MEGA_RJ_MICAL Quote:

said the retail pusher of agricultural tires

The picture is of an aircraft tire which is very high tech as is getting it on a drop center wheel as shown. Aircraft tires are so thick, including the sidewall, because they need to take abuse on hard landings or people die. Recycling unusable aircraft tires for agriculture use like this requires splitting the bead which requires a high tech custom made machine and skill to operate to keep from cutting into the bead wires. A similar machine would likely cost many tens of thousands of dollars to produce today and can not be purchased. I am not even sure who made the bead splitting machine but it is an engineering work of art and I only milled replacement blades for it while never operating it myself. Even after the beads are split for these smaller aircraft tires, they are still very difficult to put on which requires about a 2x2 inch steel bar about 5 feet long and a strong man as no tire machine can do it. The pic includes a valve guard added to reduce the chances of the valve being torn off, usually for mowing brush where the thorn resistance of heavy duty aircraft tires is a big advantage. Rerings are an option for heavier duty applications or for foam filled tires to keep the bolt circle from breaking out. It is not necessary to be a "pusher" when the quality player for aircraft tires used for agriculture. Anybody can buy the wheels shown but there was only one other major competitor putting aircraft tires on drop center wheels in the US. Larger aircraft tires require a bolt together wheel as splitting the bead is not practical. The aluminum/magnesium aircraft wheels are very expensive like the tires but do not wear out as often so we made custom steel bolt together wheels again with a custom machine which I operated and maintained for years. Naive people do not see or understand the tech until someone points it out or they ask a question like in the following thread where people describe how high of tech aircraft tires are.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aviationmaintenance/comments/1f40t7o/why_are_aircraft_tires_split_rims/

The business was a "machinery" business before specializing on manufacturing wheels for recycled aircraft tires. The business used to move houses and still have the heavy duty mechanical jacks. The machinery is extensive too. There is a 600 ton mechanical press that required removing the roof to install it and can punch an 8 inch hole through better than 3/8 inch thick plate steel. I made a replacement punch and die for it when someone broke the old one. Even using the punch is work as football players from the local college were often hired part time and struggled at times. I showed a football player how to use the punch and when he failed after several attempts he turned to me and asked, "How do you do this?" Working in the back, it was not unusual to lift several tons of steel a day while working in a non-temperature controlled environment. I would get called to the air conditioned office for computer problems all sweaty and covered in grease sometimes. Have you ever had the sticky black grease that does not come off when using the best grease cutting soap? Let me guess, no. Mr abs of steel has likely never worked with steel or had a callus in his life. You probably would not be doxxing me to my face no matter how many pumped up fantasy pictures you create of yourself.

Hammer Quote:

Misprediction penalty reveals pipeline length.

There are a few tricks which reduce the branch mispredict penalty below the pipeline length. Even the 8-stage 68060 rarely had an 8 cycle mispredict penalty. Bcc and DBRA have a max 7 cycle branch misprediction penalty although DBcc with a condition which is rare and FBcc floating point branches do not use dynamic branch prediction and can have 8 cycle mispredict penalties. The 8-stage SiFive seven series cores have a max 6 cycle mispredict penalty and sometimes it is only 4 cycles. I expect this is possible with extra hardware which is well spent in my opinion. The SiFive seven series also used extra hardware for a "0-cycle load-to-use latency" with a CISC like design, also a good choice. Many RISC pipelines extended to 8-stages have a 2 cycle load-to-use penalty like the MIPS R4000. The popular ARM Cortex-A53 even had a 3 cycle load-to-use penalty before the Cortex-A55 dropped it down to 2 cycles. These are in-order superscalar designs which tend to have shorter pipelines and do not perform as much speculative execution as OoO designs. In-order designs usually require careful instruction scheduling to avoid stalls and a design which removes stalls makes instruction scheduling much easier and allows preexisting legacy code without instruction scheduling to perform better without the need to move to expensive OoO cores. The PiStorm performance difference between the RPi 3 and RPi 4 is likely a combination of newer hardware with OoO removing stalls from poorly scheduled 68k to AArch64 code for the Cortex-A53. Upgrading the RPi 3 to a Cortex-A55 with better memory likely could have narrowed the gap with much cheaper hardware. A design like the 68060 or SiFive 7 series could narrow it more but then a 68060 without the 68k to AArch64 translation would improve performance more than the RPi 4.

Hammer Quote:

A long pipeline length is reasonable when the predication hardware's capability scales with it.

Predication is most used for the SIMD unit. It can improve short forward integer branches but is limited as more hardware is needed to predicate over more instructions. Predication basically turns instructions after a short forward branch into conditionally executed instructions. The AC68080 has auto predication but only for a single instruction on forward branches as I recall.

Hammer Quote:

NXP has self-interest, e.g. NXP hasn't open-sourced the old 68040 and 68060 designs. NXP has licensed its 68040 design to Rochester Electronics. A license with conditions enables NXP to have a measure of control over its 68040 IP.

NXP is a business and their goal is to make money. Licenses with fewer conditions are likely going to have higher licensing/royalty costs. It may be possible to convince them to license cheaper or open source if it is good for PR. It may be possible to buy ownership so there are no restrictions. They are likely not currently making much if any money off the 68k which should make them receptive to reasonable deals. Retro and museum use of the 68k would likely be good for PR too.

Hammer Quote:

Nope. Project Yamhill (EMT64) shows Intel's "only the paranoid survive" mindset. The Yamhill project served as a crucial "fallback" if Intel's primary 64-bit initiative, the Itanium processor, proved unsuccessful.

Intel used AMD64 but had not completely abandon x86 like Motorola/Freescale abandoned the 68k. It made more sense to keep the 68k for embedded use where the superscalar in-order 8-stage 68060 was a success while the 486 was the last successful x86 embedded CPU as the superscalar in-order 5-stage P5 Pentium used too much power for the embedded market. The 68060 was still a success after being sabotaged by holding the clock frequency down for the longer pipeline. It pays the penalty for the longer pipeline in transistors including good branch prediction and longer stalls in cycles for the longer pipeline but does not gain the full instruction level parallelism (ILP) it was designed for.

Hammer Quote:

CSG's management purchased CSG from CIC and continued as GMT Microelectronics until the year 2001. GMT Microelectronics

Interesting. I thought CIL/CIC sold almost everything to Escom. Were the deals with Escom and GMT Microelectronics done at the same time? Did all the chip designs including 6502 family CPUs and Amiga custom chips go to GMT instead of Escom? Did Escom produce some Amiga chips in short supply?

This may need some more investigation.

Hammer Quote:

Nope. The difference is that the PowerPC camp is backed by large corporate NXP's and IBM's active R&D.

PPC is dead and it is not coming back. The 68k has a better chance of coming back from the dead. Sure, there are products still around using PPC. The most important PPC chips have already been replaced including for NASA. I would not be surprised if the F-35 PPC electronics have already been upgraded. There are likely a few embedded telecommunications devices still around just like 68060s could be harvested from retired telecommunication equipment after it was finally out of production. POWER is still alive but I believe it has trouble competing. Compatibility is likely what keeps it alive even as it has moved largely to little endian for easier porting of software.

@matthey

Quote:

The picture is of an aircraft tire which is very high tech as is getting it on a drop center wheel as shown. Aircraft tires are so thick, including the sidewall, because they need to take abuse on hard landings or people die. Recycling unusable aircraft tires for agriculture use like this requires splitting the bead which requires a high tech custom made machine and skill to operate to keep from cutting into the bead wires. A similar machine would likely cost many tens of thousands of dollars to produce today and can not be purchased. I am not even sure who made the bead splitting machine but it is an engineering work of art and I only milled replacement blades for it while never operating it myself. Even after the beads are split for these smaller aircraft tires, they are still very difficult to put on which requires about a 2x2 inch steel bar about 5 feet long and a strong man as no tire machine can do it. The pic includes a valve guard added to reduce the chances of the valve being torn off, usually for mowing brush where the thorn resistance of heavy duty aircraft tires is a big advantage. Rerings are an option for heavier duty applications or for foam filled tires to keep the bolt circle from breaking out. It is not necessary to be a "pusher" when the quality player for aircraft tires used for agriculture. Anybody can buy the wheels shown but there was only one other major competitor putting aircraft tires on drop center wheels in the US. Larger aircraft tires require a bolt together wheel as splitting the bead is not practical. The aluminum/magnesium aircraft wheels are very expensive like the tires but do not wear out as often so we made custom steel bolt together wheels again with a custom machine which I operated and maintained for years. Naive people do not see or understand the tech until someone points it out or they ask a question like in the following thread where people describe how high of tech aircraft tires are. https://www.reddit.com/r/aviationmaintenance/comments/1f40t7o/why_are_aircraft_tires_split_rims/ The business was a "machinery" business before specializing on manufacturing wheels for recycled aircraft tires. The business used to move houses and still have the heavy duty mechanical jacks. The machinery is extensive too. There is a 600 ton mechanical press that required removing the roof to install it and can punch an 8 inch hole through better than 3/8 inch thick plate steel. I made a replacement punch and die for it when someone broke the old one. Even using the punch is work as football players from the local college were often hired part time and struggled at times. I showed a football player how to use the punch and when he failed after several attempts he turned to me and asked, "How do you do this?" Working in the back, it was not unusual to lift several tons of steel a day while working in a non-temperature controlled environment. I would get called to the air conditioned office for computer problems all sweaty and covered in grease sometimes. Have you ever had the sticky black grease that does not come off when using the best grease cutting soap? Let me guess, no. Mr abs of steel has likely never worked with steel or had a callus in his life. You probably would not be doxxing me to my face no matter how many pumped up fantasy pictures you create of yourself.

ok friend matthey,

so your mental illness is not delusion of high engineering knowledge,
it's a much simpler verbal diarrhea: no matter the subject, you will eject endless banter with tiny little detailed explanations that no soul on earth would wish for.


BACK TO THE MECHANICAL PRESS, MATTHEW!





/mega

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

@Hammer

Quote:

Hammer wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Irrelevant. Relevant.

Irrelevant.
Quote:

Quote: Source? https://www.nxp.com/docs/en/supporting-information/VLEPIM.pdf Page 25 of 56 Reduce overall code size by 30 percent over existing PowerPC text segments

Replied on the proper thread.
Quote:

Quote: Irrelevant Relevant.

Irrelevant
Quote:

Quote: Irrelevant. Relevant. Code density is relevant for the intended use case.

You were talking about this:

"As with CISC, 68K's fused data loads with ALU operation are simple enough to understand, and there are other methods for fusing multiple operations into one instruction"

on this specific part of the discussion. Hance, and again, irrelevant.
Quote:

The embedded MPU use case is irrelevant for the Amiga (this website) i.e. the Amiga is a desktop computer that targets desktop games.

?!?

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote: 2010 The cancelled Intel Larrabee GPGPU project was to use many simple superscalar in-order x86 CPU cores like the original P5 Pentium but with powerful SIMD unit enhancements. The very wide 512b SIMD limited core clock speeds and CPU cores with SIMD units were larger than SIMD units by themselves which is roughly what unified shaders are (Cell SPEs were capable of GPU workloads but there were not enough cores and they lacked some GPU specialized support). From 24-48 cores were required for GPU rendering at the time and these in-order CPU cores could double as e-cores but OoO p-cores would still be desirable for desktop competitiveness. It is surprising that competitors did not try similar projects with slimmer cores as even the 68060 has ~20% smaller cores, probably more if adjusting for the deeper 68060 pipeline. Smaller cores leave more transistors available for more cores which improves scaling. Larrabee is somewhat different in that it did not target extreme clock speeds with a shallower pipeline and supported 4 hardware threads per core. They tried to increase parallelism without extreme clock speeds which is more like GPU unified shaders.

That was exactly the purpose, but Larrabee failed because of two things:
- it lacked the proper fixed-function units which GPUs had;
- the x86 tax (cores were still too big for acting like shader cores).

@MEGA_RJ_MICAL

Quote:

said the retail pusher of agricultural tires

Your doxing is pathetic, and it's not even capable of eliciting a laugh...

@bhabbott

Quote:

bhabbott wrote: @Hammer Quote: Hammer wrote: The difference between alive vs dead is the ability to evolve. From https://www.amd.com/en/products/software/adaptive-socs-and-fpgas/embedded-software/edk-ip.html#tabs-4e535208ce-item-8be7211697-tab The following cores are included with AMD Embedded Edition. The IP works directly in AMD Platform Studio and supports MicroBlaze™ and PowerPC® for PLB-based cores and MicroBlaze for AXI-based cores. From AMD's FPGA business unit, AMD officially supports PowerPC and RISC-V. You mean undead, like 68k 'evolved' into the 68080 which 'lives' in an FPGA. Now we know why they called the card a Vampire. By this definition many CPU architectures that are supposedly dead are actually still 'living'. Like this one:- CDP1802 functional equivalent CPU core in VHDL My first computer was a kit that used the 1802, called the HUG1802 - made by a New Zealand producer of electronic kitsets called Kit Parts. I bought it because there had been a few articles in the electronics magazines about microprocessors that I couldn't figure out - needed to build my own to understand how they worked. The kit was very crude - just a large single-sided PCB with a few chips and dozens of jumpers - but it was cheap and it worked. Like the RCA COSMAC, it used CHIP-8 as the programming language and OS. I needed to go deeper though, so I found the short-form data sheet with opcode chart (a mere 2 pages) in an RCA databook at work and got into programming it in machine code. The 1802 wasn't the best CPU to learn about microprocessors. It had no stack pointer and couldn't do normal subroutine calls, but you could set any of its 16 16-bit data/address registers to be the program counter, and any other one could be the index register (via the SEX instruction). The ISA was very simple and orthogonal. The first hex digit was the opcode class and the second the register or special function. CHIP-8 worked in a similar way, and some CHIP-8 instructions were actually CPU opcodes. The 1802 used RCA's original CMOS process, which was low power but very slow. Compounding this was the large number of clock cycles per instruction cycle, 16 for most instructions and 24 for the few longer ones. No pipelining either. At 1.76 MHz it did ~0.1 mips. As if this wasn't bad enough, the 64x48 block graphics display chip took over the bus during active display time - making it twice as slow again! But the 1802 did have one great feature - static clocking. I hooked up LEDs to all the signal pins and stepped it one clock pulse at a time, showing exactly what was happening without an oscilloscope (which I didn't have at the time - too expensive!). I interfaced numerous peripheral chips to this machine to try them out - including a 6402 UART, AY-3-8912 sound chip, and SC-01 speech synthesizer. Then I used it to program EPROMs for my next scratch-built computer using a more conventional MC6802 CPU, 6847 VDP and ASCII keyboard (which I also made myself). I imagine an 1802 core would be pretty easy to implement in an FPGA, and could be greatly sped up if you didn't need to maintain the original timing. Not sure what use that would be, but it would be fun to see how fast you could make it go.

Why wasting time on such naive architecture, instead of modernizing a 68k (which has clearly better value)?

@cdimauro

4 consecutive posts in the dead of the night,
my lonely friend.

Now that is pathetic.


/MEGA!!!!!!!!!

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK

@MEGA_RJ_MICAL

Quote:

MEGA_RJ_MICAL wrote: @cdimauro 4 consecutive posts

Which hadn't taken so long.
Quote:

in the dead of the night,

Night for YOU, but currently I'm in the very sunny and beautiful Sicily for some vacation days...
Quote:

my lonely friend.

Lonely?!?
Quote:

Now that is pathetic. /MEGA!!!!!!!!!

Pathetic only because YOU said that?

There's nothing pathetic here. Excluding your reheated soup, of course...

@cdimauro

Did I say 4?
More like 10, 4 were in this thread alone.

Did I say night?
More like crack of the dawn, timezone accounted for.

Did I say lonely?
More like SURROUNDED BY THE HAUNTING SPECTERS OF FAILURE, PROFESSIONAL STAGNATION AND SOCIAL INADEQUACY.


Truly!!!!!
MRJM

_________________
I HAVE ABS OF STEEL
--
CAN YOU SEE ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OK FOR WORK