Talk:PDP-8 - Revision history

Jnc: /* Clock speed */ Many cases of memory and CPU speeds being different

2019-08-26T15:33:44Z

Clock speed: Many cases of memory and CPU speeds being different

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 26 August 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
	: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

	:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)		:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)

			: The relationship between the two can vary a lot in systems with caches, depending on the hit rate (i.e. application), of course. Also, for systems which have asynchronous memory (many older machines), or variable-speed memory (like later Pentium systems, where the CPU clock and memory bus speed are independent), the two are not inextricably linked. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 17:33, 26 August 2019 (CEST)

Nczempin at 09:09, 26 August 2019

2019-08-26T09:09:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 26 August 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
	: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
			:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)

Jnc: /* Clock speed */ -8 and -8/S are a perfect example

2019-08-23T21:46:32Z

Clock speed: -8 and -8/S are a perfect example

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 23 August 2019
Line 35:		Line 35:
	: And the low-level internal clock is not necessarily "externally visible" - e.g. the multi-phase clocks in the [[LSI-11 chip set]], [[KB11]], etc are completely invisible even at the instruction level.		: And the low-level internal clock is not necessarily "externally visible" - e.g. the multi-phase clocks in the [[LSI-11 chip set]], [[KB11]], etc are completely invisible even at the instruction level.
	: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
			: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

Jnc: We could give both?

2019-08-23T17:40:37Z

We could give both?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 23 August 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:

	:: Not sure I follow the reasoning behind all this. The clock speed is simply the frequency of the clock, which I'm fairly convinced we've deduced to be 1.33 MHz. It is "externally visible", and it the basis for such measures as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_per_instruction "cycles per instruction" ]. Why are we getting rid of it? --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		:: Not sure I follow the reasoning behind all this. The clock speed is simply the frequency of the clock, which I'm fairly convinced we've deduced to be 1.33 MHz. It is "externally visible", and it the basis for such measures as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_per_instruction "cycles per instruction" ]. Why are we getting rid of it? --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

			: I gave the reasoning in [[Template talk:Infobox Machine]], I guess you didn't have a chance to look?
			: The problem is that 'clock speed' doesn't really give a good sense of how fast a machine is (it all depends on how many clock ticks per instruction, which differs from design to design), whereas 'cycle time' is further up the architectural ladder, and so more likely to be something one can compare across machines to give a relative sense (although admittedly it has issues of its own).
			: And the low-level internal clock is not necessarily "externally visible" - e.g. the multi-phase clocks in the [[LSI-11 chip set]], [[KB11]], etc are completely invisible even at the instruction level.
			: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

Nczempin: /* Clock speed */ why remove clock speed?

2019-08-23T16:19:21Z

Clock speed: why remove clock speed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 23 August 2019
Line 28:		Line 28:

	: OK, I've changed the [[Template:Infobox Machine‎\|template]]; will do the article 'soon' (to give people a chance to comment). [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (CEST)		: OK, I've changed the [[Template:Infobox Machine‎\|template]]; will do the article 'soon' (to give people a chance to comment). [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (CEST)

			:: Not sure I follow the reasoning behind all this. The clock speed is simply the frequency of the clock, which I'm fairly convinced we've deduced to be 1.33 MHz. It is "externally visible", and it the basis for such measures as [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycles_per_instruction "cycles per instruction" ]. Why are we getting rid of it? --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

Jnc: /* Clock speed */ template changed

2019-08-22T12:25:35Z

Clock speed: template changed

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 22 August 2019
Line 26:		Line 26:

	So really most instructions will be one to three major states. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 18:32, 20 August 2019 (CEST)		So really most instructions will be one to three major states. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 18:32, 20 August 2019 (CEST)

			: OK, I've changed the [[Template:Infobox Machine‎\|template]]; will do the article 'soon' (to give people a chance to comment). [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (CEST)

Jnc: List major cycle types

2019-08-20T16:32:46Z

List major cycle types

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 20 August 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	And maybe we should change the caption in the info-box to say "cycle time", to better inform readers of what the field is? [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (CEST)		And maybe we should change the caption in the info-box to say "cycle time", to better inform readers of what the field is? [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (CEST)

			Oh, the major state types which may be traversed during an instruction are:

			* Fetch - this may be the only one for simple instructions
			* Defer - during indirect addressing
			* Execute - all memory reference instructions except JMP
			* Word Count - 1st cycle of [[OMNIBUS\|three cycle data break]]
			* Current Address - 2nd cycle
			* Break - 3rd cycle; or single cycle data break

			So really most instructions will be one to three major states. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 18:32, 20 August 2019 (CEST)

Jnc: fmt err

2019-08-20T15:43:58Z

fmt err

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:43, 20 August 2019
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Clock speed==		==Clock speed==

	From the "PDP-8 Maintenance Manual" (F-87, February 1966), "Major States". "Time States" (pg. 1-9, 1-10):		From the "PDP-8 Maintenance Manual" (F-87, February 1966), "Major States", "Time States" (pg. 1-9, 1-10):

	: ''The computer enters one major state during each 1.5 usec computer cycle''		: ''The computer enters one major state during each 1.5 usec computer cycle''
Line 8:		Line 8:
	and "Clock and TG Flip-Flop" (pg 3-4):		and "Clock and TG Flip-Flop" (pg 3-4):

	: ''produces standard positive 100-nsec pulses at a rate at a		: ''produces standard positive 100-nsec pulses at a rate at a repetition rate of 1,333,333 pps. Each positive pulse complements the TG flip-flop''
	repetition rate of 1,333,333 pps. Each positive pulse complements the TG flip-flop''

	This is a bit confusing, but it seems that the basic clock is 1.333 MHz, but that there are a pair of those ticks (T1 and T2) during each major state, which agrees with the timing given for major states, which is at a rate of .6666 Mhz.		This is a bit confusing, but it seems that the basic clock is 1.333 MHz, but that there are a pair of those ticks (T1 and T2) during each major state, which agrees with the timing given for major states, which is at a rate of .6666 Mhz.

Jnc: PDP-8 timing details

2019-08-20T15:35:28Z

PDP-8 timing details

New page

==Clock speed==

From the "PDP-8 Maintenance Manual" (F-87, February 1966), "Major States". "Time States" (pg. 1-9, 1-10):

: ''The computer enters one major state during each 1.5 usec computer cycle''
: ''Two major time states, .. T1 and T2, occur during each computer cycle (or major state)''

and "Clock and TG Flip-Flop" (pg 3-4):

: ''produces standard positive 100-nsec pulses at a rate at a
repetition rate of 1,333,333 pps. Each positive pulse complements the TG flip-flop''

This is a bit confusing, but it seems that the basic clock is 1.333 MHz, but that there are a pair of those ticks (T1 and T2) during each major state, which agrees with the timing given for major states, which is at a rate of .6666 Mhz.

Given that, as before, "clock speed" should refer to "CPU cycle time", I'd say we should go with 'major state time' for "cycle time".

And maybe we should change the caption in the info-box to say "cycle time", to better inform readers of what the field is? [[User:Jnc|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc|talk]]) 17:35, 20 August 2019 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:33, 26 August 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
	: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)

	:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)		:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)

			: The relationship between the two can vary a lot in systems with caches, depending on the hit rate (i.e. application), of course. Also, for systems which have asynchronous memory (many older machines), or variable-speed memory (like later Pentium systems, where the CPU clock and memory bus speed are independent), the two are not inextricably linked. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 17:33, 26 August 2019 (CEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 26 August 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:
	: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: But we could easily have ''both'' 'clock speed' and 'cycle time', if you see some utility to having the low-level clock speed documented. I wouldn't want to have ''just'' clock speed, though. [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 19:40, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
	: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)		: The -8 and -8/S are a perfect example of how misleading 'clock speed' is, in terms of machine performance! They both have a 1.3333MHz clock, but... :-) [[User:Jnc\|Jnc]] ([[User talk:Jnc\|talk]]) 23:46, 23 August 2019 (CEST)
			:: I don't feel strongly either way about "cycle time", but for me clock frequency is a starting point that seems ubiquitous. Of course clock frequency does not directly equal performance. I don't think I understand the [need for a] distinction between "cycle time" and "memory speed" --[[User:Nczempin\|Nczempin]] ([[User talk:Nczempin\|talk]]) 11:09, 26 August 2019 (CEST)