4 ms·

I always wondered what it would be like if Commodore had serious co processors, but the base Commodore is really too slow for anything like that. Could you imag

I always wondered what it would be like if Commodore had serious co processors, but the base Commodore is really too slow for anything like that. Could you imagine a Voodoo 2? I think the SNES was only about 10mhz as well and used the FX math co-processor for 3d.

wmf 1y ago
IMO in those days money would have been better spend on a faster CPU than coprocessors. That's assuming you're using the computer as a computer not as a game console.
- neuroelectron 1y ago
  Yes but think of the Commodore of the trusted, known and completely grokable system that orchestrates the co-processors. Then you can run LLMs or whatever data-intensive task you like. Still, all that data has to go through the CPU bus.
- bitwize 1y ago
  Even then, the Commodore Plus/4 could do some pretty sophisticated gaming, even without the dedicated sprites of the VIC-II -- simply because the CPU was about twice as fast as the C64's. An example: https://psytronik.itch.io/pets-rescue https://psytronik.itch.io/pets-rescue Anyway, that's blasphemy to a Commodore fan, especially an Amiga fan, to whom good system design consists of having amazing custom silicon for which the CPU is a mere mediator. After all, if a faster CPU were really all you needed, the PC wouldn't suck as much as it does! This school of thought won out in the end, as most of the compute in today's high-performance applications (like AI) is done on the GPU, the CPU's role being to transfer programs and data to the GPU, basically a front-end processor to the actual computer which is made by NVIDIA.
robotresearcher 1y ago
We found out a bit later, with Amiga.
leptons 1y ago
>had serious co processors What decade do you think this computer is from? "Serious co processors" in 1982 wasn't a thing.
- timknauf 1y ago
  Maybe not in 1982, but as other commenters have pointed out, by 1985 you had the Amiga, which definitely DID have serious co-processors.
PlunderBunny 1y ago
The BBC Micro (6502B at 2MHz I think) had an interface for adding second processors. I don’t know much about them. I wonder how much the interface added to the cost?

wmf 1y ago

IMO in those days money would have been better spend on a faster CPU than coprocessors. That's assuming you're using the computer as a computer not as a game console.

neuroelectron 1y ago
Yes but think of the Commodore of the trusted, known and completely grokable system that orchestrates the co-processors. Then you can run LLMs or whatever data-intensive task you like. Still, all that data has to go through the CPU bus.
bitwize 1y ago
Even then, the Commodore Plus/4 could do some pretty sophisticated gaming, even without the dedicated sprites of the VIC-II -- simply because the CPU was about twice as fast as the C64's. An example: https://psytronik.itch.io/pets-rescue https://psytronik.itch.io/pets-rescue Anyway, that's blasphemy to a Commodore fan, especially an Amiga fan, to whom good system design consists of having amazing custom silicon for which the CPU is a mere mediator. After all, if a faster CPU were really all you needed, the PC wouldn't suck as much as it does! This school of thought won out in the end, as most of the compute in today's high-performance applications (like AI) is done on the GPU, the CPU's role being to transfer programs and data to the GPU, basically a front-end processor to the actual computer which is made by NVIDIA.

robotresearcher 1y ago

We found out a bit later, with Amiga.

leptons 1y ago

>had serious co processors What decade do you think this computer is from? "Serious co processors" in 1982 wasn't a thing.

timknauf 1y ago
Maybe not in 1982, but as other commenters have pointed out, by 1985 you had the Amiga, which definitely DID have serious co-processors.

PlunderBunny 1y ago

The BBC Micro (6502B at 2MHz I think) had an interface for adding second processors. I don’t know much about them. I wonder how much the interface added to the cost?