@OlafS25

Well there are some tricks that can done, the kernel will run on Core0, most programs will run on Core0, but then you can have a program that support SMP, that can run on Core0 or Core1, that is what I belive is possible.

In other words if you have old program it want be able to run any core, accrual details on how to make this happen I don't know.

But I believe this will enable is that you can have threads live on other cores, so you take advantage of CPU power, we don't right now.

Ideally any program will run on any core, but that might be harder to do, but it might be possible if program is designed to do that.

So ether on per thread bases, or if the program is designed specially run on any core.

We will see what Hyperion has planed when its ready.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 13-Feb-2014 at 12:27 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 04:05 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 03:02 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 03:00 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@Kronos

Quote:

Most PCs sold in 1990 still either EGA (some even CGA) or Herkules GFX.

Right, but that changed in late 1990 and early 1991. I have price lists from that time, if you are interested.

Quote:

Color VGA was out of the question for must users.

August 1990:
80286 12 MHz, 1 MB RAM, 40 MB HDD, VGA+Monitor
1245USD

Price of VGA card+VGA monitor was around 500USD back then.

Quote:

(and AGA had no problem running those at similar specs

AGA was without future - it was OK for sub 800USD computer in 1992, but couldn´t be competitive even few years later (unlike OCS).

@KimmoK

Quote:

Also all average Macintoshes did not have true color (high res) available untill around mid 90's.

A4000 is in another price league than "Setup that most people buy", there is (was) higher specs GFX mandatory.

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Right now I think a Pegasus II G4, might be a fattest option for AmigaOS4,

Benchmarks show PA6T 1.8 GHz (single core) is as fast as G4 1.4-1.5 GHz (except memory performance and FFT). That certainly is not standard Pegasos 2 configuration.

@pavlor

about A4000 stuff...

Price is another matter.
For the price of A4000, you could get better HW specs on x86, yes, if you knew what you need and with what you can use them. (also one had to get special HDD controller on PC to get A4000 IDE speeds etc... but you could not get OS that multitask nicely even under heavy load or that can deliver smooth multimedia ... that's why companies like SCALA end up doing their own x86 OS.)

A1200HD+4MB Fast ram (cheapest AGA system) anyway was pretty good vs x86, pricewise. Too bad CBM did not sell Amigas for other than low end gamers (at least not in finland), etc, etc.

Last edited by KimmoK on 12-Feb-2014 at 08:48 PM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@pavlor

Quote:

Benchmarks show PA6T 1.8 GHz (single core) is as fast as G4 1.4-1.5 GHz (except memory performance and FFT). That certainly is not standard Pegasos 2 configuration.

It's like comparing a man in wheelchair whit a man that can run on his legs.
The binary’s are compiled whit compiler that does not even support the CPU fully.

In addition the PA6T has more CPU cache and has higher clock frequency, has higher memory bandwidth.

We also know there are lost of missing instruction in PA6T and G5 CPU.

http://tenfourfox.blogspot.no/2011/04/attention-g5-owners-your-javascript-no.html

Some programs like Basilisk II, gives you only Half of Speed of G4 1Ghz, on the speedometer benchmark, and the same issue you can see whit UAE JIT compiler, where speed is just horrible.

Álmos Rajnai knows about the problem whit UAE JIT, so I hope he will fix the JIT compiler.

First I believed the Pegasus II/G4 speedometer number to be fake but then I tested Basilisk on my old AmigaONE-XE G4 1Ghz, and they where correct.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 10:25 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 10:24 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 12-Feb-2014 at 10:22 PM.

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

@KimmoK

Most Amiga users were gamers and Amiga 4000 didn't add any value to that. Gamers who could afford A4000 didn't buy A4000 but PC. It doesn't matter how much better A4000is if PC had exclusive games you couldn't get your hands on. Commodore could not win that battle.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

@itix

Quote:

Commodore could not win that battle.

Yes they could have. The A3000+ if released would have helped as would continuous custom chip development. Not upgrading Paula or the CIA chips in the entire run of the Amiga Classics timeline was ridiculous too!! What about increasing the number of sound channels, 1.76mb floppy as standard or chunky graphic modes, making hot swappable joystick and mouse ports that didn't fry CIA chip? All of these together could have made the difference but it was all about getting the share price as high as possible through cost cutting rather than trying to invest in the Amiga platform. Irving Gould was a moron so on that basis, yes they couldn't win.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@itix & gaming

But if the minimum would have been A1200HD+fast ram, it would have made game prorting simpler and 2x speed for some 3D stuff.

"Commodore could not win that battle."

More should have been done, already a few years earlier.

Perhaps better strategy already when CDTV was released. It was after all ahead of it's time.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

How did this thread turn into a "lets talk 20+ years old hardware" :D

_________________

@Yssing

You did it, with post 145.

I'm actually being serious.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

wrong, try again.

_________________

@Yssing

Read posts 145-157 again, you'll see that's when it deteriorated.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

And again, you are wrong.
I am sorry you don't understand why, and I also understand that I must have done something to piss you off.

_________________

@Yssing
Quote:

Yssing wrote: How did this thread turn into a "lets talk 20+ years old hardware" :D

Atleast we know for sure who is responsible for turning this thread into a meta-discussion about going offtop

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Kronos

Yeah I made comment in fun, I put a smiley in it. I know that the written word is percieved in the mood of the receiver.

_________________

@attempt to go ontopic?

(perhaps this thread could be closed/locked, but...)

IMO:
We have soo good CPU options to use for now that we should not worry about it for now
At current pace, we will be able to use today's latest PPC cores in y2017 earliest, after that we perhaps should rethink about CPU/ISA options. (by then we might know schedule for NGCore of freescale and see if ARM has killed x86 etc..).

Once we have SW side up-to-date (3D, multicores, 2GB+, especially for AOS4) then we start to see the true potential of PPC flavour of desktop setups.

And when looking at AOS (and MOS) side, perhaps it would be good idea to discuss about what PPC SoC we should use for low cost systems (A-EON seems to be taking care of the high end).

I think with this we could get closest to rasberryPI (eur100 board): APM82181 (more CPU power, but would require additional graphics card and would be limited to only 512MB RAM)
And with the T1020 we could aim for 200-300 eur board that could be used with or without extra GPU. (retro sells well, 2D output would be sufficient for "RetroAmigaUno")

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@KimmoK

What prices have you heard for T1022? (I assume you're not suggesting 12 GbE ports, so T1022 makes a lot more sense than T1020).

I thought they wanted to replace with P1025 with the T1025 in the same price range (P1025 costs EUR27 without the security extensions), don't see how the T1022 can be competitive if it's gonna be a fortune. With a 27 EUR CPU, a board can squeeze under 200EUR.

It's hard to guess prices with little to no info, though

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

I wonder what currency/value is for INR...
X-T1040-QDS-D3 - CPU WITH I/O, OTHER...
1 INR is 0.01174EUR... so 191,356 makes 2247eur for a development board.... ?

But no, I have not found concrete info about SoC unit prices.

Previously from various sources I made conclusion that it's below USD650 for T2080.
And P2081 to be slightly cheaper than that.
And IIRC P1022 costs about USD100...

I imagine/hope/whatever T1022 might be between USD100 and USD200.
T1042 to be between 200 and 300.

I think there was some event around the end of february where there should be releases of some third party boards with T1 and T2. Hopefully we get prices shown then.


For PowerPi designers... (perhaps for Efika kind of design as well)
Some APM-821xx info. (800Mhz chip costs USD16 and 1Ghz USD23, it would need GPU on PCIex1 etc... IIRC, eval kit costs 700 eur....)

Last edited by KimmoK on 13-Feb-2014 at 01:34 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 13-Feb-2014 at 01:33 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 13-Feb-2014 at 01:29 PM.
Last edited by KimmoK on 13-Feb-2014 at 01:27 PM.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Even if worked what will do whit it?

Edit video!

Would have been relevant ten years ago when the A1 came out.

Quote:

I do like the real time effects and all that but, its shame there is no new VideoToster,

The last PCI version should have been good enough for us. But useless without software or drivers.

Quote:

Scala emigrated to PC, after Amiga died in 1994, there where TV cards for PC.

There were but they weren't integrated into the hardware like the Amiga chipset was. WYS was definitely NOT WYG.

TV cards were a bit of a sore point on the A1. Years before there were Mediator drivers that allowed TV behind the Workbench using hardware acceleration like a real Amiga should do. Then Amitlhon came out which could also do it. Finally we got OS4 and the new Amiga machine and we got crap! Hardly a driver for a common TV card yet alone possible to display TV behind the OS4 Workbench. I think the Amiga scene lost it then.