> Actually, an external bus should allow for less bottleneck than
> using an internal device such as the PowerVR in the MPC5121e.

Connected to the same chip, internal (i.e. on-chip) always beats external (i.e on-board or on-card).

> That story about the Amiga's chipset bottleneck was supposed to be
> the explanation for this. This bottleneck was gone when we started
> using "alien" graphics processors

That was due to the Amiga chipset becoming obsolete (so in fact you compare the chips rather than their connection to the system) and the way the Amiga chipset was connected to the rest of the system. Furthermore, it was on-board, not on-chip.

> I remember my huge surprise when BBRV predicted this, three years ago.

Predicted? Three years ago? I think they did nothing along this.

PS3 being PowerPC based became officially known in November 2004:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press_Archive/200411/04-1129E/

XBox 360 being PowerPC based became officially known in May 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050515013854/http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/factsheet.htm

Wii being PowerPC (G5 [sic!]) based had been rumoured at least since May 2005:
http://www.unika.com.cn/article/article.php/2572 (Chinese, Google translation)

...and officially confirmed (G3) in March 2006:
http://uk.wii.ign.com/articles/699/699118p1.html

So what exactly was there to predict and be surprised about 3 years ago?

Quote:

After seeing your links and its dates, obviously, the surprise in me came out of my ignorance.

Quote:

I guess I should dig a very deep hole, throw myself inside, and wait to come out when PowerPC rules the world... That statement from me, confusing kilobytes for megabytes is a hell of an embarrasing affair. Targhan, could you please reset my reputation level to zero?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 10:24 ]

> It's not silly to think that a graphics co-processor might have
> 128 megs of RAM.

As was outlined numerous times already in this thread, the AXE is *not* the GFX core, but the PowerVR is.

> Since CherryPal and the LimeBook use the 5121E there's a
> two-for-one deal to be had in porting MorphOS to the 5121E

THTF/MTC have even more in the pipeline than just the LimeBook series, for instance the LimeBox/LimePC-X1 (which is in fact the CherryPal C114), the LimePC series, the LimeNote, the LimeMobile series, the LimeView, the LimePro (see linked YouTube video)... Just take a glance at limepc.com and iseeuon.com (Chinese).

|||


[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 10:22 ]

Quote:

Right. From what I've learnt, the "auxiliary execution unit" (AXE) is a 200 Mhz RISC coprocessor with a set of instructions typical for a digital signal processor (DSP), hence very suited for audio tasks.
In the MPC5121e, code is loaded into the AXE from the e300 core, and then execution is issued. One of the first things than come to mind is writing a program for the AXE that acts as some kind of "kernel" (more of an executive, or task scheduler), and that's already done, if I remember correctly.
This setup is somewhat similar to the PowerUP kernel in PowerPC accelerators for the Amiga, where there was the need to feed the alien processor with code, from the original processor running the main operating system.
Feel free to research...

[ Edited by jcmarcos on 2009/1/13 17:21 ]

[ Edited by jcmarcos on 2009/1/13 17:26 ]

> don't think I said "GFX core."

You said "graphics co-processor", which doesn't sound so different for me as the gfx core is a (on-chip) co-processor to the e300 core.
And before in this thread you made a distinction between "multimedia chip" and "gfx chip" (which btw must rather read "core" than "chip" in both cases).

> Are you saying that the AXE is a co-processor that has nothing at
> all to do w. graphics?

I rather let Freescale speak for me:

"AXE, a 32-bit RISC audio accelerator engine"

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 10:21 ]

> "A graphics co-processor" is not the same as "the graphics core,"
> for example some computers have had multiple graphics co-processors.

Still,

"It's not silly to think that a graphics co-processor might have 128 megs of RAM. Plenty of graphics cards have that much memory."

...doesn't make sense.
For what does a "graphics co-processor" that is not the gfx core need "128 megs of RAM"? Where are the "plenty of graphics cards" which have a "graphics co-processor" with "128 megs of RAM" that is not the gfx core?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 10:20 ]

Well, the question is will they show up on the market, and more so will MOS support it?

> you're just randomly jumbling my comments now

Now you lost track. Your comment I just cited was obviously very much the *reason* for me thinking you meant the gfx core by "graphics co-processor".

> I don't think your comments make much sense either.

Care to elaborate where exactly they don't make sense?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 24.04.2011 - 10:20 ]

> you toss out some polemic of flawed inferences you made and expect
> me to react. All to justify your original lecture about the umpteenth
> time you supposedly explained PowerVR to me.

Either you really meant "graphics co-processor" (as in "not gfx core") -- then you would be more than able and willing to answer my above questions -- or you just confused AXE and PowerVR in your original posting -- which you early on convinced me you didn't. It's as easy as that.