Peter wrote:
The 68030 delivers less instructions per clock than the TG68K.C FPGA core, so I find it pointless. If speed is desired, it has to be the 68060.
Is raw speed really desired ?
I don't know. But you seemed to desire speed, and then the 68030 makes no sense.
Brane2 wrote:I've seen 68SEC000 for $5-ish and 68030 for less than $10.
This makes such projects affordable and thus more likely to see some adoption.
No. An FPGA is needed anyway, so wasting extra money plus board space and design work, only to slow down the machine, is still pointless for me.
Brane2 wrote:
Also, constraints are part of life. Paying mucho $$$ just to expand barrier and then fight them just the same makes little sense after some point.
QL's done on FPGAs will never be able to compete with classic hardware in any real terms.
Hi,
The Q68 is implemented in an FPGA, runs SMSQ/E, which runs all QL software in the so called classic mode.
Brane2 wrote:Also, it doesn't have crucial periphery - decent output to a monitor etc etc.
It has VESA 1024x768 VGA output. IMO still the best standard for retro computing.
Many peripherals, even ethernet with driver support, unlike all other QL hardware.
Brane2 wrote:For this kind of money one can get friggin ECP5 board with double gigabit NIC PHYs, RAM etc. And PCIe slot.
Yes. Go for it and see how QL-style your result will be. If you ever finish something and the evaluation board is still for sale then.
And good luck implementing PCIe and gigabit ethernet on a 68K CPU with QL OS.