@K-L

We just need Power9 tailored for out market. I'd like to see an IBM PC reboot. With a Power chip at the helm.

Though profitable, I don't understand why Intel kept pushing x86 onto the server market. They had a good thing with HP PA-RISC and releasing the Itanium. New tech and an x86 killer. In the mean time AMD stuff things up with AMD64. Intel instead could gone head to head with RISC with a Itanium CPU and promoted it in the server market. But it seems now even they have given up (again) and just put x86 back in place.

Once we had dedicated super computer CPUs. But now they are being pushed out by Intel dominating super computers as well. What's left is just jumped up PCs.

Last edited by Hypex on 28-Aug-2017 at 04:42 PM.

@Hypex

It's Itanium, and Itanium wasn't RISC, it's a VLIW architecture (or EPIC an Intel called it). Largest problem with Itanium was that the x86 emulation performance wasn't good enough and then AMD came with AMD64. Intel got startled and kind of left Itanium on life support instead of doubling down on it.

IBM could do a desktop POWER chip easily, but they don't seem to be interested in that. Combine that with the fact IBM doesn't know how to market their products at all.

The 4-core POWER9 chip is the closest we'll get to a POWER desktop chip.

@WolfpackN64

That's what I get for not referring to my own article. Amended now.

As I understand it, the point of IA-64 wasn't to be another x86, but to move beyond it, with a modern design. After all, Intel already had a real x86 so there wasn't much point putting x86 emulation into IA-64.

Then again, maybe history repeats itself. When Commodore made the 64 they couldn't make anything else again. If we compare it to the Plus/4, which wasn't a replacement, it practically caused an uproar because it wasnt compatible with a 64. Despite running the same exact opcodes.

Some how the Amiga made it out despite being totally incompatible with the C64. And it wasn't really a Commmodore machine either. I don't know how they pulled it off. But the attitude remains. One of the first things people want to know about the AmigaOne is if it is compatible with A500 games. An A1200 wasn't always.

The big one I keep hearing about is some new fangled computer, consumer or super and the question is asked. Is it IBM compatible? Technology changes. People stay the same.

Given there is no new machine to take over from the Mac and the AmigaOne isn't it perhaps they have little reason to do a Power desktop. And if there was it likely lead back the PowerPC is expensive argument again. Where the same old people say the same old thing, forget custom hardware, just port it to an x86 board that's cheap.

@Hypex

Quote:

Given there is no new machine to take over from the Mac and the AmigaOne

Not a Linux-based Power/PowerPC? There were some a decade ago, Yellow Dog Linux even catered to them (and Mac). They didn't work out for some reason, probably the same reason that nothing that doesn't blare "Intel inside" (or at least compatible) struggled.

But perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying?

_________________
I've decided to follow an awful lot of people I respect and leave AmigaWorld. If for some reason you want to talk to me, it shouldn't take much effort to find me.

@Hypex

And then Amiga users could witness the joy of Intel's AME

@Hypex

Quote:

As I understand it, the point of IA-64 wasn't to be another x86, but to move beyond it, with a modern design.

IMHO the design was to modern for that time. In IA64 decisions regarding some things, like e.g. parallel execution of instructions, were moved from execution time (cpu) to compile time. Because of that the efficiency of compiled code depended much stronger on the quality of compiler than it is in case of CISC or RISC architectures.

Because of that the software for IA-64 failed to show the true power of the architecture. Later, after introduction of AMD64, there was no real point in keeping IA64 alive anymore.

Quote:

After all, Intel already had a real x86 so there wasn't much point putting x86 emulation into IA-64.

Not entirely true. People really need legacy support and providing very low performance x86 emulation was just another nail in IA64's coffin. With AMD64/EM64T as well as with evolution of entire x86 architecture from 8086 up to current models you can clearly see how important legacy is/was.

@simplex

Quote:

Not a Linux-based Power/PowerPC?

Well yes that could work. Be a change from a commercial OS. Since Linux would be the only real choice left.

Quote:

They didn't work out for some reason

I recall when Red Hat defined Linux, being the Ubuntu of its time, that Yellow Dog was said to be the PowerPC version. Red and yellow.

But if they put that yaboot on YDL as well there's your answer. Has it won the award for most shocking boot loader yet? Tiny font. Expecting the user to type in what he wants to boot by hand as if he was using a tiny C64. When the Mac had a perfectly Mac based boot menu with icons that MorphOS makes fine use of. Linux: Please explain?

Quote:

But perhaps I misunderstand what you're saying?

No, I think you understood me perfectly fine. And looking back I wasn't so clear on that one.

@Hypex

Red Hat actually still defines Linux in more ways then Canonical. I think SUSE is also bigger then Canonical.

@michalsc

Quote:

Because of that the efficiency of compiled code depended much stronger on the quality of compiler than it is in case of CISC or RISC architectures.

I still think that matters. GCC tends to generate bad 68K code. And if XCode is anything to go by GCC generates bad code on PPC as well.

Quote:

Because of that the software for IA-64 failed to show the true power of the architecture

It's no wonder. I've looked at x86 opcodes and they still have byte codes. How archaic! I expect that in an old 8-bit CPU and not a modern one! Needing to decode bytes of codes alone with regards to endian in mixed types and convert to internal IA64 micro/code would have been a nightmare.

A modern x86 translates that stuff now anyway. The 68K with 16-bit aligned opcodes looks a bit more professional. And has a good balance between small and large instructions I think.

Quote:

Later, after introduction of AMD64, there was no real point in keeping IA64 alive anymore.

Yes they stuffed that up. Instead of having a clone 68K ISA inside AMD64 which would have helped us. Another CISC.

Instead of emulating x86 perhaps they could have emulated PPC in IA64 instead. Mac could have been brought to Intel earlier. And they could have really shaken up ther market.

Quote:

Not entirely true. People really need legacy support and providing very low performance x86 emulation was just another nail in IA64's coffin.

There was already x86 still so why not just use that? Or did they try and cut x86 off and phase it out? I just dont see why they couldn't have had x86 and IA64 as seperate CPUs in different markets.

But I do understand in a way. The x86 is Intels C64. They just can't break from it. Can't do anything along with it or do something else. By cornering the market and getting it to the top they have cornered themselves.

I wonder what will be replaced first? The x86 series or a power point? It seems both have been around as long as each other and it would take so many resources to replace it that in the end it just isn't worth it and we have the same ole same ole.

Last edited by Hypex on 29-Aug-2017 at 05:42 PM.

@Hypex

There really wasn't a point to bring the Mac to Intel earlier as the G4 was very performant. Performance wasn't even a big factor in their switch anyway.
x86 isn't going anywhere, with AMD's competition, and quad core laptops on the way, ARM isn't quickly going to replace the lower x86 chips. Intel's dominion on embedded computing is practically broken at this point and ARM and POWER are poised to dent x86's server dominance.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

ARM and POWER are poised to dent x86's server dominance.

Not gonna happen. ARM has nothing to compete with high end Intel and AMD designs and has failed to make even a small dent in the market so far.
POWER has failing sales and revenue.

_________________

@WolfToTheMoon

ARM has some advantages on the low end server market and Intel's Rangely bug crippeled the C2000 series of low powered servers.
IBM scored some major POWER9 contracts a while ago, it's natural for IBM to see a slump at the end of one release right before the next.

@Hypex

"The big one I keep hearing about is some new fangled computer, consumer or super and the question is asked. Is it IBM compatible? Technology changes. People stay the same."

Not to agree or dissagree, that's probabably the easiest to understand.
People invest a lot of time, money and effort using the software they are used to using and require to use.
A new arcitecture that is incompatible with their existing software requirements, can make things more than a little uncomofrtable, in some cases, it's a complete deal breaker. Especially when it comes to running a small buisness and much much worse for larger ones.
Then there is emulation. However, if the cost of upgrading, to run this emulation, then why bother changing in the first place.

Itanium failed because AMD came up with a more compatible way to move forward and gave the x86 the 64bit extensions that everyone wanted, kept compatibility to run 32 bit and older software legacy in x86 and well, the rest is history.

To invest all over again, maybe convert over your legacy stuff and learn a new porgam suite is a huge gamble sometimes. Most of the time, it's too big.

AMD x64 instructions even now are still referred to in the instruction set of x86.

Last edited by SHADES on 30-Aug-2017 at 02:40 PM.

_________________
It's not the question that's the problem, it's the problem that's the question.

@Threads

Broadcom is attempting to buy Qualcomm which is attempting to buy NXP Semiconductors (which owns Freescale). All PPC development roadmaps could be in flux if this goes through!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41888821

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

@BigD

IBM?

_________________
Tinkering with computers.

@Signal

We can't afford server tech! Power development is not PPC development.

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

@thread

https://www.enterprisetimes.co.uk/2017/08/18/talos-ii-breaks-cover-first-power9-machine/?platform=hootsuite

_________________
retired

@Hypex

"We just need Power9 tailored for out market. I'd like to see an IBM PC reboot. With a Power chip at the helm."

+1

_________________
retired

@AmigaBlitter

Well, but would Amiga OS4 be possibly running on such a mainboard?

Is Power ISA really somethina a OS-Developer in Amiga-Land is looking at?

_________________
Sometimes we give people a lot of credit just because they're writing nice sentences even if it isn't adding up to much.

@Birbo

Quote:

Well, but would Amiga OS4 be possibly running on such a mainboard? Is Power ISA really somethina a OS-Developer in Amiga-Land is looking at?

No, not really. To both.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC