What chip speed should be used for this project?
eZ80 20 MHZ
 6%  [ 1 ]
eZ80 50 MHZ
 26%  [ 4 ]
eZ80 50 MHZ, underclockable to 20 MHZ
 66%  [ 10 ]
Total Votes : 15

Note that voting for this will end at the end of Monday (8/9)!

Hello Cemetechians!

A couple of updates to the well known explosive calculator project:

1) The calc's project codename is Project Blue Lobster.
2) The wiki is located at http://otcalc.wikidot.com/.
3) Most of the discussions is going on at:
http://www.omnimaga.org/index.php?board=118.0
4) Everyone gets to vote! Smile
5) There are 2 branches to the project: OTZ80 and OTARM. OTZ80 is obviously a Z80 calc, and OTARM is an ARM based calc. OTZ80 competes with the TI-8x series, and OTARM competes with the TI Nspire.
6) OTZ80 will use the eZ80 chip.
7) Now we're deciding what the speed should be for the chip. The eZ80 is sold in 2 speeds: 20 MHZ and 50 MHZ. That's the poll for this topic! Smile
Cool There's a little question: Is the Z80 underclockable?

Vote away! Smile Be sure to remember that this is being sold to the public.
Battery life, etc. should be taken into account!

P.S. Sorry for leaving you guys out! If you have any objections to the eZ80, please tell me now!
Vegeta, what does the scouter say about the 59 MHZ's speed?

IT'S OVER 9000! (and underclockable I think, but perhaps not to 20 MHZ, but, what do I know?)
alberthrocks wrote:
Hello Cemetechians!

A couple of updates to the well known explosive calculator project:

1) The calc's project codename is Project Blue Lobster.
Facepalm.
alberthrocks wrote:
2) The wiki is located at http://otcalc.wikidot.com/.

alberthrocks wrote:
3) Most of the discussions is going on at:
http://www.omnimaga.org/index.php?board=118.0
We should have lots of discussions here too. Smile
alberthrocks wrote:
4) Everyone gets to vote! Smile
Huzzah!
alberthrocks wrote:
5) There are 2 branches to the project: OTZ80 and OTARM. OTZ80 is obviously a Z80 calc, and OTARM is an ARM based calc. OTZ80 competes with the TI-8x series, and OTARM competes with the TI Nspire.
Why divide and conquer? I feel that splits already-thin resources too much.
alberthrocks wrote:
6) OTZ80 will use the eZ80 chip.
Fair enough.
alberthrocks wrote:
7) Now we're deciding what the speed should be for the chip. The eZ80 is sold in 2 speeds: 20 MHZ and 50 MHZ. That's the poll for this topic! Smile
Difference in speed yields what ? price? features?
alberthrocks wrote:
Cool There's a little question: Is the Z80 underclockable?

Vote away! Smile Be sure to remember that this is being sold to the public.
Battery life, etc. should be taken into account!

P.S. Sorry for leaving you guys out! If you have any objections to the eZ80, please tell me now!
Well, can you offer a brief outline of the reasoning?
Kerm, a 50 MHZ will use more battery, thats why (but it is faster/ more powerful)
@KermMartian:

1) Yes we will, no worries! Smile
2) Because we're going against 2 calcs. No worries though - we're more or less focusing on the OTZ80 first, then the OTASM.
3) It differs in just price, but also battery life.

Note that the eZ80 is actually a lot faster than a regular Z80. As I've heard, it takes "less cycles" (or something of the sort).

Which leads to my question: is there any way to underclock the Z80?
We could choose the 50 MHZ one, and to save energy, downclock it to 20 MHZ or less when unneeded.
alberthrocks wrote:
@KermMartian:

1) Yes we will, no worries! Smile
2) Because we're going against 2 calcs. No worries though - we're more or less focusing on the OTZ80 first, then the OTASM.
3) It differs in just price, but also battery life.

Note that the eZ80 is actually a lot faster than a regular Z80. As I've heard, it takes "less cycles" (or something of the sort).

Which leads to my question: is there any way to underclock the Z80?
We could choose the 50 MHZ one, and to save energy, downclock it to 20 MHZ or less when unneeded.
(*OTARM, not OTASM?) Sounds good, I'm glad to hear that it has a lower CPI than the original z80. What are the prices in small (ie, non-bulk) quantities for the 50MHz and 20MHz options? If no one looked at the datasheet yet to check underclockability, I'd be happy to do so.
Yeah, I meant OTARM, sorry! Smile

Prices range from $6 to $14.

Main area here: http://digikey.com/PTM/PTMPartList.page?site=us&lang=en&ptm=6200&WT.z_ptm_structured=Buy%20Now%20Button
Chips here: http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Selection&c=39&f=205&ptm=6200&site=us&lang=en

Here's a datasheet: http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf-datasheets/Datasheets-41/DSA-808372.html

Enjoy! Smile
Various interesting things I noted while glancing over the data-b-o-o-k- sheet:

:: CPI is 4x the z80, so a 6MHz eZ80 executes code at more or less the same speed as a 24MHz Z80 (almost twice as fast as a TI-83+SE or TI-84+SE, in other words)
:: the eZ80 supports either a z80-style 16-bit, 64K address space, or a large 24-bit, 16M address space. Woohoo.
:: Pipelining! ZOMG!
:: Adds prefetching, hence the pipelining, 3-cycle fetch/decode/execute turns into one cycle. Again ZOMG - a processor that actually uses microprocessor advances from the past 25 years!
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.
:: BC, DE, and HL are 24-bit registers in ADL mode. Shudder.

A search for information about clocking yields no information, but from what I know of CPUs, it's very plausible that the 50MHz model would run in 20MHz mode, but not vice-versa. It would probably just make sense to buy a bunch and test 'em out.
KermMartian wrote:
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.

Exactly what I was thinking! We need not mess with ugly position-independent programs. Instead, we can make them with a fixed ORG and their very own space for data usage. Smile Actually, now that I think about it, this means that each program can have its own RST routines! Think of the possibilities! Very Happy
calc84maniac wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.

Exactly what I was thinking! We need not mess with ugly position-independent programs. Instead, we can make them with a fixed ORG and their very own space for data usage. Smile Actually, now that I think about it, this means that each program can have its own RST routines! Think of the possibilities! Very Happy
Oh, I'm thinking hard about it, fear not. Smile
KermMartian wrote:
calc84maniac wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.

Exactly what I was thinking! We need not mess with ugly position-independent programs. Instead, we can make them with a fixed ORG and their very own space for data usage. Smile Actually, now that I think about it, this means that each program can have its own RST routines! Think of the possibilities! Very Happy
Oh, I'm thinking hard about it, fear not. Smile

The only issue I see with that is how we manage to fit OS routines in that setup, but I'm sure its possible.
We could reserve 2 or 3 of the ram partitions for OS and user data and then use the flash for the rest of user data.
TheStorm wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
calc84maniac wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.

Exactly what I was thinking! We need not mess with ugly position-independent programs. Instead, we can make them with a fixed ORG and their very own space for data usage. Smile Actually, now that I think about it, this means that each program can have its own RST routines! Think of the possibilities! Very Happy
Oh, I'm thinking hard about it, fear not. Smile

The only issue I see with that is how we manage to fit OS routines in that setup, but I'm sure its possible.
We could reserve 2 or 3 of the ram partitions for OS and user data and then use the flash for the rest of user data.

You can call ADL routines from z80 mode quite easily, actually.
calc84maniac wrote:
TheStorm wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
calc84maniac wrote:
KermMartian wrote:
:: About the 24-bit address space: partition 256 TI-83+-size RAM spaces! Imagine the emulation and multithreading possibilities! We could run the kernel in 24-bit (ADL) mode, then task between 16-bit (non-ADL) tasks.

Exactly what I was thinking! We need not mess with ugly position-independent programs. Instead, we can make them with a fixed ORG and their very own space for data usage. Smile Actually, now that I think about it, this means that each program can have its own RST routines! Think of the possibilities! Very Happy
Oh, I'm thinking hard about it, fear not. Smile

The only issue I see with that is how we manage to fit OS routines in that setup, but I'm sure its possible.
We could reserve 2 or 3 of the ram partitions for OS and user data and then use the flash for the rest of user data.

You can call ADL routines from z80 mode quite easily, actually.
Woot Woot.

Also no matter what clock speed we choose we still need the rest of the hardware, one area I'd like BrandonW's input is a USB controller. I mean it shouldn't be to hard to put one on there and if done right we wouldn't have all of the USB issues the 84's have.
I call vaporware on this project.
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
I call vaporware on this project.
That was a given from the start but it might be fun while it lasts. ;P
Ultimate Dev'r wrote:
I call vaporware on this project.
It's the Red Edition/Blue Edition again! Very Happy
Some more info about the project:

1) OS will be coded by SirCmpwn and others
2) Calc has backlight
alberthrocks wrote:
Some more info about the project:

1) OS will be coded by SirCmpwn and others
2) Calc has backlight

I do hope "others" includes me Smile
alberthrocks wrote:
Some more info about the project:

1) OS will be coded by SirCmpwn and others
Are there any tenets of philosophy for the OS construction yet? Any design guidelines?
alberthrocks wrote:
2) Calc has backlight
This is something you'd mentioned a lot and seem pretty adamant about, but no arguments here.
KermMartian wrote:
alberthrocks wrote:
Some more info about the project:

1) OS will be coded by SirCmpwn and others
Are there any tenets of philosophy for the OS construction yet? Any design guidelines?
alberthrocks wrote:
2) Calc has backlight
This is something you'd mentioned a lot and seem pretty adamant about, but no arguments here.


Not really, the main goal is to have something that is 99% of TI's OS, and works similarly with the buttons and such so that OTZ80 is a viable alternative. Smile

====================
Note that voting for this will end at the end of Monday!
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 3
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
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

 

Advertisement