@GumBoy

Quote:

GumBoy wrote: @eXec.pl Quote: AmigaOS 4 isn't 100% compatible with AmigaOS 3 I suppose it's just as compatible with OS3.x as MorphOS is. They both run the code using 68k emulator. Quote: MorphOS is not compatible with AmigaOS because you can't run program compiled for MorphOS on AmigaOS. PlayStation2 is compatible with PlayStation, although you can't run PlayStation 2 games on PlayStation. It's called backward compatibility, when newer software/hardware is compatible with older software/hadware, yet older one is noc compatible with newer one. Compatibility doesn't have to work in both directions.

Direct3D 10 GPUs are forward compatible with DirectX11's Compute Shaders 4.0/4.1.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Sloar

Quote:

Sloar wrote: @feanor I think it can be honestly said that for price/performance the limited market of the PowerPC processor can not match X86. Having said that many of us have used technology such as the Amiga and Atari Falcon to where we should know better than anyone the power of a system does not depend on the cpu alone but a total system design. Coprocessors and Digital Signal Processors can make a system much more usable than any cpu alone. Having a $20 24bit Freescale DSP for Audio would greatly reduce cpu load and increase price/performance, as would other DSP's for other Specific tasks, couple that with any PowerPC cpu and you have a cost effecitve very powerful system. I would be very interested in such a design and more willing to spend the money. Value added is the key in a small market especially in considering price vs performance.

Usually, modern CPUs includes a vector co-processor. ATI/NVIDIA (OpenGL3/OpenCL) GpGPU destroys any Freescale DSPs.

http://www.pr-inside.com/mirics-and-nvidia-bring-software-based-tv-r1503337.htm
RT DSP running on NVIDIA CUDA.

Last edited by Hammer on 03-Oct-2009 at 12:19 AM.
Last edited by Hammer on 03-Oct-2009 at 12:09 AM.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 4080 16 GB
Amiga 1200 (Rev 1D1, KS 3.2, PiStorm32lite/RPi 4B 4GB/Emu68)
Amiga 500 (Rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi 3a/Emu68)

@Hammer

Quote:

Usually, modern CPUs includes a vector co-processor. ATI/NVIDIA (OpenGL3/OpenCL) GpGPU destroys any Freescale DSPs.

That rather depends on the problem. DSPs tend to have a somewhat different architecture so are more general purpose than GPUs. There are problems that will run fast on DSPs that might be rubbish on GPUs.

@Sloar wrote:

Quote:

Having said that many of us have used technology such as the Amiga and Atari Falcon to where we should know better than anyone the power of a system does not depend on the cpu alone but a total system design. Coprocessors and Digital Signal Processors can make a system much more usable than any cpu alone.

You've just described the chip in most phones.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@feanor

Quote:

feanor wrote: @fairlanefastback same as with ppc, only with ARM and sans AmigaOS/MorphOS. That will probably cheaper than all ppc options I mentioned though. But it will also take as long as the P1022 would.

AROS could still be a target.

If you did go ARM Cortex A9, what benefits would it have over an A8 board like the Beagle Board?

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@fairlanefastback

Faster? Cortex A9 is supposed to have performance of a Core 2 Duo, at the Atom's price and 1/10th of the power consumption. Supposed though, no actual CPU is out now, we have to wait till 2010.

Quote:

Faster? Cortex A9 is supposed to have performance of a Core 2 Duo, at the Atom's price and 1/10th of the power consumption. Supposed though, no actual CPU is out now, we have to wait till 2010.

Is "supposed" ? Is it the same "suppose" as in "OS5 is supposed to be better than MacOSX" ? :)

Current high-end models can't even reach Pentium-M in terms of performance, so I doubt the next one will outperform a core2...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@Leo

Well, the specs do say of 2Ghz top speeds and up to 8 cores. It won't be a slouch, but I guess we have to wait to see a CPU first before we jump into conclusions. The A9 *will* have a nice SIMD unit though (NEON).

@Sloar
Quote:

24bit Freescale DSP for Audio would greatly reduce cpu load

Most DSPs are made for stand alone aplications, they are more like SoC CPUs, they usually have their own memory controllers and 2 memory controllers in one system doesn't work. If you try it you can use an slow speed interface ( I2C, SPI ) or you must use really expensive interface logic. DSPs you will find in soundcards might be a better sollution or just buy a soundcard.

To be honest, we have a 'Software Crisis' every Amigaoid system needs drivers (3D, printer,USB, Firewire, ..), applications (Office,Games,Browsers,Media) and we need more OS-ports for different hardware. A propietäry audio hardware with a DSP on it would just be another cool thing without drivers.

cu

btw.: Don't forget to do your market research in Linux / Linux-PPC communities.

Edit:
You are right, Feanor, it was addressed a tSloar

Last edited by Arko on 03-Oct-2009 at 10:35 AM.

_________________
AmigaONE. Haha. Just because you can put label on it does not make it Amiga.

I borrowed this comments from here (#27 & #28):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=38873&forum=2&start=20&order=0

@Arko

I think you meant that for someone else :)

As for the linux, I already posted on quite a few linux/ppc lists forums. Much less response than I got from amiga/morphos related forums. On the other hand, it's expected, Linux users have many more alternatives.

feanor : Thank you for the update. It seems that today, ARM processors are in fashion, like Intel processors 10 or 15 years ago. But if we look at the popular Cortex-A8, dozens of boards are available and final products like netbooks are coming.
At the moment, much people is fond of Cortex-A9 only looking at specs (2 cores, 2 GHz, low consumption, great performance, ...) so I have to admit again that the ARM marketing is very good. Not because the Cortex-A9 won't reach these features (we just don't know), but because every eyes are on it.
No doubt there will be laptops with Cortex-A9 and the only advantage would be to produce a desktop motherboard ...

My wish is to have a PowerPC board. If it is easier and cheaper to make it with a 8610 compared to a 8640, let's go with 8610, it would be great to get power with low consumption.

I will talk about your project in french Amiga mailing-lists and at different meetings (Free Software Days in Lyon in mi-october and Alchimie at the beginning of november hoping it won't be too late).

@Hammer

Quote:

Direct3D 10 GPUs are forward compatible with DirectX11's Compute Shaders 4.0/4.1.

I wrote "doesn't have to" not "doesn't". See the difference?

Quote:

feanor wrote: @fairlanefastback Faster? Cortex A9 is supposed to have performance of a Core 2 Duo, at the Atom's price and 1/10th of the power consumption. Supposed though, no actual CPU is out now, we have to wait till 2010.

Yeah right...

"The newly announced Cortex-A9 processors can’t be compared to mobile Core 2 Duo processors from Intel, because even lower end Intel Core 2 Duo processors offer four to five times more performance while consuming 100 times more power. However, when compared to Atom processors, the new dual core Cortex-A9 processors are just slightly behind in performance, but they also consume 10 times less power."

@eXec.pl

Quote:

You said that AmigaOS is illegal so you have to prove it to me.

Or else? :)

@feanor

Quote:

Well, the specs do say of 2Ghz top speeds and up to 8 cores. It won't be a slouch, but I guess we have to wait to see a CPU first before we jump into conclusions. The A9 *will* have a nice SIMD unit though (NEON).

Last I read, there seems to be major OEMs planning on using A9 in netbooks. If the early design CPUs are impressive enough to warrant the millions being spent in gearing up for products using the A9, it's probably not going to be too awful of a CPU. Sounds like it would make a nifty Peg3 CPU.

_________________
Dammy

@feanor

Quote:

Faster? Cortex A9 is supposed to have performance of a Core 2 Duo, at the Atom's price and 1/10th of the power consumption. Supposed though, no actual CPU is out now, we have to wait till 2010.

That's the first time I've seen A9 and Core 2 Duo compared, I suspect the 2GHz A9 *might* match some of the lower clocked C2Ds but I don't know. The figures I have seen put it at up to 2.5x faster than current Atoms (comparing a 2Ghz A9 to a single core dual threaded Atom).

Edit: 2.5x not 5x

Last edited by minator on 03-Oct-2009 at 02:23 PM.
Last edited by minator on 03-Oct-2009 at 01:56 PM.
Last edited by minator on 03-Oct-2009 at 01:32 PM.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@minator

5x faster than Atom = comparable (or even faster) than a Core 2 Duo. The C2D is fast, but it's NOT that fast. And even 2.5x times faster is very good. I think you overestimate the C2Ds. We're not talking Xeon or i7s here.

Last edited by feanor on 03-Oct-2009 at 02:35 PM.

@feanor

Quote:

5x faster than Atom = comparable (or even faster) than a Core 2 Duo. The C2D is fast, but it's NOT that fast.

Oops that should have 2.5x not 5x.

_________________
Whyzzat?

@feanor

the Core 2 is minimum about 4 times (3.78 times to be exact) faster than the Intel Atom 230 at the same clock speed per core; in specific tests it's more than 10 times faster.

Now add to the fact Core 2s are available at significantly higher frequencies; and up to 4 cores per package under the "Core 2" brand,

Xeon is not a separate architecture, it's Core 2; Netburst, Core i7 etc
Most of the Xeons are Core 2 based.

Forexample Xeon X3220 is the same processor as Core 2 Quad Q6600.

And regarding i7 the Core 2 architecture is competitive in more tasks than it's not- ie. the i7 rarely outruns the Core 2 (so far- this will ofcourse change with future revisions).
Even more interesting is the fact that Intel is rebranding the Core 2 series as Core i3 starting with next year.


---

Edit:

(As shown below)
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7959/47af.jpg

This also suggests more competitive Nahelem processors will be introduced to justify this classing.

Last edited by Frek on 04-Oct-2009 at 05:02 PM.

@Frek

Quote:

the Core 2 is minimum about 4 times (3.78 times to be exact) faster than the Intel Atom 230 at the same clock speed per core; in specific tests it's more than 10 times faster.

It is impossible to say any processor is a specific amount faster than another unless you are quoting a specific benchmark. At best it's possible to give an approximate percentage but often that is difficult as results tend to be all over the place.

Looking at a bunch of benchmarks and scaling to take account of frequency seems to show Core 2 is up to 2x faster per clock and sometimes a lot less.

here

_________________
Whyzzat?

@feanor

Konstantinos,

Now for the big question.

What would you like to build?

Regardless of price, board size, etc.. What would you be passionate about?

Then ask some of the design guys at bPlan the same question.

Take your time. The answer may best be found in a pub.