Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6082 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Ľ Home
Ľ Features
Ľ News
Ľ Forums
Ľ Classifieds
Ľ Links
Ľ Downloads
Extras
Ľ OS4 Zone
Ľ IRC Network
Ľ AmigaWorld Radio
Ľ Newsfeed
Ľ Top Members
Ľ Amiga Dealers
Information
Ľ About Us
Ľ FAQs
Ľ Advertise
Ľ Polls
Ľ Terms of Service
Ľ Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
46 crawler(s) on-line.
 20 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 BigD

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 BigD:  1 min ago
 Karlos:  19 mins ago
 CaptainFrank:  22 mins ago
 Amigo1:  29 mins ago
 V8:  34 mins ago
 BuLa:  35 mins ago
 pixie:  47 mins ago
 noXLar:  47 mins ago
 clusteruk:  1 hr 46 mins ago
 deadduckni:  1 hr 49 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Which CPU?
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )
PosterThread
ppcamiga1 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 14:45:13
#81 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 450
From: Unknown

Real "classic" amiga have to work on 32 bit big endian cpu.
It is one and only thing from oryginal hardware that "classic" Amiga have to have.
Use whatever cpu You want as long as it is not x86, arm or RiscV.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 15:34:08
#82 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6622
From: UK

@amigang

Quote:
Surly a pi4 / pistorm could emulate these boards


Yes it probably could but what OS4 software does a Cyberstorm/Blizzard PPC card run well in 2022?

THEA500 Mini runs the 'killer app' games that I missed out on during the Phase5 PPC era (albeit PSX versions); WipEout 2097 and even Worms Armageddon, which didn't quite make it to AmigaNG release although Hyperion had the license

So are we needing PPC developer tools or are we wanting to mess around with Candy Factory in 2022? Just asking. Obviously OS4.x can achieve more on an AmigaOne machine.

Last edited by BigD on 22-Aug-2022 at 03:36 PM.

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

 Status: Online!
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 19:29:16
#83 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote:
Real "classic" amiga have to work on 32 bit big endian cpu.

Only because you said it?
Quote:
It is one and only thing from oryginal hardware that "classic" Amiga have to have.

It's not written con Commodore's Amiga Hardware Reference Manual.
Quote:
Use whatever cpu You want as long as it is not x86, arm or RiscV.

As per above, you have to add PowerPCs as well.

Because only 68K processors should be used for an Amiga.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 20:31:14
#84 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1684
From: Kansas

cdimauro Quote:

Apple's AArch64 microarchitectures do so good because the company put an IMPRESSIVE amount of resources on the chip & on each core to achieve that big performances.

You can start comparing the size of caches, the number of instructions decoded & retired, the number of ports AKA execution units, the number of registers, the number of instructions kept on-the-fly, etc. etc. etc.

Such cores are MONSTERS from a resource point-of-view, compared to the best (from purely performance PoV) x86/x64 microarchitecture.

It's not difficult to see why they are performing so good.

It's a RISC implementation which is solving the performance problems in two ways, and the most important / significative one is by using a HUGE numbers of resources (AKA transistors).


Most x86-64 CPUs/SoCs are aggressive high performance designs too.

AMD Ryzen 7 1700 4.8 billion
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 6.0
Apple A12 Bionic 6.9 billion
Apple A12X Bionic 10.0
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H 10.7
Apple A14 11.4
Apple M1 16
Apple M1 Pro 34
Apple M1 Max 57
Apple M1 Ultra 114

The Ryzen 7 1700 is categorized as performance even though it is the base 1st gen Ryzen 7. The Ryzen 7 1700 has no integrated GPU while the Apple A12 SoC has an integrated GPU (a GPU can easily use half the transistors of a CPU+GPU SoC). The Apple A12 has a single die shrink advantage over the Ryzen 7 1700 but Apple didn't push transistor counts up hard until the M1.

Just for fun and to show the insanity of the 114 billion transistor SoC of the Apple M1 Ultra, that is enough transistors for 45,600 68060 CPUs so a chip with that many transistors could likely have that many cores. What could a quick Amiga SoC with that many transistor look like?

68060 2,500,000 transistors
AA+ chipset 200,000 transistors
2GiB 6T SRAM memory 103,079,215,104 transistors
===
103,081,915,104 total transistors

That leaves about 11 billion transistor for other improvements which is more than double the transistor count of the Ryzen 7 1700.

cdimauro Quote:

The comment is clearly written by a noob which has no clue of PowerPC and ARM architectures.

ARM has nothing in common with PowerPC, besides the above points that you reported.

Besides that, it's a very complex architecture: one of the "most CISC". Which is the way that ARM chose to improve performances (which is "inherited" by Apple for its chips. That's the second way from my above comment).


There are other similarities between ARM AArch64 and PPC even though they don't share ancestry. Despite looking much different, ARM likely studied PPC/POWER as it is one of the best performance/MHz load/store architectures. The RISC philosophy was to simplify instructions, reduce cycle times and minimize addressing modes to allow higher clock speeds but this increased heat and the RISC core bottlenecked with code trying to execute many weak instructions. The DEC Alpha was the pinnacle of this failed RISC philosophy. IBM designed PPC to have more complex and powerful instructions, a few more common addressing modes and code density was improved a little to minimize the RISC instruction instruction fetch bottleneck. AArch64 moves further in that direction with more powerful instructions, addressing modes on par with CISC CPUs and a significant code density improvement over PPC. One big improvement of AArch64 over PPC was that standardization allowed more powerful instructions, including SIMD instructions, to be used more often. Ironically, the last PPC standard changes were not to standardize more but to castrate and diversify the ISA and reduce hardware requirements to allow PPC to scale lower into the embedded market to compete with ARM Thumb2 (the 68k and ColdFire could scale lower than PPC too). ARM Thumb2 could not scale up in performance as much as the 68k which is why AArch64 was created. AArch64 with all the advantages of standardization is now more complex and more of a resource hog than PPC, except for the improved code density which saves instruction cache like CISC architectures. ARM has a reputation for small area low power embedded cores so the high resource requirements are often ignored and it can continue to use Thumb2 for low end embedded needs. Maybe a la carte Thumb2 (and RISC-V) is better for low end embedded and AArch64, now having replaced PPC, is better for high performance needs requiring 2 RISCish ISAs to cover potential markets but then the 68k once scaled enough into embedded to own the 16/32 bit embedded microprocessor market while scaling up in performance enough to own the workstation market. Motorola had ISA development issues and too much management politics after 68000 and 88000 ISA development leading to the IAM alliance surrender and the end of innovation at Motorola/Freescale.

cdimauro Quote:

What the 68K platform missed is essentially more memory (due to changed RAM technology) and CPU power (because 68060 was the last processor developed by the disastrous Motorola).


Even the 68060 didn't have a built in memory controller which allows for more flexibility of memory and has allowed memory bandwidth to double from most original 68060 accelerators. The down side of no memory controller is more expense in interfacing memory and a performance loss when using now antiquated memory.

cdimauro Quote:

However those came thanks to emulation first and recently by new hardware platforms Vampire (the most limited now. But Gunnar announced that he will go to the ASIC route in future), PiStorm.


Who is going to finance an ASIC optimized for FPGA? Do you think he will fund an ASIC with 10,000 niche market board sales?

cdimauro Quote:

So, what's really lacking on the Amiga/68K is "just" the modern software that you talked about : a browser, primarily; a mailer isn't that important IMO (I don't use one from ages: webmail is enough for me). Which "only" requires that some expert does it or ports an existing one.

In short: the 68K platform is missing nothing from an o.s. / technology PoV and has no intrinsic limits. It's only missing some (one, IMO) software.


Netsurf is a pretty good low resource web browser that would work well if Reaction compatibility to AmigaOS 4 was good enough. More 68k CPU performance and memory is valuable for modern web browsing and more competitively priced hardware is required to expand the user base enough to attract and incentivize development.

Last edited by matthey on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:57 PM.
Last edited by matthey on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:54 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 20:33:32
#85 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12344
From: Norway

@cdimauro

Quote:
Because only 68K processors should be used for an Amiga.


Cyber storm PPC, plugged into CPU slot on Amiga 4000, running AmigaOS4.x is not using the 680x0 CPU on a Classic Amiga 4000, the Amiga 4000 680x0 CPU is complete disabled and sitting ideal with nothing to do.

A PowerPC604 233 Mhz runs 680x0 programs as fast or faster than 68060 CPU, in that configuration, using the Putina JIT compiler. It did not make sense to use the MC680x0 CPU due to context switches. A context switch between a real 68060 and PowerPC means that CPU has to flush the data cache, to synchronize, this something WarpOS has to do, that Classic AmigaOS4.x does not do.

Someone can probably build JIT compiler that can work as 680x0 CPU, be more compatible, similar to PiStorm, a more modern PowerPC is naturally more powerful (and costly).

Is losing the WarpOS/PowerUP support wort it. Well maybe, dual booting is a option after all.

You can run DOOM / DUKE / Quake games faster on WarpOS, then you be able to run it on JIT compiler, thatís the only problem. The advantage is many of 68060 demos are not ported to PowerPC, but this demos can need some extra speed.

But it does not really make sense to keep upgrading when everything is so slow on Amiga 4000, slow ram, slow IDE, slow zorro, and thatís what PowerPC community understands, sadly the software needs this old custom chips.

The product thatís missing, or missing link, is the FPGA motherboard with FAST Ram, with PowerPC chip, something like the BoXeR.
(Sadly, that product never made it to market, if was made today, they wonít have design in a 680x0, as that just take up space without any performance benefits)

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 09:43 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:59 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:56 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:55 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:53 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:49 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:48 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:45 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:43 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:41 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 08:38 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 22:19:06
#86 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1684
From: Kansas

Hammer Quote:

FYI, Ryzen Zen 3/Zen 3-3D is currently using TSMC's 7 nm. By near the end of this month, AMD Zen 4 arrives with TSMC 5 nm. 14nm Zen 1.0 is too far from the current 7nm Zen 3 and 5 nm Zen 4.

Each Zen 4 core has nearly twice the cache bandwidth and supports AVX4-512. AMD is going to game Apple's favorite benchmarks.


I take it that won't be MacBench under QEMU emulation.

Hammer Quote:

AMD's other approach is a low-cost approach with handheld PC gaming e.g. Steam Deck's 7nm Van Gogh APU. X86 hardware vendors are building SteamDeck clones from AMD Rembrandt and Intel Alder Lake mobile APUs.


Speaking of standardization or lack thereof, there are several console and gaming standards using x86-64 CPUs but the SoC is not standard. The desktop, console and low cost mobile x86-64 gaming hardware requirements are enough different so limit standardization and shared development.

Hammer Quote:

Apple's AArch64 clone doesn't benefit the rest of the AArch64 ecosystem just as Apple's PPC usage didn't benefit the rest of PPC ecosystem. CPU instruction set compatibility is not enough to beat the X86/UEFI/ACPI HAL PC standard clone business model.


Apple primarily used off the shelf PPC hardware which increased economies of scale for PPC chip developers. Apple's AArch64 development is done in house and primarily benefits themselves but also ARM because of the architectural license.

Hammer Quote:

Recall from history, fragmented old-school RISC vendors were better than X86, and PC's clone army business model rendered old-school RISC vendors into a small market niche.


Minimal RISC cores had an area/transistor advantage that allowed them to pipeline and add caches that didn't fit on CISC CPU chips. The simple design, pipeline and caches allow for higher clock speeds as well. RISC designs looked good until more transistors could be put on a chip and CISC designs started to pipeline more powerful instructions and use caches where CISC code density saved transistors. RISC designs like DEC Alpha designs countered by pushing clock speeds higher than possible with CISC designs but power increases exponentially while the RISC core spends more time stalled, often waiting on instructions that didn't fit in the instruction cache or waiting for data because the instruction fetch used all the memory bandwidth. There wasn't much incentive to switch from x86 when compatibility could be maintained while performance was competitive with RISC and improving.

Hammer Quote:

ARM development board standards are fragmented just like their fragmented old-school RISC vendors.


Even with the standardization of ARM AArch64, it still is only for the CPU. Through OS functions and drivers, it should be possible to run the same software on different ARM hardware. Android does it even though it loses performance. The Amiga has standardization of the 68k CPU+chipset much like a console and actually as a console in the case of the CD32. Consoles rarely have the highest performance hardware but superior integration and better standardization often results in more optimal code with impressive results that can compete with more expensive hardware.

Last edited by matthey on 22-Aug-2022 at 10:21 PM.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 22-Aug-2022 22:59:46
#87 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12344
From: Norway

@matthey

Quote:
often results in more optimal code with impressive results


countless hours spent by coders better spent on doing something more productive.

I think optimized C64 demos are cool, but so what. They donít do what modern PC can do, or modern consoles. there just limit what you do with code, what you can hack.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 11:02 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 22-Aug-2022 at 11:01 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
matthey 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 1:23:25
#88 ]
Super Member
Joined: 14-Mar-2007
Posts: 1684
From: Kansas

NutsAboutAmiga Quote:

countless hours spent by coders better spent on doing something more productive.

I think optimized C64 demos are cool, but so what. They donít do what modern PC can do, or modern consoles. there just limit what you do with code, what you can hack.


Writing and supporting thousands of drivers for every hardware using half or no documentation, reverse engineering, trial and error and poorly optimized Linux driver sources that were programmed using the same process is so much more "productive", not to mention the often far from optimized and sometimes buggy results.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 4:19:23
#89 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Aug-2003
Posts: 2315
From: Trondheim, Norway

@ppcamiga1

Whatís wrong with 32bit big endian ARM?

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 5:04:12
#90 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@matthey

Quote:

matthey wrote:
cdimauro Quote:

Apple's AArch64 microarchitectures do so good because the company put an IMPRESSIVE amount of resources on the chip & on each core to achieve that big performances.

You can start comparing the size of caches, the number of instructions decoded & retired, the number of ports AKA execution units, the number of registers, the number of instructions kept on-the-fly, etc. etc. etc.

Such cores are MONSTERS from a resource point-of-view, compared to the best (from purely performance PoV) x86/x64 microarchitecture.

It's not difficult to see why they are performing so good.

It's a RISC implementation which is solving the performance problems in two ways, and the most important / significative one is by using a HUGE numbers of resources (AKA transistors).


Most x86-64 CPUs/SoCs are aggressive high performance designs too.

Sure, but not as aggressive as Apple's ones.
Quote:
AMD Ryzen 7 1700 4.8 billion
AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 6.0
Apple A12 Bionic 6.9 billion
Apple A12X Bionic 10.0
AMD Ryzen 7 5800H 10.7
Apple A14 11.4
Apple M1 16
Apple M1 Pro 34
Apple M1 Max 57
Apple M1 Ultra 114

The Ryzen 7 1700 is categorized as performance even though it is the base 1st gen Ryzen 7. The Ryzen 7 1700 has no integrated GPU while the Apple A12 SoC has an integrated GPU (a GPU can easily use half the transistors of a CPU+GPU SoC).

Putting aside GPUs and uncore elements (but keeping L3 and System Cache), if you compare the resources per core you'll see that there's a huge difference between any x86/x64 core (and L3 cache) and any Apple's core (and System Cache).

Plus and starting with the M1, Apple is now embedding the memory chips on the package, so completely removing the traditional memory controller.

Those are the key elements for its impressive performances.
Quote:
The Apple A12 has a single die shrink advantage over the Ryzen 7 1700 but Apple didn't push transistor counts up hard until the M1.

That's another advantage for Apple: better productive processes...
Quote:
Just for fun and to show the insanity of the 114 billion transistor SoC of the Apple M1 Ultra, that is enough transistors for 45,600 68060 CPUs so a chip with that many transistors could likely have that many cores. What could a quick Amiga SoC with that many transistor look like?

68060 2,500,000 transistors
AA+ chipset 200,000 transistors
2GiB 6T SRAM memory 103,079,215,104 transistors
===
103,081,915,104 total transistors

That leaves about 11 billion transistor for other improvements which is more than double the transistor count of the Ryzen 7 1700.

Indeed. So much "wasted" silicon, eh?
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

The comment is clearly written by a noob which has no clue of PowerPC and ARM architectures.

ARM has nothing in common with PowerPC, besides the above points that you reported.

Besides that, it's a very complex architecture: one of the "most CISC". Which is the way that ARM chose to improve performances (which is "inherited" by Apple for its chips. That's the second way from my above comment).


There are other similarities between ARM AArch64 and PPC even though they don't share ancestry. Despite looking much different, ARM likely studied PPC/POWER as it is one of the best performance/MHz load/store architectures. The RISC philosophy was to simplify instructions, reduce cycle times and minimize addressing modes to allow higher clock speeds but this increased heat and the RISC core bottlenecked with code trying to execute many weak instructions. The DEC Alpha was the pinnacle of this failed RISC philosophy. IBM designed PPC to have more complex and powerful instructions, a few more common addressing modes and code density was improved a little to minimize the RISC instruction instruction fetch bottleneck. AArch64 moves further in that direction with more powerful instructions, addressing modes on par with CISC CPUs and a significant code density improvement over PPC. One big improvement of AArch64 over PPC was that standardization allowed more powerful instructions, including SIMD instructions, to be used more often.

That's why I've said that those processors are very different.
Quote:
Ironically, the last PPC standard changes were not to standardize more but to castrate and diversify the ISA and reduce hardware requirements to allow PPC to scale lower into the embedded market to compete with ARM Thumb2 (the 68k and ColdFire could scale lower than PPC too).

It's too late: PowerPC lost the train years ago...
Quote:
ARM Thumb2 could not scale up in performance as much as the 68k which is why AArch64 was created. AArch64 with all the advantages of standardization is now more complex and more of a resource hog than PPC, except for the improved code density which saves instruction cache like CISC architectures. ARM has a reputation for small area low power embedded cores so the high resource requirements are often ignored and it can continue to use Thumb2 for low end embedded needs. Maybe a la carte Thumb2 (and RISC-V) is better for low end embedded and AArch64, now having replaced PPC, is better for high performance needs requiring 2 RISCish ISAs to cover potential markets

Exactly. ARM is keeping Thumb2 with its 32-bit Cortex for embedded use and AArch64 for everything else.

Thumb2 is certainly better than RISC-V and it's the reason prof. Patterson & colleagues "carefully" removed it (and x86 as well) from the paper that I've reported some weeks ago: to avoid embarrassing comparisons with their beloved ISA...
Quote:
but then the 68k once scaled enough into embedded to own the 16/32 bit embedded microprocessor market while scaling up in performance enough to own the workstation market. Motorola had ISA development issues and too much management politics after 68000 and 88000 ISA development leading to the IAM alliance surrender and the end of innovation at Motorola/Freescale.

We know it. Unfortunately...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

However those came thanks to emulation first and recently by new hardware platforms Vampire (the most limited now. But Gunnar announced that he will go to the ASIC route in future), PiStorm.


Who is going to finance an ASIC optimized for FPGA? Do you think he will fund an ASIC with 10,000 niche market board sales?

Well, if the numbers are the mentioned ones (10K pieces sold. And so much money for licensing the softcores and other stuff), Gunnar should have something on his pockets...
Quote:
cdimauro Quote:

So, what's really lacking on the Amiga/68K is "just" the modern software that you talked about : a browser, primarily; a mailer isn't that important IMO (I don't use one from ages: webmail is enough for me). Which "only" requires that some expert does it or ports an existing one.

In short: the 68K platform is missing nothing from an o.s. / technology PoV and has no intrinsic limits. It's only missing some (one, IMO) software.


Netsurf is a pretty good low resource web browser that would work well if Reaction compatibility to AmigaOS 4 was good enough.

It's inadeguate for modern browsing / web tecnologies.
Quote:
More 68k CPU performance and memory is valuable for modern web browsing and more competitively priced hardware is required to expand the user base enough to attract and incentivize development.

Exactly.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 5:11:36
#91 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

NutsAboutAmiga wrote:
@cdimauro

Quote:
Because only 68K processors should be used for an Amiga.


Cyber storm PPC, plugged into CPU slot on Amiga 4000, running AmigaOS4.x is not using the 680x0 CPU on a Classic Amiga 4000, the Amiga 4000 680x0 CPU is complete disabled and sitting ideal with nothing to do.

So, you're missing one of the key elements which makes/defines an Amiga. See page 1 from the mentioned Amiga Hardware Reference Manual:
https://archive.org/details/amiga-hardware-reference-manual-3rd-edition/page/1/mode/2up?view=theater
Quote:
A PowerPC604 233 Mhz runs 680x0 programs as fast or faster than 68060 CPU, in that configuration, using the Putina JIT compiler. It did not make sense to use the MC680x0 CPU due to context switches. A context switch between a real 68060 and PowerPC means that CPU has to flush the data cache, to synchronize, this something WarpOS has to do, that Classic AmigaOS4.x does not do.

Someone can probably build JIT compiler that can work as 680x0 CPU, be more compatible, similar to PiStorm, a more modern PowerPC is naturally more powerful (and costly).

There are no new PowerPCs.

Only POWERs are left.
Quote:
Is losing the WarpOS/PowerUP support wort it. Well maybe, dual booting is a option after all.

You can run DOOM / DUKE / Quake games faster on WarpOS, then you be able to run it on JIT compiler, thatís the only problem. The advantage is many of 68060 demos are not ported to PowerPC, but this demos can need some extra speed.

They aren't ported likely because they hit the hardware and they are written in pure assembly. So, not worth the effort.
Quote:
But it does not really make sense to keep upgrading when everything is so slow on Amiga 4000, slow ram, slow IDE, slow zorro, and thatís what PowerPC community understands, sadly the software needs this old custom chips.

Exactly. It's a retro market, and you've to deal with the good old hardware.
Quote:
The product thatís missing, or missing link, is the FPGA motherboard with FAST Ram, with PowerPC chip, something like the BoXeR.
(Sadly, that product never made it to market, if was made today, they wonít have design in a 680x0, as that just take up space without any performance benefits)

Why do you need a FPGA? Aren't PowerPCs powerful enough to emulate the Amiga's chipset?


@kolla

Quote:

kolla wrote:
@ppcamiga1

Whatís wrong with 32bit big endian ARM?

In his hamster's mind it's because it's not PowerPC.

His logic is very very simple: everything which is NOT PowerPC is not good. Full stop.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
ppcamiga1 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 5:38:38
#92 ]
Regular Member
Joined: 23-Aug-2015
Posts: 450
From: Unknown

@cdimauro

aros clowns as usually has problems with PowerPC.
Amiga was made when all 32 bit cpu where big endian.
So real "classic" amiga have to work on 32 bit big endian cpu.
It is one and only thing from oryginal hardware that "classic" Amiga have to have.
Use whatever cpu You want as long as it is not x86, arm or RiscV.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 7:52:36
#93 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6622
From: UK

@ppcamiga1

Quote:
Use whatever cpu You want as long as it is not x86, arm or RiscV


Seriously?! You've lost the plot IMHO! There are NO new PPC cores in development and Arm chips have proved sufficient for Classic emulation. Not following you other than a crusade to have current endianess for the sake of it!

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

 Status: Online!
Profile     Report this post  
Hammer 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 8:45:16
#94 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Mar-2003
Posts: 4600
From: Australia

@matthey

Quote:
I take it that won't be MacBench under QEMU emulation.

Geekbench.

Quote:
Speaking of standardization or lack thereof, there are several console and gaming standards using x86-64 CPUs but the SoC is not standard. The desktop, console and low cost mobile x86-64 gaming hardware requirements are enough different so limit standardization and shared development.

For the recycled PS5 APU, AMD shipped the necessary UEFI/ACPI for AMD 4700S SKU.

Xbox One/Xbox One X/Series S/Series X and PS4/PS5 are garden walled platforms, but MS still supervises the clone hardware X86 PC standard.

Quote:

Apple primarily used off the shelf PPC hardware which increased economies of scale for PPC chip developers.

No different from fragmented 68K.

_________________
Ryzen 9 7950X, DDR5-6000 64 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-5600 32 GB RAM, GeForce RTX 3080 Ti
Amiga 1200 (rev 1D1, KS 3.2, TF1260, 68060 @ 63 Mhz, 128 MB)
Amiga 500 (rev 6A, KS 3.2, PiStorm/RPi3a/Emu68)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 10:31:47
#95 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 1907
From: Cheshire, England

@BigD

Quote:
Yes it probably could but what OS4 software does a Cyberstorm/Blizzard PPC card run well in 2022?

So are we needing PPC developer tools or are we wanting to mess around with Candy Factory in 2022? Just asking. Obviously OS4.x can achieve more on an AmigaOne machine.


True there not that much software, but there more software designed to run on PPC than ARM / RISC for Amiga

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
BigD 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 10:39:27
#96 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 11-Aug-2005
Posts: 6622
From: UK

@amigang

AmiBerry seems quite advanced IMHO but yes no native Arm software. However, if you deduce that PPC development is stalling (other than maybe Enhancer) then we kind of in the same position with Arm as PPC!

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

 Status: Online!
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 15:38:07
#97 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12344
From: Norway

@cdimauro

Quote:
So, you're missing one of the key elements which makes/defines an Amiga.


And you dismiss part of Amigaís upgrade history. Beside already disproven by PiStorm, and hardware upgrades, you donít need a 680x0 CPU, and get by with incompatible BIOS. Just look at EmuTOS.
Quote:
They aren't ported likely because they hit the hardware and they are written in pure assembly. So, not worth the effort.


Nope, people got old, most people I talk to at work, or other places do not use an Amiga anymore, now are you shocked? People had time in there 20ís maybe lacked cash back them. so they started getting kids when where 25 or older, now they donít have time, thatís pretty much the story. Some people quitted 1990ís, and some quitted in 2000ís, the Amiga thing is declining hobby. With fewer and fewer people using and developing for etch year. Just a fact of life. And I expect is not going to get better.

And the demo codes I know that use AmigaOS4.x, mostly do not make demos anymore, they write libraries, or mess around with SDL and games, programs, maybe a age thing or maybe itís not as big priority as other things.

Quote:
Why do you need a FPGA?


Easier adaption, and acceptance, with better legacy support, PowerPC path might feel like more natural / smoother path.

Quote:
Aren't PowerPCs powerful enough to emulate the Amiga's chipset?


No issues, just we running on one CPU core, the emulation takes up everything.
the GFX convention is pretty complex thing on its own, P2C, 8bit + Color palette to 16bit or 32bit. The copper thing is its own secondary interpreter. UAE in general has updated much for AmigsOS4.x, most developers writing software for AmigaOS4.x/PowerPC instead.

PiStorm or Putinia / Trace donít need to deal with that, and run faster then, any UAE installed on same system, not sure why any wonts install UAE on PiStrom but for fun you can install the 68k version of UAE and see how well that one runs, LOL..

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 23-Aug-2022 at 05:09 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 23-Aug-2022 at 03:42 PM.
Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 23-Aug-2022 at 03:40 PM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
amigang 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 16:36:35
#98 ]
Super Member
Joined: 12-Jan-2005
Posts: 1907
From: Cheshire, England

@BigD

Quote:
AmiBerry seems quite advanced IMHO


It is, I kind of official moved over to Amikit XE as my Amiga fix now, with Rabbit hole and as well as being able to try other setup easily, Pimiga and A500mini Game Selector is coming over to Pi soon.

I think some improvements are need on JIT 68K port as I do encounter the odd issue that I dont get on WinUAE setup.

But also if you follow epsilon, he goes on how you can make Linux feel even more like Amiga,
https://www.epsilonsworld.com/2022/08/checkmate-1500-mini-case-build-with.html
yes I would love it if Amiga could run native apps like Chrome, but unfortunately that just not going to happen, so this I think is the best current solution.

_________________
AmigaNG, YouTube, LeaveReality Studio

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
michalsc 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 17:12:17
#99 ]
AROS Core Developer
Joined: 14-Jun-2005
Posts: 327
From: Germany

@BigD

please don't feed that troll...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
cdimauro 
Re: Which Meinboard?
Posted on 23-Aug-2022 18:02:05
#100 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Oct-2012
Posts: 3084
From: Germany

@ppcamiga1

Quote:

ppcamiga1 wrote:
@cdimauro

aros clowns

And here you show your real nature: you're an AROS hater. What a news!
Quote:
as usually has problems with PowerPC.

I've no problems with processors: they are just piece of hardware, with their pros and cons.

You, instead, have problems with elementary logic.
Quote:
Amiga was made when all 32 bit cpu where big endian.

I never saw a bullsh*t bigger than this before.

1977: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VAX
1981: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432
26 April 1985: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture_family#ARM1

and your "beloved" one: October 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I386

I can continue, because there were other little endian 32-bit processors, but that's enough to show your lie / ignorance.
Quote:
So real "classic" amiga have to work on 32 bit big endian cpu.

I've already reported what defines and Amiga and that's something with a 68K CPU. Full stop.
Quote:
It is one and only thing from oryginal hardware that "classic" Amiga have to have.

There's no original hardware neither any "classic" Amiga: there were only Amigas with their hardware, as clearly defined by Commodore.
Quote:
Use whatever cpu You want as long as it is not x86, arm or RiscV.

See above: ARM is ALSO big-endian. IGNORANT!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 Next Page )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle