@pavlor

are you sure of this

Quote:

by slow CPU on X5000.

im not too much

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@tlosm

Quote:

im not too much

Well, we know SpecCPU2006 result of e6500 core, e5500 shouldn´t be too much different.

@pavlor

i dont know the spech .... but im touching it and the quad can compare

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@tlosm

You lucky one!

@iggy

I'm intrigued by the idea of using a PPC PCIe card (does one exist?) on X64 motherboard, surely this could be a route to take to eventually run it natively on X64

_________________
1 AmigaOne G4XE (OS4 Pre-Release Update4)
Minimig
Sam440ep + OS4.1FE
Sam460cr + OS4.1FE

@1Mouse

yes dev boards. eg 5020 dev board prize only 4000 usd for one pice

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome

@pavlor

Quote:

Gallium3D is now comparable in speed to proprietary drivers, fast "x86" CPUs could gain far more power from modern graphics cards (eg. Radeon R9 would be bottle-necked by slow CPU on X5000 even with superb drivers).

Funny, I don't agree with either statement.
Comparable, no, not according to benchmarks outside of Linux.
Bottle-necked by a 2.2 PPC? No more so than by a comparable speed X64. And it would still fly.

@1Mouse

Quote:

I'm intrigued by the idea of using a PPC PCIe card (does one exist?) on X64 motherboard, surely this could be a route to take to eventually run it natively on X64

Yes, they exist.
Right now, they are a bit expensive.
But a more basic design based on a lower cost cpu like the T1022 or T1042 ought to bring the price down.
And not only would it make migration to X64 easier, it could potentially allow the concurrent support of both ISAs.

@iggy

Quote:

Bottle-necked by a 2.2 PPC? No more so than by a comparable speed X64. And it would still fly.

Comparable speed PPC? You mean something like Core Duo from 2006?

@pavlor

Yes, e5500/e6500 are slow by modern standards, but it's not an issue since there are no games on OS4 that would be bottlenecked by slow CPUs.

_________________

@1Mouse

Quote:

1Mouse wrote: @iggy I'm intrigued by the idea of using a PPC PCIe card (does one exist?) on X64 motherboard, surely this could be a route to take to eventually run it natively on X64

It doesn't make sense. On x64 you've plenty of cores with latest processors, so you can use one only devoted for the PowerPC emulation, to make such legacy code run on its own sandbox.

For 68K code you can still use the same PowerPC sandbox, with Petunia (Trance for MorphOS), or create a separate sandbox which runs on its proper core.

PowerPC and 68K have x86/x64 JITs which are good enough for a mid/low-end usage, and performance are improving over time.

A PowerPC board is only a waste of money for the user.

@pavlor

Quote:

Comparable speed PPC? You mean something like Core Duo from 2006?

You'd do well, at this point, to start making a serious comparison between Core 2 or the current line of Core processors.
X64 is not moving as fast as you seem to think.
BTW - This is being typed on a Core 2 Quad system.

PPC as fast as higher end X64 Never.
But close enough.

This entire thread has been obsessed with minor incremental improvements we have been getting since Intel had then sense to ditch Netburst.

But from a practical standpoint, everything has been 'fast enough' for some time.

My benchmark?
It it runs a game at 60 fps or better, its fine.

@cdimauro

Quote:

so you can use one only devoted for the PowerPC emulation

In a word, inadequate.
An X64 can easily emulate a Pase 5 PPC board.
It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC.

And if YOU want to emulate X86 on a PPC or 68K, you are far more into pain than I am.

@iggy

Quote:

iggy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: so you can use one only devoted for the PowerPC emulation In a word, inadequate. An X64 can easily emulate a Pase 5 PPC board. It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC. And if YOU want to emulate X86 on a PPC or 68K, you are far more into pain than I am.

Thing is, demanding ppc programs are still actively developed/maintained.
E.g. Mplayer, Odyssey, Blender on a P5 board would rather suck, but they are still active, hence they would be available natively for x64 rather sooner than later.
Most ppc programs not activly maintained anymore will probably be okay on P5 card performance level.
Hence, no _urgent_ need of a high speed ppc emu with a x64 version of MorphOS. Just like I wrote in my earlier linked article.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@iggy

Quote:

iggy wrote: You'd do well, at this point, to start making a serious comparison between Core 2 or the current line of Core processors. X64 is not moving as fast as you seem to think. BTW - This is being typed on a Core 2 Quad system. PPC as fast as higher end X64 Never. But close enough.

It depends on what you do. Some software isn't demanding high performance. Other yes, and you'll notice the difference.
Quote:

This entire thread has been obsessed with minor incremental improvements we have been getting since Intel had then sense to ditch Netburst.

As I already said, for this you've to ask god, if you believe in it.

Intel was simply the first company to scratch the head with this wall.
Quote:

But from a practical standpoint, everything has been 'fast enough' for some time. My benchmark? It it runs a game at 60 fps or better, its fine.

This depends also on your graphic card.

It'll be nice to see how a modern game runs on the topmost PowerPC machine.

Quote:

iggy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: so you can use one only devoted for the PowerPC emulation In a word, inadequate. An X64 can easily emulate a Pase 5 PPC board. It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC.

Here: First Look: Benchmarks: Rosetta apps bolstered by OS X update
you can find what you can reach with a very old Core Duo processor, with a PowerPC JITer done well.

The real problem is that you can use QEMU, but not Rosetta.
Quote:

And if YOU want to emulate X86 on a PPC or 68K, you are far more into pain than I am.

That's why it's best to do the opposite.


@Zylesea

Quote:

Zylesea wrote: @iggy Quote: iggy wrote: @cdimauro In a word, inadequate. An X64 can easily emulate a Pase 5 PPC board. It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC. And if YOU want to emulate X86 on a PPC or 68K, you are far more into pain than I am. Thing is, demanding ppc programs are still actively developed/maintained. E.g. Mplayer, Odyssey, Blender on a P5 board would rather suck, but they are still active, hence they would be available natively for x64 rather sooner than later. Most ppc programs not activly maintained anymore will probably be okay on P5 card performance level. Hence, no _urgent_ need of a high speed ppc emu with a x64 version of MorphOS. Just like I wrote in my earlier linked article.

I fully agree.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Intel was simply the first company to scratch the head with this wall.

I should stop beating them up about this.
When the P4 was introduced I was baffled by some of the design features, in particular the memory interface which seemed designed with a much more powerful future revision.
Everything really did point to the fact that they really expected this to scale monstrously.

At the time, I was overclocking Tualatin based cpus to 1.6 GHz then comparing them to P4s at 1.6 and going , WTF?

This entire thread seems so pointless.
I know X64 is ahead.

We are using PPC, and the e5500 and e6500 cored cpus are adequate (quite nice actually) to the task and could serve us while the ISA transition is worked on (and that is going to take some time).

So, what everyone seems to miss is that I'm all for an eventual ISA shift (it is inevitable).

But the insistence that the comparisons between different cpus (all of which are adequate) is ridiculous.

I still have one Atom based system that while a little slow serves fine.

And a 2.7 GHz G5, that is still faster than a large percentage of current laptops.

S0, why are we wasting our time arguing over finer points when we all tend to agree on the basic realities (except for maybe those few that still think they are going to build a 68K that will 'kick our asses')?

Last edited by iggy on 14-Dec-2015 at 01:53 PM.

@iggy

Quote:

But close enough.

T4240 1.666 GHz: 6.86 SpecInt_base2006 (single core integer performance)
Core 2 Q6600 2.4 GHz: 16.3 SpecInt_base2006
Core i5-2500K 3.3 GHz: 41.0 SpecInt_base2006
Core i5-4460 3.2 GHz: 50.9 SpecInt_base2006

Close enough.


Quote:

It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC.

Not yet. Close to 500 MHz G3 on my hardware.


Quote:

But from a practical standpoint, everything has been 'fast enough' for some time.

For most of my needs, but as emulator fan I say the more speed, the better.

@iggy

Quote:

iggy wrote: @cdimauro Quote: Intel was simply the first company to scratch the head with this wall. I should stop beating them up about this. When the P4 was introduced I was baffled by some of the design features, in particular the memory interface which seemed designed with a much more powerful future revision. Everything really did point to the fact that they really expected this to scale monstrously.

Exactly. That was the idea, and the architecture was specifically tailored for running at high frequencies. Intel's previsions were to reach 10Ghz on 2010.

The new memory interface served to feed the multimedia capabilities of the chip, thanks to such high frequencies and the introduction of SS2.

What's left is only the latter, because the stop on frequency scaling ruined the plans. Intel was the first one to touch it, because of it's pioneering role in developing new productive processes for its chips.
Quote:

At the time, I was overclocking Tualatin based cpus to 1.6 GHz then comparing them to P4s at 1.6 and going , WTF?

You cannot compare architectures clock-for-clock. As I said, the Pentium 4 was made to work at high frequency, and had a lower IPC. The Pentium III is the exact opposite: it was designed for high IPC, but consequently reached much lower frequencies.

When you want to compare processors, you cannot count on IPC or frequency only: you've to take care of both, because the final result comes from their combination.
Quote:

[...] S0, why are we wasting our time arguing over finer points when we all tend to agree on the basic realities (except for maybe those few that still think they are going to build a 68K that will 'kick our asses')?

Because we like to discuss, especially when technical things come?


@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @iggy Quote: It can NOT emulate a high speed PPC. Not yet. Close to 500 MHz G3 on my hardware.

Not yet for OS4, because Rosetta shown what can be achieved by a very old x64 processor with a much better JITer.

@cdimauro

Quote:

Not yet for OS4, because Rosetta shown what can be achieved by a very old x64 processor with a much better JITer.

I thought I´m the one with unrealistic dreams about PPC2x64 emulation.

@pavlor

I thinking too PPC64 and Kvm emulation of X64

_________________
I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG
A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32;
PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB;
MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz;
#nomorea-eoninmyhome