What does the '16' in X16 Represent?

bobadoba

New Member
Oct 3, 2019
1
0
1
Perhaps I missed it. But I don't think the 8-Bit guy explained the reasoning for the16 in the name. He did explain that the X was to distinguish from the C16 but not specifically what the 16 stands for.
 
May 22, 2019
409
211
43
The X16 was originally intended to have a 65816 CPU, so the "16" in the name meant "16 bit."

Now the name is too firmly entrenched to change it to the Commander X8, so we are calling an 8-bit computer the X16.
 

BruceMcF

Active Member
May 19, 2019
100
30
28
The X16 was originally intended to have a 65816 CPU, so the "16" in the name meant "16 bit."

Now the name is too firmly entrenched to change it to the Commander X8, so we are calling an 8-bit computer the X16.
If we wanted to retcon it, we could say it stands for the 16bit address bus that 8bit systems were traditionally based upon.

That phony explanation (like the phony KERNAL phrase for seems like it was originally just a typo) then stays stable whether there is finally a 6502 or 65816 inside the shipping board, because at this stage the 64K address space is locked in concrete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TomXP411
May 22, 2019
409
211
43
8 bit CPU + 8 bit graphics makes 16, right?
16 - the number of bourse you can use it in one day and still get a good night’s sleep
 

Hiraghm

New Member
May 18, 2019
24
5
3
The X16 was originally intended to have a 65816 CPU, so the "16" in the name meant "16 bit."

Now the name is too firmly entrenched to change it to the Commander X8, so we are calling an 8-bit computer the X16.
He said in a video that he's still toying with the idea of using a 65816... I hope he does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: emptybits

BruceMcF

Active Member
May 19, 2019
100
30
28
He said in a video that he's still toying with the idea of using a 65816... I hope he does.
Maybe there's a problem with data bus contention when the 65816 puts the bank onto the data bus. Maybe there isn't. There's going to be a variety of different chips on that bus, with a variety of different timing constraints.

The direct way to find out is to finish the board, make sure it works with the 65c02 chip, then make the modifications required to put in a 65816, and see if the 65816 works. And then if it works, use it, if it doesn't work, don't use it.

Pretty straightforward, even if "do it if it works, don't if it doesn't" is tremendously confusing in the FB group.
 

Schlowski

Member
Sep 24, 2019
45
22
8
He said in the last video that if they use a WDC 65816 they won't use the enhanced address bus/banking of the 65816 but stay with the already implemented banking theme.
So it's basically a 6502 from address space with enhamced registers. Which would be fine for me anyways. But if they stay wit the 6502 I'm fine with that too, because that was my first processor and first love never fades away ;-)
 

BruceMcF

Active Member
May 19, 2019
100
30
28
He said in the last video that if they use a WDC 65816 they won't use the enhanced address bus/banking of the 65816 but stay with the already implemented banking theme.
So it's basically a 6502 from address space with enhamced registers.
Yes, that's what I said ... it's a 16bit address bus either way, if they use the 65816, it's for the direct page and stack anywhere in the 64K address space, 16 bit indexing option for code that benefits ... and a lot of code benefits from that especially ... and 16bit accumulator option for code that benefits.

But those who want to program using just the 6502 instructions can still do so in native mode with just a couple of adjustments.

For my and looking at it in terms of Forth, it's the improved instruction set that is the main appeal of the 65816 to me, not the 24bit address space. The first Forth port I had penciled in for the CX16 in the original memory map primarily operated within a single 64K Bank in any event.