Talk:Motorola 6809

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
 This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.
 
WikiProject Video games (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

SIMM, DIMM?[edit]

what do simm dimm stand for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.4.80.2 (talk) 08:31, 10 October 2002 (UTC)

Single inline memory module, and dual inline memory odule respectively. Why the question here, rather than the reference desk? ww 04:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

650x comparisons[edit]

Sure, the processors came out in roughly the same time period, had several designers in common, and similar design criteria - but the 650x is hardly a clone of the 6809. They're useful to compare and contrast, but they're hardly identical. What's the fascination with clamining one's a clone of the other? --moof 04:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The 6502 was an outgrowth of the earlier 6800. Chuck Peddle and people eventually ended up at MOS Technology, and their first effort the 6500 was deemed too close to the 6800 and an infringement on Motorola's design. It actually had little to do with the 6809, whose design was influenced by an analysis of large amounts of 6800 assembly code. The 6502 was used in many of the early machines (the KIM-1 (and other trainers), various Commodores, the Ataris, Apple I and II, ...) not for its great virtues as an architecture (quite limited, really), but because it was priced much lower than the somewhat comparable competition. As near as I could tell at the time, no such fascination was justified. ww 04:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

8MHz 68B09??[edit]

I´ve found a MC68B09P connected to a 7.3728 chrystal on an old circuitboard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.228.208.41 (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The internal clock is the crystal frequency divided by 4, so that 68B09P is running at 1.8432MHz. --Lamune (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Performance?[edit]

How does the 6809 compare to other CPUs of the time in terms of real-world performance per MHz? Please add this info if you have it. -- 92.229.88.194 (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Because of Motorola's choices on the relation between memory cycles and the CPU clock, other CPUs of the time had higher clocks (Z80 got up to 6MHz, IIRC) which made the 6800 and 6809 CPUs seem slow. However, each memory cycle in the Intel style processors (8080, 8085, z-80 etc) took many clock cycles. depending on the instruction. In addition, 6809 instructions were relatively more useful on a stand alone basis; the equivalent in other CPUs was often needing two or three instructions.
So the answer to your question is not easy to discern. the 68xx 8-bit ships were much faster than people expected from clock speeds alone, but also gained relative speed for more obscure reasons. The answer is fast, faster than many competitors, even at the lower clock rate.
Byte did an article which attempted to address this by creating a VAX-11 equivalent rating. They attempted ot normalize various differences, in a fuzzy atricle -- common in most of these benchmarking disputes. IIRC, the 6809 placed high, but not at the very top of the pile.
The 40MHz 6809 emulator running on x86 is likely faster than anything of the period, by an order of magnitude or two. ww (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
What was the title and author of that Byte article?
Are you perhaps alluding to the VAX unit of performance (VUP)? --DavidCary (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Heavy stress on position independant code[edit]

I can't see where the heavy stress on position independant code comes from. The 6809 and the 8086 both have relative branches and relative 16 bit calls. In fact with the use of segment registers reposition code is easier on the 8086 or even unnecessary. These were at the time competitors as were os9 and MS-DOS. I feel uncomfortable rephrasing this, but it doesn't feel right. (Of course OS9 did accommodate p.i.c.) 80.100.243.19 (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please fix reference[edit]

I have added the official Motorola programming manual as reference. This should be moved from Further reading to (preferably the first) reference, because it is *the* primordial source on the 6809 instruction set. It is also referenced where I mention the assis09. Please help, because I don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.100.243.19 (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

version numbers of processors conflict with what they can do more or less[edit]

if you have a 6809 E processor you have a processor brand say 6809 and the E stands for External Clock.

if you have a 6203 processor it is supposed to be an earlier processor. So it's instruction set could be less complicated.

It's a FACT processors which have a higher number are supposed to be more intelligent. Because why should you add the higher number without upgrades to the processor possibilities. The article is riddled with wrong processor numbers who would be perform less than the higher version ones. It would be good this should be repaired in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.0.77 (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Motorola 6809. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Example code[edit]

It would be nice to add an example subroutine, such as the strtolower() example used for some of the other microprocessors (e.g., 6502, 80386, 68000, etc.). — Loadmaster (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

One of the first with a multiply instruction?[edit]

The TMS9900 (1975) and 8086 (1976) both had multiply instructions before the 6809. Heck, those two processors also had divide instructions as well. I believe even the 68000 came out before the 6809. Now, if you say "first 8 bit processor with a multiply instruction," sure. All the others I just mentioned were 16 bit CPUs. Being 4th, when the others beat you by years, stretches the title "one of the first." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:15C:2C0:4:41E6:D39C:32A0:34EC (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Motorola_6809&oldid=937324377"