23 Nov
2007
23 Nov
'07
11:18 a.m.
On Friday 23 November 2007 13:42, woodelf wrote:
Roy J. Tellason wrote:
No No No ... Use the CPLD design I am working on ( No floating point :( )
and have a machine at 5.33 MHZ (750 ns memory cycle).
See faster than a Pee-cee at 4.77 MHZ :)
Hard to say if it is faster than a Pee-cee as who knows how fast the PC
runs with its pre-fetch buffer.
Ben alias woodelf
PS. And with every byte you get a free extra nibble over the PC.
With octal digits your 256 KB of memory looks even more impressive
than 5 hexadecimal digits. Well ok you could have 23 bits of address
but I want to keep this in era of 16K dram chips and 256Kb is very large.
You're welcome to, if that's what you wanna do, but even old CP/M boxes were
much nicer when you had a whole bunch of RAM to work with. And there's this
division between stuff I play with, on the one hand, and stuff I just
*use*, on the other...
A guy sent me 1G of ram, sitting here in 4 sticks. I haven't decided yet
which box I'm gonna put it in, but I can't even picture how much bigger a
pile that would amount to (never mind suppor hardware, board space, and
power requirements) if one wanted to implement that in 16K parts.
--
Member of the toughest, meanest, deadliest, most unrelenting -- and
ablest -- form of life in this section of space, ?a critter that can
be killed but can't be tamed. ?--Robert A. Heinlein, "The Puppet Masters"
-
Information is more dangerous than cannon to a society ruled by lies. --James
M Dakin
....but
if I'd done that I'd have used a 68K instead of that Intel
garbage IBM chose.... ;-)
Ditto.