MorphZone

New SAM460EX

Andreas_Wolf

# 484

Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> the powermac is much better

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

Code:

---> CPU <---
MAX MIPS: 2332

---> L1 <---
READ32: 4511 MB/Sec
READ64: 9011 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 4449 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 8882 MB/Sec

---> L2 <---
READ32: 1061 MB/Sec
READ64: 1061 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 520 MB/Sec

---> RAM <---
READ32: 311 MB/Sec
READ64: 310 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE: 1251 MB/Sec (Tricky)

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 72 MB/Sec
WRITE: 261 MB/Sec

Source: http://www.amigans.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=59270#forumpost59270

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

Code:

---> CPU <---
MAX MIPS:  4475

---> L1 <---
READ32:  5687 MB/Sec
READ64:  11372 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 4874 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 3794 MB/Sec

---> L2 <---
READ32:  2579 MB/Sec
READ64:  3363 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2330 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 2952 MB/Sec

---> RAM <---
READ32:  387 MB/Sec
READ64:  403 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 771 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 771 MB/Sec
WRITE: 809 MB/Sec (Tricky)

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ:  32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 180 MB/Sec

Used benchmarking program is RAGEMEM v0.37 (run on MorphOS via OS4Emu):
http://os4depot.net/?function=showfile&file=utility/benchmark/ragemem.lha

»11.11.10 - 23:38

Andreas_Wolf

# 485
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

Update:

> PPC470: 2.3 or 2.5 (varying with information source)

According to IBM* the PPC476FP core even delivers 2.7 DMIPS/MHz. That puts it above e500mc (2.5 DMIPS/MHz).

* PPC476FP Core Product Brief (August 2010, page 2)
»12.11.10 - 23:55

Andreas_Wolf

# 486

Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):
> [...]
> Used benchmarking program is RAGEMEM v0.37 (run on MorphOS via OS4Emu)

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.0 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

Code:

[Dec 12 14:52:26 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
0.00:00:17.07 [10,124,948 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
Default core : #-1 (undefined)
Fastest core : #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:04 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.44 [3,055,014 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:04 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:22 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.08 [3,286,052 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:22 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
[Dec 12 14:53:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
0.00:00:16.07 [3,137,568 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:40 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:59 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
0.00:00:16.08 [2,964,053 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:59 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
[Dec 12 14:54:18 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
0.00:00:16.07 [2,981,904 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:54:18 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #-1 (undefined)
Fastest core : #1 (KKS 2-pipe)

Source: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32858&forum=33#591840

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

Code:

[Dec 12 19:51:51 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
[Dec 12 19:52:11 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
                      0.00:00:16.62 [14,881,017 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:11 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid).
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
                      0.00:00:17.23 [31,267,175 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
                      Default core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
                      Fastest core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:52:49 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.11 [5,763,995 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:49 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:53:08 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.99 [5,647,545 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:08 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
[Dec 12 19:53:27 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
                      0.00:00:16.63 [5,773,289 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:27 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (KKS 7400).
[Dec 12 19:53:46 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (KKS 7400)
                      0.00:00:16.09 [13,421,897 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:46 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (KKS 7450).
[Dec 12 19:54:05 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (KKS 7450)
                      0.00:00:16.80 [15,701,333 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:05 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:54:24 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.70 [5,261,511 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:24 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
[Dec 12 19:54:43 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
                      0.00:00:16.10 [5,198,168 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:43 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
                      Default core : #4 (KKS 7450)
                      Fastest core : #4 (KKS 7450)

Used benchmarking program is dnetc (v2.9106-514 on MorphOS and v2.9105-511 on OS4*), run as "dnetc -bench":
http://www.distributed.net/Download_clients

Clock per clock comparison of the CPUs regarding OGR-NG and RC5-72:
In OGR-NG the 7447A/B is about 105% faster per clock than the 460EX. In RC5-72 the 7447A/B is about 220% faster per clock than the 460EX. This vast advantage of the 7447A/B is due to its ability to run AltiVec accelerated dnetc cores.

Clock per clock comparison of the CPUs regarding the particular dnetc cores**:
KOGE 3.1 Scalar: 460EX is 2% faster per clock.
MH 2-pipe: 7447A/B is 26% faster per clock.
KKS 2-pipe: 7447A/B is 15% faster per clock.
KKS 604e: 7447A/B is 23% faster per clock.
MH 1-pipe: 7447A/B is 18% faster per clock.
MH 1-pipe 604e: 7447A/B is 16% faster per clock.

* Using the very same version on MorphOS as on OS4 doesn't result in any significant changes.
** KOGE 3.1 Hybrid, KKS 7400 and KKS 7450 are N/A on 460EX due to missing AltiVec support in that processor.

»12.12.10 - 19:11

jcmarcos

# 487
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 72 MB/Sec
WRITE: 261 MB/Sec

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 180 MB/Sec

Those figures surprise me. I never thought a SAM would be in any way trouncing a MacMini (or almost any other PowerPC AmigaOS/MorphOS computer). Could anyone ellaborate? What's "wrong" on the MacMini?
»13.12.10 - 09:10

Andreas_Wolf

# 488
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> What's "wrong" on the MacMini?

While I don't have an answer to that question I just want to add that it's not only the Mac mini showing such low figures compared to the Sam460ex:

------------------------------
Powermac G4 Gigabit (7455 1GHz)
[...]
VIDEO BUS
READ: 38 MB/Sec
WRITE: 126 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33#588009

------------------------------
PowerBook 1.67GHz
[...]
--- VIDEO BUS ---
READ: 32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 159 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33&start=40#588294

Pegasos II G4 seems to be placed between G4 Macs and Sam460ex:

------------------------------
Pegasos II 1GHz
[...]
--- VIDEO BUS ---
READ: 52 MB/Sec
WRITE: 220 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33&start=40#588294

For me it's not clear whether the Sam460ex results are derived from PCI (onboard GPU or Radeon in PCI slot) or from PCIe.
»13.12.10 - 09:51

Zylesea

# 489
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 2057 from 2003/6/4

There's nothing wrong wth the mini. But the 7447 and teh Apple northbridge aren't really a new chips. While the e600 ALU is nice and better than most other ppc ALUs, the 7447 uses a very old FSB interface and a dedicated northbridge.
The Sam's 460 while not having a fast/high clocked ALU has a better FSB though (no wonder, the chip is low end but rather modern).
Throughput is a major key factor for the overall performance. It is also the reason why an 8610 board would have outperformed all other G4 ppc systems on most operations (not pure numbercrunchuing like OGR though) - an e600 core with a fast FSB.
Anyway, while the Sam460 figures show that this Sam will proabably offer at least a power nice enough for much it is also clear, that it is stil an entire class below the mini in terms of computing power.
--
http://via.bckrs.de

Whenever you're sad just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as David Bowie.
...and Matthias , my friend - RIP
»13.12.10 - 09:59

jcmarcos

# 490
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Zylesea wrote:

an 8610 board would have outperformed all other G4 ppc systems on most operations (not pure numbercrunchuing like OGR though) - an e600 core with a fast FSB.

...until you use its internal display unit, which steals CPU cycles the same way an Amiga does when using its custom chips. Or has it some mechanism for the DIU to read video mapped memory without blocking the CPU?

Sorry to bring up again this old debate, but my curiosity on this has never been satisfied.

Ulrich, didn't you actually own an 8610 evaluation board? Or was it Konstantinos?
»13.12.10 - 10:50

Andreas_Wolf

# 491
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Ulrich, didn't you actually own an 8610 evaluation board? Or was it Konstantinos?

I think it was the latter:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&post_id=63178#63178
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6465&forum=11&post_id=67222#67222
»13.12.10 - 14:13

Zylesea

# 492
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 2057 from 2003/6/4

Andreas is, no big surprise, right - I don't have an 8610. But I always liked to have seen one emerging on the market and would have suggested Acube to base their next Sam on it. Would have been the way smarter choice IMHO.

The question whether the internal DiU is blocking the cpu or not is far from trivial. best choice is a 8610 board plus a (powerful) pci express gfx card with dedicated VRAM. But the DIU isn't as braking as the custom chips on Amiga were. The RAM controller runs at full speed (up to 533 MHz). The the maximum bandwith is shared between all DMA units attached to the bus. Since the bus is fast I woud expect a better performance with shared memory on a 8610 than with a slow bus and dedicated RAM on a 7447. Anyway, for high performance you better add a dedicated pci express gfx card and then the problem is void anyway.
If you want 3D you'll need a dedicated fgx card anyway. But on youtube there is that demo which shows that the 8610 is cacpable of hd video - I think that shows quite well, that it is actually rather capable.
Anyway - it's all academic. The 8610 is ageing. Today and tomorrow QorIQ the best route for PPC (if at all that is).
--
http://via.bckrs.de

Whenever you're sad just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as David Bowie.
...and Matthias , my friend - RIP
»13.12.10 - 15:05

Andreas_Wolf

# 493
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

To answer my own questions:

> 1. Does PacketPro have an FPU?
> [...]
> 6. What is Applied Micro's "APM86XXX" "32-bit Commercial Processor" that is
> listed in Power.org's latest Power Architecture roadmap version? Is it PacketPro?

The answer is "yes" to both questions.

"AppliedMicro's Mamba APM86190 single-core devices and APM86290 dual-core processors feature up to two 1.5GHz PowerPC 465 processing cores with floating point units, 32 KB I- and 32KB D-cache, 256 KB L2 cache per processor, hardware cache coherency, 1600 Mbps DDR3 memory controller with optional ECC. High-speed interfaces consist of two GE ports with classification and TCP/IP offload, one x4 PCI-Express(R) Gen2, two x1 PCI-e Gen 2 ports, two USB 2.0 hosts with integrated PHYs, one USB 2.0 OTG with integrated PHY and two SATA 2.0 ports. [...] Sample quantities of AppliedMicro's Mamba APM86190 single-core and APM86290 dual-core SoCs are available now and production quantities are expected in the second quarter of 2011."
http://investor.appliedmicro.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=78121&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1506830

"Dual-Core Power 465 processors each with a Floating Point Unit"
http://www.appliedmicro.com/products/process.html#EmbeddedProcessors

"At the heart of the APM86290 are two 1.5-GHz 465 processor cores based on Power Architecture with full SMP support and individual Floating Point processors. [...] The APM86290 incorporates two high performance 465 processors. Each 465 has [...] an IEEE floating point unit (FPU)."
http://www.appliedmicro.com/products/APM86290_PB_20101011.pdf

I guess that both USB 3.0 and 10GbE, which were announced for PacketPro back in September, are supposed to be implemented only in future, yet to be announced PacketPro processors.

Edit:
http://www.apm.com/products/embedded/multicore460/apm86190/
http://www.apm.com/products/embedded/multicore460/apm86290/

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2011/1/6 22:48 ]
»13.12.10 - 19:34

jcmarcos

# 494
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Andreas, that "mamba" chip looks the nicest PowerPC offer in ages (sans AltiVec, pity). As AMC is already sampling, could a development board already exist?
»14.12.10 - 07:05

Andreas_Wolf

# 495
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> that "mamba" chip looks the nicest PowerPC offer in ages

At least the best Applied Micro has to offer after they scrapped the Titan core and accompanied APM83290/Gemini processor (which also sampled and had an evaluation board, btw).

> sans AltiVec, pity

Indeed. That's why I'm looking forward to news from Freescale. They still have 2.5 weeks left ;-)

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=76983#76983

> could a development board already exist?

I very much guess so. From the press release linked before:

"The company's Serengeti evaluation platform incorporates a dual core APM86290 running up to 1.5GHz and exposes all interfaces available on the SoC."
»14.12.10 - 10:07

jcmarcos

# 496
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Great! Let's make our own computer then!
»14.12.10 - 13:29

Andreas_Wolf

# 497
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Let's make our own computer then!

You mean using the eval board as is? While technically possible I'm afraid that could easily result in a system as expensive as the X1000 ;-)
»14.12.10 - 15:04

Ruud

# 498
Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 335 from 2009/2/2

From: Hampshire, UK

As requested by Andreas_Wolf in another thread: dnetc -bench results for my Powermac G4 Quicksilver 2002 with 7448 @ 2GHz installed.

dnetc v2.9105-511-CTR-09050816 for MorphOS (MorphOS 2.7).
Please provide the *entire* version descriptor when submitting bug reports.
The distributed.net bug report pages are at http://bugs.distributed.net/

[Dec 21 18:27:45 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a PowerPC 7448 (G4) processor.
[Dec 21 18:27:45 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
[Dec 21 18:28:04 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
0.00:00:16.71 [19,916,193 nodes/sec]
[Dec 21 18:28:04 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid).
[Dec 21 18:28:23 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
0.00:00:16.31 [41,269,521 nodes/sec]
[Dec 21 18:28:23 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
Default core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
Fastest core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
[Dec 21 18:28:23 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
[Dec 21 18:28:43 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
0.00:00:17.00 [7,746,782 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:28:43 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
[Dec 21 18:29:02 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.08 [7,643,136 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:29:02 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
[Dec 21 18:29:21 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
0.00:00:16.94 [7,790,965 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:29:21 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (KKS 7400).
[Dec 21 18:29:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (KKS 7400)
0.00:00:16.11 [18,096,530 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:29:40 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (KKS 7450).
[Dec 21 18:29:59 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (KKS 7450)
0.00:00:16.67 [21,062,902 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:29:59 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
[Dec 21 18:30:17 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
0.00:00:16.60 [7,074,547 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:30:17 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
[Dec 21 18:30:36 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
0.00:00:16.78 [6,999,792 keys/sec]
[Dec 21 18:30:36 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #4 (KKS 7450)
Fastest core : #4 (KKS 7450)

[ Edited by Ruud on 2010/12/21 18:36 ]

[ Edited by Ruud on 2010/12/21 18:38 ]

[ Edited by Ruud on 2010/12/21 19:08 ]
"We live, we die, we laugh, we cry"
»21.12.10 - 17:34

Andreas_Wolf

# 499
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> As requested by Andreas_Wolf in another thread: dnetc -bench results for my
> Powermac G4 Quicksilver 2002 with 7448 @ 2GHz installed.

Thanks. Just in case you wonder: the purpose of asking you for these benchmark results is that I want to compare the 7448 to the 7447A/B on a clock per clock basis to see how much faster the 7448 is in dnetc, if at all.

> dnetc v2.9105-511-CTR-09050816 for MorphOS

That's not the most recent version for MorphOS (I used v2.9106-514) but I think it doesn't matter.

Comparison:

KOGE 3.1 Scalar: 7448 is 0.4% faster.
KOGE 3.1 Hybrid: 7447A/B is 1.0% faster.
MH 2-pipe: 7448 is 0.8% faster.
KKS 2-pipe: 7448 is 1.5% faster.
KKS 604e: 7448 is 1.2% faster.
KKS 7400: 7448 is 1.1% faster
KKS 7450: 7448 is 0.6% faster.
MH 1-pipe: 7448 is 0.8% faster.
MH 1-pipe 604e: 7448 is 1.0% faster.

All in all I conclude that regarding dnetc there's no significant clock per clock difference between 7447A/B and 7448.
»21.12.10 - 20:13

Andreas_Wolf

# 500
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

Addendum:

> "AltiVec SIMD has long been recognized for its performance in the
> PowerQUICC processor line"
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=QORIQ_HOME
>
> AltiVec in PowerQUICC? Huh? While it's true that they present QorIQ P1 to P3
> as PowerQUICC replacements and QorIQ P4 and P5 as MPC86xx replacements
> that surely doesn't make MPC86xx a PowerQUICC, does it? Are they now trying
> to retroactively subsume MPC86xx (or even MPC74xx) as PowerQUICC?

Just discovered that Freescale indeed lists the MPC8610 as PowerQUICC III (while MPC864x is listed as "Host Processor") there:

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/overview.jsp?code=PRDCT_LONGEVITY_HM

Furthermore, MPC74xx and MPC86xx are listed in Freescale's 'PowerQUICC and QorIQ Processor Selector Guide':

http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/brochure/PWRARCHQIQSG.pdf

Explanation that adds up, anybody?
»29.12.10 - 19:52

Jim

# 501
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

Quote:

jcmarcos wrote:
Great! Let's make our own computer then!

Oh no! Andreas, what do you think?
If someone want to step up and pitch in ten grand or so, we can start slogging through the manufacturers datasheet and compile the massive amount of detailed info need just to start.

But, I'm not playing that game with MY money. How about yours?
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»29.12.10 - 20:01

Andreas_Wolf

# 502
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 12163 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>> Let's make our own computer then!

> Andreas, what do you think?

See my answer to jcmarcos' suggestion.

> If someone want to step up and pitch in ten grand or so, we can start slogging
> through the manufacturers datasheet and compile the massive amount of
> detailed info need just to start.

I don't think jcmarcos referred to designing a new board but rather to using existing eval boards in order to build new Power Architecture based computer systems.
»29.12.10 - 20:12

Jim

# 503
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
>> Let's make our own computer then!

> Andreas, what do you think?

See my answer to jcmarcos' suggestion.

> If someone want to step up and pitch in ten grand or so, we can start slogging
> through the manufacturers datasheet and compile the massive amount of
> detailed info need just to start.

I don't think jcmarcos referred to designing a new board but rather to using existing eval boards in order to build new Power Architecture based computer systems.

Oh! I get it now. He's never priced a PPC evaluation board.
Remember the $4000 I was quoted for the FreescaleHPCN-MPC8641D (Matt said he got his during the period they were 'discounted' to the oh so affordable price of $2000)..

Why aren't PPC evaluation board commonly used to build practical systems?
I'll avoid posting this in the caps I want to use, because they're too damned expensive!.
The odd thing is I got the impression (after a lot of work) that if I was serious about producing something with their product, Freescale would have given me the layout files and design info.

That's kind of why I was curious about jcmarco's comment about building a computer.
Semiconductor manufacturers don't want to sell you motherboards (those are design examples - proof of concept). They want to sell you the components to populate motherboards.

This is where we need someone as foolhardy (in a kind of admirable way) like Treavor who is willing to take a potential loss on a vanity project.

I really DID think he meant "build a computer". Believe it or not I've been around long enough for that to really mean to me "design, finance, build and sell" a computer. I've been part of that kind of operation before and you can take a royal shellacking on it.

I think you were right when you first mentioned that we'd end up with something as expensive as the X1000 (which I like, but will never buy).

This is where ARM starts to look seductive. Remember the last ARM evaluation board I mentioned to you? $200!
Find me a $200 PPC board (let alone a manufacturers evaluation board).

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/12/30 2:37 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/12/30 2:38 ]

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/12/30 2:39 ]
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»30.12.10 - 01:37

xyphoid

# 504
Priest of the Order of the Butterfly

Posts: 870 from 2008/7/11

From: Delaware, USA

I like my arm 800ghz coby kyros which l just got for under 150US$. I say later with the old stuff but we may have missed porting to mobile devices. As for X1000...it's a hugh move but hey it's something. AOne had it's run at long awaited supporters too. Right now whatever hobby works for whoever.
can't complain till I'm more of a contributer.
»30.12.10 - 03:13

Jim

# 505
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

Oh common man. Of course you can complain. You come from the State I live in, You know our country men. Americans have refined complaint to an art form.
You can complain, but who'll listen?

That's where you have to respect the contributors (which now that I think about it - I can't consider this post to be a part of)..
Sorry.

The ARM system sounds interesting. <$150! Neat.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/12/30 4:33 ]
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»30.12.10 - 03:31

jcmarcos

# 506
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Jim wrote:

Quote:

I don't think jcmarcos referred to designing a new board

Oh yes I did! I wanted also to point out my frustration about how much easier is to make you own computer with other CPU architectures... It's a pity PowerPC is so expensive and hard to source. Maybe every PowerPC provider sucks?

Quote:

rather to using existing eval boards.

Well, that's how the Pegasos started. You buy a single eval board, and blatantly copy it for you new computer. In the process, you will be tempted to add some bits you want, and remove others you don't.

(I can feel the audience's boredom at rading this - OK! )

Quote:

He's never priced a PPC evaluation board.

Sure, but I know these toys are expensive. BUt why on earth do I have to stand that a Beagleboard costs just a hundred bucks? It actually IS an evaluation board, for god's sake. Why can't we PowerPC lovers have the same treatment? And yet again, how the hell does LimePC do what they do?

Quote:

the $4000 I was quoted for the FreescaleHPCN-MPC8641D

Many people would devote those four grands to anything else but hardware you are not going to see in the market. By the way, you mentioned ten grand, are you saying that's enough to make a new computer out of nothing (plus an eval board to copy, of course)?

Quote:

That's kind of why I was curious about jcmarco's comment about building a computer.

I was hoping for someone to stand up with those ten grand. It's Christmas after all, the time for miracles. Oh boy, I've just realized the world is in crisis.

Quote:

Semiconductor manufacturers don't want to sell you motherboards (those are design examples - proof of concept). They want to sell you the components to populate motherboards.

And most of them, if you ask for less than a zillion units, just don't hear you. Legitimate, but hurting, don't you think? Then, a different provider treats you better, and you end up building a different computer. You also wave goodbye forever to the first provider, giving them your "best" wishes.

Quote:

This is where we need someone as foolhardy like Trevor

Oh, fantastic: Has he (or better say, the people he has convinced) some ten grand left for us? By the way, you weren't around back ni the age when Genesi WAS MorphOS, were you.

Quote:

we'd end up with something as expensive as the X1000

Nope, there's chips out there for something cheaper. Remember the original Efika. Only, this time, with the MPC8610, or something similar. But then, some crook asks you four grand for a single unit. Can you keep any desire left to build a computer around that CPU? Go figure. Jeez, freescale should be giving away eval boards for their products!

Quote:

This is where ARM starts to look seductive.

Want a surprise? That's exactly what freescale thought: Instead of making PowerPC (your key market) accesible for developers, you switch to ARM. Of course people who've been there for years like Samsung and Texas instruments are sissies you can easily defeat.

quote]Remember the last ARM evaluation board I mentioned to you? $200![(quote]

Would you pleas stop torturing me already?
»30.12.10 - 09:48

Zylesea

# 507
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 2057 from 2003/6/4

Quote:

Jim schrieb:

This is where ARM starts to look seductive. Remember the last ARM evaluation board I mentioned to you? $200!
Find me a $200 PPC board (let alone a manufacturers evaluation board).

The MPC 5125 eval board is 119 US$ ( http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=TWR-MPC5125-KIT&fsrch=1&sr=3 ), but is intended for usage with the Freescale Tower system. While the 5125 is probbaly not what you had in mind, I still rate it one of the most interesting ppcs out there. Sure, it is very low end, but has a very competetive price tag and MorphOS on a e300/400 runs okay.
But situation is, nobody comes around willing to invest making a 50 US$ low end board happen and the MorphOS-Team would probably be not too euphoric about an e300 again. But if you wanted to do a actually sellable ppc system the 5125 would be pretty high on my list. The 86xx ship unfortunately has more or less sailed, next chance for a modest powerful ppc system will be with the Altivec enabled QorIQs, but it will take a litle time until they arrive.

[ Editiert durch Zylesea an 2010/12/30 12:17 ]
--
http://via.bckrs.de

Whenever you're sad just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as David Bowie.
...and Matthias , my friend - RIP
»30.12.10 - 10:14

Jim

# 508
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

No Zylesea, theMPC 5125 eval board wasn't even close to what I was thinking off, but you've got a point. There are a few low cost evaluation boards, they just don't include the kind of processor I like to use.

OK! jcmarcos! You did mean what I thought you meant. That's cool.
I'll let you in on something that's not really a secret, several of us have repeatedly examined this idea.
Well, not just examined, really more like established contacts with company reps, obtained price quotess, did at least some preliminary design work.
Andreas is more familiar with this than I am. I spent time on inquiries with I BM and Freescale and went so far as to start the design of an MPC8640 based system (with an ATI SB600 Southbridge).
One of the few people I quizzed for feedback was Andreas (which is why I threw the question at him in this thread).
Another MorphOS contributor (who can talk to you himself or Andreas can reference) still has regrets about not following through with an 8610 based design.
I myself still think it might be a good idea (a new PPC motherboard) and I can see two possible sources for the processor (Freescale and Applied Micro), but there are some qualifiers.
Price is the biggest one. I gave up my design when G4 Mac support was announced. An MPC8640 design would have some advantages, but the ultimate clock speed would be lower than the G4s. And how are you going to compete with the price of Macs that are practically being given away? Ultimately, once you crunch the numbers, you realize that the price of the X1000 and Acube's products aren't as overpriced as everyone complains.
Low scale production of custom boards like this is expensive.
The other qualifier (and I'm sure there are more) is performance. While a few PPC processor are now being introduced that again have started pushing performance up, its still hard to beat the performance of the G5 (and again these systems are dirt cheap).

Think carefully about this,. It would be great to have a new system and the new options that would offer us (like PCI-e 2.0), but in practical terms- does it make good economic sense to invest a fairly large amount of money to produce something that will cost several times what an older platform (that would competently perform about as well) would? What is your market? Is it larger enough that you're not going to take a bath (financially)?

Genesi and Acube have pursued other markets than just the MorphOS market when developing new hardware. Can you do that? Are there the resources and time necessary to pull this off?

And its going to be a lot of work. Are you willing to commit that much of your life to this as it will obviously take?
All thoughts that have gone through my mind and still I find the idea tempting.

Anyone elses input on this would be gladly accepted. I don't know what the answer is. It would be nice, but how to do it, where to find the financial resources and how to organize it are all questions that still vex me.

Anyone?

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/12/30 15:28 ]
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»30.12.10 - 14:21