Overview Features Coding ApolloOS Performance Forum Downloads Products Order Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.
Please visit our Apollo-Discord Server for support.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Information about the Apollo CPU and FPU.

68080

Daniel Sevo

Posts 299
03 Jul 2016 18:52


I've seen a couple of posts where the Apollo Core is referred to as the 68080. It's a logical name of course, but will it be used officially? Would Freescale lawyers have an opinion about it?
  Or is it "Apollo 68080"?
 
  Philips did have an official license for its modified 68000 but I always wondered how Motorola let them use the 68070 name..
  By the time made its custom 68k CPU for the CDi, the Motorola 68040 was already out.
 
 
 
 
 


John Heritage

Posts 111
03 Jul 2016 21:55


68080 is interesting for this Apollo core.

68000 --> 68040 takes it to full pipelining, and integrated FPU
68040 --> 68060 adds 2-way superscalar
68060 --> 68080 for 4-way superscalar sounds reasonable.  although Apollo core also has 64-bit ALU..  (and presumably 64-bit bus?)

It almost sounds like 68080 is selling it sure..  + the 8080 in the name is a bit weird sounding to me..

Awesome CPU guys! 


Keith Beard

Posts 22
03 Jul 2016 22:41


@Daniel Sevo

Daniel Sevo wrote:

I've seen a couple of posts where the Apollo Core is referred to as the 68080. It's a logical name of course, but will it be used officially? Would Freescale lawyers have an opinion about it?
  Or is it "Apollo 68080"?
 
  Philips did have an official license for its modified 68000 but I always wondered how Motorola let them use the 68070 name..
  By the time made its custom 68k CPU for the CDi, the Motorola 68040 was already out.

Since Freescale / Motorola never sold a product called "Apollo 68080" they wouldn't have much (if any) legal weight in this matter.

The Apollo 68080 (sixy-eight 'o eighty) is a 68000 binary compatible processor, there are a few out binary compatible processors / processing units out in the wild for the 68k Motorola its so embedded its in anything that Z80 or an Arm is not in!

have a look at the Wishbone project - EXTERNAL LINK ao68000 -

Obviously not as advanced as the Apollo 68080 project here - but then its aims are different.



Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
04 Jul 2016 03:08


Errr, uhhmmmm, yeah. I know a little about this.

I was upset when intel (not that I like them) changed their CPU name from 80386, 80486, 80586, *cough* *cough*, pentium; pentium pro (etc.), BECAUSE they couldn't copyright "80586" and saw that AMD (and others?) was making references to that and couldn't stop them.

So, I would say that they could use almost any number they want to, but I really like referring to Apollo Core as "68080".

AMIGA (OS) powered by 68080 F.T.W.!!!!!!


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
04 Jul 2016 03:13


Keith Beard wrote:

The Apollo 68080 (sixy-eight 'o eighty) is a 68000 binary compatible processor, there are a few out binary compatible processors / processing units out in the wild for the 68k Motorola its so embedded its in anything that Z80 or an Arm is not in!

Several laser printers were made with various 680x0 processors.... I'd love to see one operate with a 68080 ASIC jammed in there!!!



Martin Soerensen

Posts 232
04 Jul 2016 07:51


I think the Apollo should just be called 680x0 since it is compatible with all 68k's. :)

Or maybe 680A0 (A for Apollo)?


Mr-Z EdgeOfPanic

Posts 189
04 Jul 2016 08:13


Martin Soerensen wrote:

  I think the Apollo should just be called 680x0 since it is compatible with all 68k's. :)
 
  Or maybe 680A0 (A for Apollo)?
 

 
  Nah I like 68080 better, I really see it as the successor to the 68060.
  And it sounds cooler :)
 


Teemu Korvenpää

Posts 26
04 Jul 2016 11:12


all those are ok if it doesent violate any law...


Roman S.

Posts 149
04 Jul 2016 17:53


It used to be called N070, 68050, N68050, 68070 and probably several other ways. Now it is 68080, half a year from now it will be 69000, two years from now something else... In fact, I don't really care how it is named - what it delivers counts :)


Daniel Sevo

Posts 299
04 Jul 2016 23:00


Roman S. wrote:

It used to be called N070, 68050, N68050, 68070 and probably several other ways. Now it is 68080, half a year from now it will be 69000, two years from now something else... In fact, I don't really care how it is named - what it delivers counts :)

It's a re-implementation (and improvement) of the68k instruction set, naming it 69k wouldn't make much sense ;-)
Considering what it does and how it does it, 68080 is a suitable name. "A68080" should be "kind of safe" to use, legally speaking (as opposed to MC68080)
Not sure what these ppl are selling btw ;-)
EXTERNAL LINK 


John Heritage

Posts 111
05 Jul 2016 15:49


68K100 might be appropriate here.. 

It's 68000 compatible.

It's at least two generations more advanced than 68060 (64-bit instructions, 4-way superscalar ALU, fully pipelined FPU, improved memory controller). 

Later the 100 could become a 400 for the '4x faster A1200' version, or even just 68K140 ..


Thierry Atheist

Posts 644
05 Jul 2016 18:03


The BEST part of this conversation is that over 1,000 people have told me that this, "would NEVER EVER EVER happen".


Daniel Sevo

Posts 299
06 Jul 2016 22:49


John Heritage wrote:

68K100 might be appropriate here.. 
 
  It's 68000 compatible.
 
  It's at least two generations more advanced than 68060 (64-bit instructions, 4-way superscalar ALU, fully pipelined FPU, improved memory controller). 
 
  Later the 100 could become a 400 for the '4x faster A1200' version, or even just 68K140 ..

Fair enough, it probably is more than one generation above the 060. I suspect a Motorola "080" /part would have gotten SIMD extensions and probably pipelined FPU but it was too early for 64-bit. It lacks MMU though, for the Amiga community its not a big deal, but objectively speaking, as a CPU design for anyone else, it would probably be considered a "must have feature"...



Manuel Jesus

Posts 155
13 Jul 2016 23:08


It really is a dream come true type of project. I have been talking to old timers that left the scene and are considering coming back.


Gregthe Canuck

Posts 274
14 Jul 2016 10:51


Yes this project is *very* cool.

The most recent silver7 core was a big leap forward. Can't wait to see what the team has in store for silver8. :)



Mr-Z EdgeOfPanic

Posts 189
14 Jul 2016 13:19


Silver 7 is an another leap forward indeed, and some cool leaps to come (FPU,AGA emulation,boot from SD etc) :-)


John Heritage

Posts 111
14 Jul 2016 16:38


Manuel Jesus wrote:

It really is a dream come true type of project. I have been talking to old timers that left the scene and are considering coming back.

+1 to this.  These guys deserve some kind of Hero status.  What is the last time a major processor core has been taken and advanced without serious corporate or government funding?.  This is a serious achievement by the team here and they should be proud.

posts 17