8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Lathe_Bios » Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:56:17


Hi,

Is there a 8253 Timer chip on an intel D865GBF motherboard with and
Intel Celeron Processor?

Sorry about the question, but I read that PC compatibles have one of
this Timer chips inside, unfortunatelly I don't know if this applies
only to old PC compatibles and they had an 8253 chip, or if new PCs
have it somewhere inside.

If the answer is yes, could you please recommend a programming suite to
programm it on a WindowsXP machine. As much as I know Assambler would
be the choice. I come from the days of Turbo Assambler, so I really
don't know if running Turbo Assambler on an WinXP machine would be the
right choice.

As for now I had a 8253 Timer chip on a PCI card, I had many problems
compiling and linking the libraries of the SDK that came with the card.
After bad use, the card was damaged and before buying a new one I would
like to see if there are other choices to get 8253 compatibility.

Thank you for your help and information
Best Regards
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by nutso fass » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 03:55:26


The timer functions of an 8253 are there, whether the chip is or not. For
the INs and OUTs of programming, webgoogling with words 'programming' '8253'
should provide answers, as does an excellent (c)1984 book "Assembly Language
Programming for the IBM Personal Computer" by David J. Bradley.

nf

 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Jack Klei » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:00:37

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:56:17 +0000 (UTC), "Lathe_Biosas"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in comp.lang.asm.x86:


Most motherboards made in the last 10 years (or more?) do not have a
physical 8253 timer chip. They have an emulation in a super io chip
or in somewhere in the main chip set. The emulation looks like, and
to some extent works like, the original separate chips from older
systems.

In the case of some of the original peripheral chips, and the 8253 is
one of them, functions not commonly used on early PCs might now work
well or at all.


As above, they probably have an emulation of it.


What is it you are trying to do with an 8253? There is almost
certainly a better way to do using the Windows API, regardless of
whether you use assembly language or some other language.


It would be a lot easier to give you advice if you told us what you
are trying to accomplish with the 8253 timer. There might be a way to
do it that does not involve an 8253 timer at all.

As for the (emulated) 8253 on the motherboard, I don't think it would
be easy to get XP to give you control of it. The OS tends to want to
keep this sort of core system resource to itself.


--
Jack Klein
Home: http://www.yqcomputer.com/
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by nutso fass » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:37:47

Reading Jack's reply I realized I missed the "WindowsXP" part of your
question. AFIK, there's no programming of the 8253 in WinXP except from a
DOS box, in which case you're programming an emulation of the 8253 with very
erratic results. Direct access is only available in real mode.

nf
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Lathe_Bios » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:49:37


Hi Jack

Thank you very much for your answer.

I would like to count number of wheel revolutions, to measure the time
of each revolution, and to measure the elapsed time of not complete
revolutions at resolutions (838 ns) similar to the ones of the 8253.
It is important to have an Input line and an Ouput line to interact
with the external world.

Should I use the Windows API to access a 8253, or the windows API
provides a way to achive what I'm trying to do?

Best Regards
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Nicolo Par » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 11:25:51


Look at QueryPerformanceCounter and QueryPerformanceFrequency

--
Jim
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Matt » Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:36:39


[...]

If the CPU doesn't get throttled, then the rdtsc instruction is an even
better bet.

-Matt
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Horst Gfre » Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:07:44


20 years. even old ?86 - chipsets "emulate" the old *** (8237 dma, 8259
pic, 8253 timer etc) within the chipset.
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Lathe_Bios » Wed, 29 Jun 2005 05:07:48

Hi Nicolo, Hi Matt

Is it possible to use these instructions and still have Input and
Output lines to an external device? If yes, which would be the hardware
interface or port?

Still the good point of the 8253 Card is that it offers already wired
input and output ports to external devices with resolution of 838 nsec.

Best Regards

PD: About resolution: http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Jack Klei » Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:27:08

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 20:07:44 +0000 (UTC), "Horst Gfrerer"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in comp.lang.asm.x86:



Not quite 20 years.

I remember the first 32 bit machines we bought:

* 16 MHZ 386DX
* 1 MB DRAM
$1600.00 USD

Brand name MultiTech (later known as ACER).

Mid 1996, still had the 8253, 8259s, etc., as discrete chips.

So you could still find the discretes on at least some brands 19 years
ago.

Haven't I told you a million times not to exaggerate???

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://www.yqcomputer.com/
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by spamtra » Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:12:23

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:27:08 +0000 (UTC), Jack Klein


<snip>
Were their computers any better than their later modems (which stunk)?
96? I would have thought 86.

My 80386 programmers reference is dated 1986.
<snip>
--
ArarghMail506 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.yqcomputer.com/
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.yqcomputer.com/

To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by Jack Klei » Thu, 30 Jun 2005 11:24:35

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 05:12:23 +0000 (UTC), XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote in
comp.lang.asm.x86:



The computers were actually quite fine. The 386 chips (in every
single Acer) had the first highly publicized PC CPU bug, the 32-bit
multiply bug. But once replacement CPUs were available from Intel,
they paid for on site replacement.



AARGH! Yes, of course, 1986, starting around July.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://www.yqcomputer.com/
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
 
 
 

8253 Timer: Intel Celeron Processor/D865GBF Motherboard

Post by spamtra » Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:01:31

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 02:24:35 +0000 (UTC), Jack Klein


<snip>
Maybe it was a different division. MultiTech modems were quite nice
up to the point where they started with the Multi-Modem II. Those
stupid things could hardly talk to each other at 1200 baud. And they
were 14.4 modems. Although, the Fax part worked OK, AFAIK. I went
thru about 6 or 8 ROM replacements before I gave up and switched to
Motorola Codex Modems. Pricey, but nice.

That was nice. Think that could happen now?

No, No. It's spelled ARARGH. :-)

arargh

--
ArarghMail506 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.yqcomputer.com/
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.yqcomputer.com/

To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address.