> I think there a serious issues with APDF feeding a *paper* folder

Oh, old-school paper document. Nice but less chance to determine the exact age. Pity.

> While the event took place briefly after Apple announced the switch I think the
> talk (i.e. the ppt slides) was prepared before.

Makes sense. That would support your thesis of the e700 having changed its basis from e600 to e500 mid 2005 (i.e. due to Apple's switch to Intel). Reminds me of the "Motorola G5" (MPC7500) project in 2000/2001 where they eventually released only the "Embedded G5" (MPC8540/8560) in 2002/2003. Really disappointing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_G5_project
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816012045/http://www.mot.com/SPS/PowerPC/overview/newroadmap.pdf (September 1999)
http://web.archive.org/web/20030803100646/e-www.motorola.com/files/archives/doc/roadmap/PPCRMAP.pdf (November 2001)
http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/powerpc-roadmap-g5-g6-g7-2001123/

Quote:

Don't worry Ulrich, many in the audience are old and rusty too! I guess we love this debate anyway. But you guys are talking about either abandoned, crippled, or forthcoming products. Don't you think it's a pity not talking about something real?

> you guys are talking about either abandoned, crippled, or forthcoming products.
> Don't you think it's a pity not talking about something real?

The announcement of the e5500 core *is* real ;-) And I find it interesting to discuss if that core is what was once announced as the e700 core because there seem to exist completely opposing answers to that question with good arguments on both sides.

Quote:

Yes, I'm not saying it isn't. What I mean is that, precisely, it's just an announcement. Lucky people using regular computers have the joy of talking about things that they can actually touch.

Quote:

Of course, me too!

> Lucky people using regular computers have the joy of talking about things that
> they can actually touch.

People discuss announced things all the time. Maybe you had heard or read at some places of a device called "iPad" way before it was actually available to buy? ;-)

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 08:02 ]

> it is more proven than these other things being talked about. [... ] it seems
> much more established to me than this other low-wattage, small stuff.

With "other things" you include the PowerQUICC II Pro? If yes, let me tell you that it's massively used in the mid-range embedded network and storage space. In those domains it's a quasi-standard CPU. It can't really be proven more. I think there's magnitudes more devices using PowerQUICC II Pro than devices using MPC5121e (and probably even MobileGT in general). The difference is that really being embedded, in most cases the user simply won't notice that the device is driven by a PowerQUICC II Pro at all.

"PowerQUICC II Pro is used as networking processors for routers, switches, printers, network-attached storage, wireless access points and DSLAMs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerQUICC#PowerQUICC_II_Pro
(note that MPC837x and thus the 800 MHz capable variants are missing from the article)

> I'd like to know how far performance can be pushed on slow, low-wattage
> processor by [...] dedicated graphics chip, like PowerVR

With the MPC5121e there's no need for a dedicated PowerVR chip because the SoC has a PowerVR core on-chip already. The discussed driver problem for the PowerVR core wouldn't magically be eased if that core was additionally put to a dedicated chip (resulting in two unsupported cores).

Quote:

But it would perform different. I was told that, being the PowerVR core an internal device of the CPU, its usage does block the CPU, not very different to what happens in the original Amiga design, when you ask too much to its custiom chips. The graphics core does steal bandwith to the CPU.

If the graphics core is setup outside the CPU, connected to a PCI bus, these wait states would not cause blocking.

If you want me to explain it better technically, sorry, I can't. But I believe the source that explained it to me years ago.

Then, how come that there are many SoCs with internal graophics cores, and living so happy? I don't know...

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 08:01 ]

> The people on this forum know

Speak for yourself.

> I said and meant absolutely nothing like what you purport to respond to.

I responded to the following words of yours:

(1) "it is more proven than these other things being talked about."
(2) "I'd like to know how far performance can be pushed on slow, low-wattage processor by way of more RAM and dedicated graphics chip, like PowerVR"
(3) "it seems much more established to me than this other low-wattage, small stuff."

So you now say you didn't say or mean anything of that?

> I don't want to respond to these misrepresentations or anything else from you but
> neither should my silence be read as acquiescence.

If you think I misrepresented what you said I can only appreciate your attempt at seeking dialogue.

> You're also using ellipsis incorrectly.

I don't think so.

> It's supposed to be used benignly for clarity

I use it to clarify reference, i.e. what I refer to in particular if the statement I respond to covers several aspects and I don't refer to all these aspects. To illustrate: Regarding your sentence

"I'd like to know how far performance can be pushed on slow, low-wattage processor by way of more RAM and dedicated graphics chip, like PowerVR"

...I only referred to your mention of "dedicated graphics chip, like PowerVR", not to "more RAM". That's why I used ellipsis for "more RAM". And that's a genuine use of ellipsis.

> not in such a way that the person you are quoting has to come
> back and say "that's not what I said.

Then stop failing to clarify what exactly you *meant to say* by the words I quoted from you. I'm not able to *mind*-read, after all.

Did "other things being talked about" and "this other low-wattage, small stuff" include PowerQUICC II Pro, which was talked about? Yes or no? (That's been my simple question from the start.)
What did you mean by "dedicated graphics chip, like PowerVR", if not a dedicated PowerVR (or similar) graphics chip?

> It's not supposed to resolve ambiguities in the quote in a way
> to benefit your response

I didn't use it to resolve any ambiguities but only for clarification as to what I'm referring to in particular.

> Please just don't do it all with my words.

I'll continue to use ellipsis in the same proper way I've been doing it.

Here we go again...

http://drlacxos.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/popcorn_soda.jpg

Quote:

Luke^H^H^H^HAndreas, that's the next step in learning the ways of the Force. You will find that in time, you will be able to "see" and feel other people's minds, like open books. The final step will be mind-writes, but beware of the Dark Side, it will tempt you to force your will upon weak minds much too often...

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:43 ]

Quote:

please do continue. pile on what? Unless, that's a phrase I'm not aware of -I'm not a native English speaker anyway. Still, I'm sorry you are not humoured. It was meant as a joke, and I fail to see how my post could even remotely annoy you.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:10 ]

Andreas,
Given that the e5500 has improved fpu performance, what is the impact of the missing Altivec instructions (in particular in regard to MorphOS).
Also, as a 64 bit processor, could MorphOS be ported to the e5500 and how would performance compare to a G5?

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/2 2:40 ]

> Given that the e5500 has improved fpu performance

As far as I understand, the e5500 has improved FPU performance towards the e500mc, where the FPU is crippled by running only half-clocked. Thus, the e5500's full-clocked FPU would be no better than what's considered a usual FPU elsewhere (including other PPCs with real FPU).

> what is the impact of the missing Altivec instructions
> (in particular in regard to MorphOS).

That question is best answered by a MorphOS Team member. But to get an idea about usage of AltiVec by MorphOS components:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:morphos-team.net+altivec
Of course, there is also 3rd party software leveraging AltiVec if available, like MPlayer or dnetc client. But I think there's hardly any MorphOS software that really demands an AltiVec unit to be present. It's just that in case of missing AltiVec generic code is used und therefore the program is running slower.

> as a 64 bit processor, could MorphOS be ported to
> the e5500

I think it could. And it could even use the 32 bit mode of the e5500. So no need to port MorphOS to 64 bit.

> and how would performance compare to a G5?

Good question. According to Freescale the e5500 delivers 3.0 DMIPS/MHz, for the PPC970 I found 2.9 DMIPS/MHz (presumably ignoring AltiVec).

Thanks for the quick concise response. I still can't get data out of Applied Micro on the APM 83290 SoC and 1.5 Ghz does not look that impressive. Freescale has always been pretty open with me (even providing me the MPC8641D samples for my aborted PPC motherboard).
I'm going to check out the e5500. At 2.5 GHz, even without Altivec, it might be a match for the PA6T. And its available from a company that doesn't make it difficult to obtain technical information or components.

Quote:

WHAAAT? Tell us more! Those samples alone are seriuos money themselves...

Quote:

= gang (in greek). What do you mean? You make no sense.

> WHAAAT? Tell us more! Those samples alone are seriuos money themselves...

Freescale has always been generous at providing sample CPUs :-)

"One contact suggested I try to find a replacement CPU from Freescale, unfortunately the range had been discontinued and there was no stock left. There was some stock at a couple of other suppliers but they were only interested in selling off their complete stock in units of 36. I looked again at Freescale and checked the CPU specs, finding there were many more similar CPU's amongst which was the G4 7457.
The specs on this claimed it was a direct pin for pin replacement for the 7455 with the added bonus that it was still in production, with various choices from 933Mhz to 1.3Ghz. The specs married and the core voltage was just enough to be used on the A1. My contact had also suggested that I should ask Freescale for a sample. I had not used this method of obtaining goods since I was at school where we would regularly apply to Cadbury,s for information for our school projects and would receive an info pack and some samples. I had forgotten people still did that.
I registered on their website with my business name (I am a self-employed auto-electrician) and sent a request for a sample CPU 7457 1.3GHz. My reason for the request was to monitor the cooling properties of the CPU in an A1. All credit to Freescale, they contacted me within 24hrs with a positive response to my enquiry and said they would ship the sample.
So I waited and after a couple of weeks a package arrived with not 1 but 4 sample CPU's! I was astonished, incredulous and astounded that I had obtained replacements so easily. Freescale even paid the shipping costs."
http://www.intuitionbase.com/static.php?section=en_cpu-repair (October 2007)

Quote:

Add me to the list of people stunned by this amazing story. Indeed, it's true that some great individuals work for this big company.

> I still can't get data out of Applied Micro on the APM 83290 SoC [...]. Freescale has always
> been pretty open with me (even providing me the MPC8641D samples [...]). I'm going to
> check out the e5500. At 2.5 GHz, even without Altivec, it might be a match for the PA6T.

Just for the purpose of overview I compiled a list of the DMIPS/MHz per core figures for various PPCs in ascending order (AltiVec capability is generally ignored, obviously):

e300: 1.9...2.0 (depending on version)
PPC440: 2.0
PPC460: 2.0
Titan: 2.0 (presumably PPC450 based)
PA6T: 2.2
PPC750: 2.3
e600: 2.3
PPC470: 2.3 or 2.5 (varying with information source)*
e500mc: 2.5
PPC970: 2.9
e5500: 3.0

* <edit>IBM says the PPC476FP has a figure of 2.7</edit>

What seems really weird is the rather low value for the PA6T (which was provided by P.A.Semi themselves btw), especially compared to the PPC970, which I thought it should have been on par with. Or maybe the PPC970 figure is too high (i.e. with AltiVec)?

> its available from a company that doesn't make it difficult to obtain technical
> information or components.

According to Freescale first samples of e5500 based silicon will be available in Q4/2010, initially scaling up to 2.0 GHz, later up to 2.2 GHz. And while the e5500 core is claimed to be able to reach up to 2.5 GHz, no such part has been announced yet.

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf on 2010/11/13 2:09 ]

Quote:

Freescale really is a true descendant of Motorola.

In the 80's when I was managing an independent Radio Shack (which also ran another business selling multi-user 68000 systems) Motorola announced it was discontinuing the 6829 (an MMU for the 6809 processor). Since I wanted one to experiment with, I contacted Motorola. They sent me out the XC labeled component (even though their reps and I had already discussed the Tandy developed VLSI that would become the core of the Color Computer 3 - and which made the 6829 obsolete).

I always had a good relationship with Motorola (their reps frequently gave me information before it was announced and samples were easy to obtain). Since I've managed a company that built computers based on their components, I never had a problem getting support from Motorola.

Believe it or not, Freescale (while it isn't quite Motorola) is also relatively easy to deal with. Unlike Applied Micro, I might add, which wouldn't give me an NDA unless I maintained a website, Freescale's reps and I have a good relationship that goes back to the Motorola period. Of all the companies currently making microprocessor, I think I'm most fond of Freescale. They really do try harder than most companies to promote their product.

I never posted anything about the MPC8641D project, because I didn't know if I'd see it to fruition. I did consult with Andreas because he has consistently offered me the best advice (of anyone on the web I keep contact with). I actually got pretty far with the design, but it required an ATI Southbridge (an SB600) anf a FPGA for glue circuitry. The expense of building the prototypes alone was daunting.

Then the MorphOS team announced support for G4 Macs, and it seemed pointless to consider building an expensive 1.25 Mhz e600 motherboard.
Especially since I would have had to pay the MorphOS development team for porting (or at least provided several machines and convinced them that my project was worth supporting).

Anyway, yes Freescale did provide me with two MPC8641Ds worth at least a couple hundred a piece. But, that's because they took me seriously.

I've talked to the head of IBM's division that makes Cell processors (and the Xenon), Freescales reps (of course), and the designer of the X1000 (months before anyone else was discussing Varisys, Andreas and I were speculating about that company's owner). I tried to establish a relationship with Applied Micro (which I still have one contact with), but they're more secretive than IBM.

I (and I believe Andreas, although I wouldn't claim to speak for him) believe strongly that our future still lies in PPC (or PPC related) processors. While Freescale has canceled the e700, they appear to have incorporated some of the e700's features in their latest evolution of the e500 core. I've already sent in an inquiry about the P5020 and 5010 (the first 5500 cored processors).

While financing a new motherboard is a massive undertaking (and I don't doubt Treavor at A-eon's estimates of his current expenses), the design tools don't require a large team of people (just a lot of time - designs have gotten much more complicated since I was selling 68K based systems).

So, right now, yes I'm sitting on the MPC8641D samples (and a lot of preliminary design work tat has not seen recent revisions in months). IBM wouldn't agree to sell me Cell processors. Applied Micro is even harder to deal with and I have no idea how A-eon managed to secure PA6Ts (although Andreas has consistently insisted this would be the X1000's processor - and he was right).

Lets see if the 5500 core has potential. That lack of Altivec instructions is discouraging, but the first two processors are supposed to clock up to 2.2 Ghz (with 2.5 processors apparently coming soon and a design goal of 3.0 Ghz).

I've always believed that, with the proper financing, a motherboard with much better features than the boards that Acube sells could be built (and that it could be sold for about the same price as the SAM).

But, its never good to announce speculative projects. Only once something has reached at least a prototype stage, would I normally feel comfortable releasing any info on it.

The main reason I posted this, is that I want you all to realize that these things are worked on and discussed amongst a few of us. PPC is not dead, hell its not even resting.

> months before anyone else was discussing Varisys, Andreas and I were
> speculating about that company's owner

You and me started speculating about Varisys here on MorphZone beginning of April, in this very thread. But discussion of Varisys as the potential Nemo designers had started beginning of January on amigaworld.net (by BigBentheAussie):
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30452&forum=2#532576

I have then merely joined this educated assumption:
http://www.amiga-news.de/de/news/comments/244232.html (German)

> While Freescale has canceled the e700, they appear to have incorporated
> some of the e700's features in their latest evolution of the e500 core.

As discussed here in this thread, some (see Wikipedia) even think the e5500 to actually be what was announced as e700 in 2004. But taking into account how Freescale's presentations suddenly changed from the e700 being based on e600 to being based on e500 shortly after Apple's mid 2005 switch announcement we can assume that the e5500 actually is what has been on the roadmap as "e700" since mid 2005, but not what had been on there as "e700" before, i.e. from April 2004 to mid 2005.

> I have no idea how A-eon managed to secure PA6Ts

Let's hope A-Eon will tell this "quite a story" as soon as they officially confirm the PA6T :-)

> a design goal of 3.0 Ghz

Is this insider information? Freescale officially announced the e5500 to be able to scale up to 2.5 GHz.

> I (and I believe Andreas, although I wouldn't claim to speak for him) believe
> strongly that our future still lies in PPC (or PPC related) processors. [...] PPC
> is not dead, hell its not even resting.

My stance on this:
Power Architecture seems dead regarding CPUs specifically designed for desktop use. But it's far from dead regarding CPUs that while being designed for other domains could be used for proper desktop designs as well. It's "just" that someone has to develop, build and market such designs for this small market ;-)
But to make it clear, "PPC or nothing" is not my credo, rather as I told before: As a MorphOS user, my interest lies where MorphOS is. For now that's Power Architecture :-)