would heavily outperform x86


I do not think so.

_________________
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger,
more complex, and more violent.
It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage --
to move in the opposite direction."
Post 14 Nov 2007, 12:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
f0dder



Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3170
Location: Denmark
f0dder
There's problems with Intel CPUs, as well as the architecture it runs on...

Among CPU problems are ridiculous low amount of general-purpose registers, very clunky opcode map, instructions that run slower than bunch-of-other-instructions (ie., either make LOOP as fast as dec+jnz, or remove it from the cpu), pmode structures that are fucked because they need to be 286-compatible, segmentation, no destination-register in instructions, instructions that have fixed registers, hardware task switching being too slow, etc etc etc.

x64 makes up for some of it, but it's not good enough.

Arch problems include piss-poor DMA support (give me generic DMA, thank you please), piss-poor PIC/PIT, legacy BIOS with poor functionality and lots of confusion when you mix IDE, SATA, SCSI/RAID drives, ...
Post 14 Nov 2007, 12:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
disagreeing with the prevalent anti-Intel-cpu-design attitude among MOST hardware engineers of the late 1970's, Bogdan wrote:
Well, You have found one such person.
I suspect that, contrary to what you have written, you wish to assert disagreement TODAY about this position, or do I err in assuming your age to be younger than 40???...Even Mozart was insufficiently precocious to write symphonies until age 7 or 8. Do you wish to proclaim today, having expressed earnest support of the Intel cpu design in the late 1970's, i.e. thirty years ago, when you were, what, ten years old???? I confess having had interest ONLY in Motorola, at that time, because of having worked with the 6800 in 1977, but, I never really examined the Intel architecture, because it was adopted by the much detested IBM. The best system, in my opinion, at that time, was Apple's for they had completely open documentation, and the 6502 was absolutely transparent. IBM on the other hand was notorious for hiding details, so, I never really examined Intel's mess until ten years later, after the 80386 emerged. I thought then, and still today, that the 1982 released 80286 is SO primitive, compared with Motorola's counterpart, the 68020, which came on the scene two years later. In retrospect, I really find NOTHING to admire, and EVERYTHING to despise about the original Intel cpu design. The 8086 possesses not even one single redeeming feature, in my opinion. If the same money had been pumped into Motorola, instead of Intel, thirty years ago, there never would have been any segments, nor "protected mode" to worry about, for Motorola's 68000 had separate lines for data and address, and with the emergence of the 68020 in 1984, there were 32 separate lines both for data and address. What a shame that IBM adopted Intel's less expensive to manufacture cpu, instead. Always short sighted, quick profit oriented. Typical of USA manufactured anything.
shoorick wrote:
some cool things (esp. clock ...
Thanks!!! I needed cheering up, after reflecting on all the hardship this moronic Intel design has cost. How many billions of dollars have been wasted because of errors in that original design? How many thousands of people have wasted their lives studying how to overcome the limitations of such an utterly nonsensical approach, based on the faulty logic that one enhances security by employing segments. Just the name "protected mode" sends chills down my spine.
Sad
Post 14 Nov 2007, 13:03
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
bogdanontanu



Joined: 07 Jan 2004
Posts: 403
Location: Sol. Earth. Europe. Romania. Bucuresti
bogdanontanu
Quote:

or do I err in assuming your age to be younger than 40???


Yes, I am older than 40... apparently I do look younger for "unknown" reasons Very Happy
Post 14 Nov 2007, 13:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
drhowarddrfine



Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 535
drhowarddrfine
Tom and f0dder understand the same things I knew.
Quote:

apparently I do look younger for "unknown" reasons

When I was 18, everyone thought I was 23. When I was 23, everyone thought I was 18. Now that I'm 55, everyone thinks I'm 45. I like it that way.
Post 14 Nov 2007, 14:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
edfed



Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 4240
Location: 2018
edfed
Shocked Very Happy Idea
Post 14 Nov 2007, 14:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar. Also on YouTube, Twitter.

Website powered by rwasa.