Your relations with CPUs in assembly level

TmEE co.(TM) · Post by **TmEE co.(TM)** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 10:38 am

Recently I've messed a lot with Z80 (you all know why), and I really really hate 8-bits at time (with few exceptions) !!! But I need to suck it up as otherwise I would not have music and sound effects in my games.

680x0 is a way different, I really really love it. It is so flexible and capable, my Z80 sound driver in 68000 would be least 4 times shorter.

x86 is nice, but 68000 is nicer. And I'm pretty sure I don't fully utilize the possibilities of 386+ code in my asm lib for QB (not seen a good ASM tutorial)... x86 is much more pain than 68K, but not as much as Z80.

So giving points to each CPU I'm familiar with (soon I will know ARM and SH) (10 max):

68000 - 10
x86 - 7
Z80 - 5

EDIT : I forgot other CPU in poll !!!

elan · Post by **elan** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:23 am

Can run SMS mode (Z80) on MD (flashcart)??? I mean no SMS convertor...

Stef · Post by **Stef** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:06 pm

I replied 68000 because i think it was nicely done and powerful for a 1978's cpu. However i did very few asm for 68k (unlike x86).

Shiru · Post by **Shiru** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:37 pm

I replied ARM, because it only CPU in this list which I likes much. Though I wrote code for all these CPU's except SH (mostly for 8080/Z80/x86). I learned M68K after ARM and some other RISC CPU's, so it not impressed me much, although it's good CPU, of course. Can't say anything bad about 8080 etc family though. All these CPU's just requires different approach to work with them.

Stef · Post by **Stef** » Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:03 pm

Shiru wrote:I replied ARM, because it only CPU in this list which I likes much. Though I wrote code for all these CPU's except SH (mostly for 8080/Z80/x86). I learned M68K after ARM and some other RISC CPU's, so it not impressed me much, although it's good CPU, of course. Can't say anything bad about 8080 etc family though. All these CPU's just requires different approach to work with them.

68000 was imo very advanced when you compare it to others CPU at this date (1979, not 1978 as i mentionned before) : Intel had only 8086 and 8088.

8086 :
- 8 16 bits register
- 8/16 bits operations
- 20 bits address bus (1 MB)
- 29000 transistors

68000 :
- 16 32 bits registers + flag register
- 8/16/32 bits operation
- 24 bits address bus (16 MB)
- 68000 transistors

ARM cpu aren't bad too : cheap, fast, low power consumption.

Chilly Willy · Post by **Chilly Willy** » Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:42 am

My two favorites are the 68000 (did a LOT of Amiga programming in assembly), and the 6502 (did a LOT of Atari programming in assembly). The 6502 may not have had many registers, but it was a VERY flexible chip due to the addressing modes it had. It was also a fast chip, too.

Going from the 680x0 to the x86 was a real downer. The x86 sucks bad, comparatively speaking. AMD took care of some of the concerns with the AMD64 extension. Programming in long mode is almost as nice as programming the 680x0, and it only took two decades (and a different company) for the x86 to reach that level!

cdoty · Post by **cdoty** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:31 am

I luves me some 68000! It's my second tongue!

Arm would be second, but I don't use it enough to be really comfortable with it.

ob1 · Post by **ob1** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:34 am

I'm a RISC-man. And SH seems more easy than ARM.
So ...
but much love to 68k
and ARM
... but definitely not x86 !

By the way http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/show ... 138&pgno=1. Especially, it says that only 5% of embedded projects are in assembly. C rules, but it is thought in an offshore way :(

SpritesMind.Net

Your relations with CPUs in assembly level

Your favourite CPU

Your relations with CPUs in assembly level