There's no point in being obsessively argumentative here.

And I'm not impressed with the performance of the 5121e (and PowerVR is ancient).

As to PowerQUICC II Pro based processors, since they use the e300 core (based on the PowerPC 603e that runs in some Amiga accelerators) these processors are not limited to the applications you've mentioned (they could easily run MorphOS).

Further, PowerQUICC is being supplanted by the software-compatible QorIQ platform on e500 cores. As we were discussing the latest development to the e500 core (the e5500) and the P50xx processors based on that core use less than 30 watts, that seems like reasonably low wattage. And there are lower wattage PPC processors available that don't give up as much performance as the 5121e.

I don't understand why are so many posters fascinated by low cost, low performance systems built for third world markets. Do you really want to put an OS on a PC that costs more than the computer?

Recently when I discussed PPC based systems with the owner of Varisys (the designers of the X1000 motherboard) I got this response:

"In terms of PPC we are thinking QorIQ here for higher end designs."

We can continue to discussing relatively dead end processors like the 5121e and the PA6T, or resume discussing processors that seem to have a future.


[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/3 18:40 ]

> Even there, you can't resist removing the paragraph break. That didn't happen with the
> copy and paste. You went in and removed a blank line. Am I wrong? Yes or no?

No, you are right. I like to have things condensed. And I don't think that removing the blank line changed anything in meaning. After all, there's still the paragraph break, isn't it?

> At least you included the Theora part. You didn't include that in your first quote
> of this text, or in your second expanded one.

Yes, as I prefer to not quote things I'm *not* referring to. Wouldn't make any sense. I didn't refer to "more RAM" but to "dedicated graphics chip". And in that I didn't refer to "Theora decoder" but to "PowerVR". That's why I omitted "more RAM" as well as "Theora decoder". I can't see anything dishonest in that.

> You're mashing the paragraphs together

I removed a *blank* line. The paragraph break ist still there.

> they still don't say to add a second PowerVR to a 5121e computer.
> [...]
> None of that refers to adding a second PowerVR to a 5121e system.

Let's see. There are 4 paragraphs. In the 2nd one you talk about Linkbook, LimePC and your Cherrypal C114, i.e. MPC5121e based computers only. In the 4th paragraph you explain that the other "low-wattage" processors than MPC5121e are not established enough for your liking. And now you say that inbetween, i.e. in the 3rd paragraph, you didn't mean to include the MPC5121e when mentioning "slow, low-wattage processor"? Yes or no?

> I was not thinking of PowerQiCC.

Thanks for eventually answering that question. So it seems you don't necessarily think the MPC5121e to be much more established than the PowerQUICC II Pro. Good to have that clarified.

> I don't think I've ever discussed network or routers or automotive or
> point-of-sale etc. computers here.

Huh? PowerQUICC is not a whole system but a *processor* family. You referred to "other things being talked about" and "this other low-wattage, small stuff". And PowerQUICC II Pro actually *had been* talked about right before here in this thread and *is* low-wattage, small stuff. So there's no ill will involved in assuming you may have included PowerQUICC II Pro when mentioning "other things being talked about" and "this other low-wattage, small stuff".

Quote:

Hey, they're Amiga people- what do you expect?

Quote:
This could be a great way to go for penetration of developing market though: with MorphOS available to OEMs at a low-cost (or charitable donation) OEM price, if proven to perform well on eg the "$100 noteboook" compared to eg Linux, we could have a realistic way to increase the userbase by an order (or several) of magnitude. Not to mention people's brand loyalty to the first OS with which they learned to use a computer.

Dreaming perhaps, but an example of how the low-cost low-performance systems could be very interesting for MorphOS.

> PowerVR is ancient

The MBX Lite that is incorporated into the MPC5121e, yes. But there're newer and better PowerVR GPUs available than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR#Series5_.28SGX.29

Hard to believe they're still developing PowerVR, Andreas, but they seems to have re-targeted their products so they don't have to compete with ATI and Nvidia.

I still don't see the point in focusing on the MPC5121e, its aging fast.

And there are a lot of other low wattage PPC processors.

Sorry, boot_wb, sometimes I forget that at times we all take things too seriously.

A cheap netbook would be nice, but right now I can buy a G4 Powerbook cheap so I hope we see that port soon. That would blank any 5121e based device.

> Hard to believe they're still developing PowerVR

They're quite successful with it, with Apple being one of their most famous customers (iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch).

> they seems to have re-targeted their products so they don't have to compete
> with ATI and Nvidia.

Yes, when Kyro III was ready for release in 2002 their partner STMicro pulled back, leaving them no other option than to enter portable graphics market and optimize Kyro III for that, resulting in the PowerVR MBX in the same year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerVR#MBX

> I still don't see the point in focusing on the MPC5121e

Me neither. I'm a desktop user, and I consider a 400 MHz e300 too weak even for a netbook that could be of use to me.

> there are a lot of other low wattage PPC processors.

Exactly. That's why when talk was about the e300 in this thread I said that my vote would be on PowerQUICC II Pro (800 MHz MPC8377E), if it must be e300 by all means that is.

SO Velcro_SP was offended because you suggested a more powerful processor and somehow came to think that said processor was only suited to "network or routers or automotive or point-of-sale etc. computers".

Since I've been part of a company that marketed Point of Sale computers I'm vaguely offended. Unless you're talking about relatively dumb terminals, the computers behind a POS systems need to be fairly robust (you can't do business if your systems down).

And why can't we leave the low performing PPCs to the AmigaOS crowd?

> why can't we leave the low performing PPCs to the AmigaOS crowd?

Mind you, they're going to have the PA6T. There's currently no better performing CPU a PPC based AmigaOS like OS can run on ;-)

Quote:

From the DMIPS/MHz per core figures you've list earlier, the e500, e600, G5, and e5500 if run at similar speeds would all outperform the PA6T.

Of course, not all those cores clock to 1.8 Ghz (or above), but several do. And since the continued availability of PA6Ts is questionable I hope something else comes along.

And, of course, if you can't afford a X1000, the you better hope you can find a good used Pegasos, because otherwise you're stuck running on one of Acube's anemic boards.

> From the DMIPS/MHz per core figures you've list earlier

Dhrystone is a very artificial benchmark.

> the e500, e600, G5, and e5500 if run at similar speeds would all outperform the PA6T.
> Of course, not all those cores clock to 1.8 Ghz (or above), but several do.

From my list only e5500, PPC970 and PPC470 would be able to beat the 1.8 GHz PA6T in DMIPS figures at their respective maximum clock rates.

> you better hope you can find a good used Pegasos, because otherwise
> you're stuck running on one of Acube's anemic boards.

I'm eager to know how the PPC460EX performs in real life compared to the equally clocked MPC7447 in the Pegasos II G4. I expect the G4 to perform somewhat better though, even without AltiVec.

I'd expect the 7447 to outperform a similarly clocked PPC460EX as well, and the dhrystone measurement you gave for the Titan don't look too promising either.

A 7448 would outperform a 7447, and apparently the three processors you've mentioned would outperform that (of course, all based on - as you pointed out - a very artificial test).

And Acube's pricing, based on performance, is worse than A-eon's.

Now, as to the max speeds of the processors you've mentioned, they appear to be higher than the PA6T (unless that runs at 2.0 and so far its only been seen running at 1.8).

Wouldn't we still be better off with G5 Powermacs. I can get a fairly well equipped high speed G5 for hundreds less than an Acube based system.

And, when (if), we get Powermac support there are the 7447 and 7448 upgrades. A 1.8Ghz might or might not outperform an X1000, but its going to walk all over anything from Acube.

As HD video decoding with current MorphOS supported hardware can be problematic at really high res, why worry about even slower hardware than the Pegasos?

> apparently the three processors you've mentioned would outperform that
> (of course, all based on - as you pointed out - a very artificial test).

Based on that benchmark, a 1.8 GHz PA6T core would marginally (by 1.3%) outperform a 1.7 GHz 7448 (that's the maximum stock clock rate according to Freescale) as well.

> Acube's pricing, based on performance, is worse than A-eon's.

Taking only one core of the PA6T into account, Dhrystone performance of the 1.8 GHz PA6T is twice that of the 1.0 GHz PPC460EX. I expect a full Sam460ex system to be priced somewhat less than half of the X1000. On the other hand I expect real life performance of one 1.8 GHz PA6T core to be much better than only twice that of the 1.0 GHz PPC460EX, add to that AltiVec capability, faster bus, larger caches and the option to use the 2nd core whenever OS4 will support that. So yes, you may be right in your estimation.

> as to the max speeds of the processors you've mentioned, they appear to be higher
> than the PA6T (unless that runs at 2.0 and so far its only been seen running at 1.8).

Not quite. The PPC470 is clocked at up to 1.8 GHz as well (in the LSI Axxia, while being specified at only 1.6 GHz max by IBM btw).

> Wouldn't we still be better off with G5 Powermacs.

Performance wise, probably yes. But not everyone would be happy with the high wattage of the PPC970 I guess. That's where the PA6T shines in comparison. In real life performance (i.e. not Dhrystone) I expect the PA6T to have significant higher performance/wattage figure than the PPC970 by providing only slightly less performance/clock.

> there are the 7447 and 7448 upgrades. A 1.8Ghz might or might not
> outperform an X1000

In terms of Dhrystone an e600 core above 1.72 GHz would outperform a 1.8 GHz PA6T core. So the overclocked 1.8+ GHz G4 upgrades deliver more DMIPS than a 1.8 GHz PA6T core. In real life performance though I think a 1.8 GHz PA6T core would outperform an equally clocked 7448.

> but its going to walk all over anything from Acube.

Yes, that's for sure.

> As HD video decoding with current MorphOS supported hardware can be problematic
> at really high res, why worry about even slower hardware than the Pegasos?

I'm just curious to the whole thing. Be assured that I definitely won't downgrade from my 1.5 GHz G4 ever :-)

|||


[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:02 ]

> I spoke to the general idea of making use of (note: not necessarily "adding," esp.
> where already present) dedicated video hardware and more RAM to a system with
> slow processor to improve performance.

You wrote "dedicated graphics chip", not "dedicated video hardware" (which can be a dedicated chip, a dedicated core inside a SoC or whatever). I advice you to eventually look up what a chip in terms of electronics actually is. So regarding the MPC5121e the usage of a "dedicated graphics chip" (which you subsequently try to turn into the wider concept of "dedicated video hardware") would be equal to adding a second graphics core to the system (one graphics core in the MPC5121e SoC plus one graphics core in the "dedicated graphics chip" makes two graphics cores in the system).
Again it boils down to the question I've already asked you: And now you say that inbetween, i.e. in the 3rd paragraph, you didn't mean to include the MPC5121e when mentioning "slow, low-wattage processor"? Yes or no?

> PowerQuicc is said by Wikipedia to be used in automotive and routers.

We were talking specifically about PowerQUICC II Pro because it's e300 based like the MPC5121e. Automotive is no target application of any PowerQUICC processor (and I doubt it is used in that space either, so I consider Wikipedia wrong in that *) because QUICC is a communications engine:

http://www.freescale.com/quiccengine
http://www.freescale.com/files/graphic/other/NCSG_QUICCENG_VID.wmv
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUICC (not quite encyclopaedic in its wording)

The MPC8377E I was specifically aiming at has the following target applications according to Freescale: multifunctional printer, small/medium business gateway, IP-PBX systems, network attached storage (NAS), digital media server (DMS).
Admittedly, that may sound like it's hard to build something like a nettop or netbook with it. But technically it has everything you would want for such system, except for (as outlined before) a GPU and AC'97. For these both a dedicated graphics chip (there you go) and a dedicated sound chip connected to the SoC's PCI(e) bus would be needed, or alternatively a combined graphics and sound chip (for instance like the Sam460ex has on-board).

> It's fine with me if someone puts a PowerQuicc processor in a netbook or
> desktop or nettop or smartphone, but I'm not aware that's been done.

Me neither. But that's been the whole point of that part of the discussion: to outline which Power Architecture based processors that are faster than a 400 MHz e300 *could* be used to develop and build such systems.

*) the Wikipedia claim that "Freescale are using PowerQUICC processors as a part of their mobileGT platform" is also false. PowerQUICC and mobileGT (MPC51xx/52xx) do not overlap.

Thanks for making all the careful calculations for speculations I made out of opinion, Andreas.
I actually feel much better about MorphOS' current and proposed future supported hardware.

I didn't downgrade, but my most recent purchase of an Emac doesn't quite have to power of your Mac Mini.

Nice to know that when Powermac support is introduced, I can spend a few hundred bucks and upgrade my Powermac's processor to match the X1000's horsepower.

Blame AIM for the G5's power usage. Since development stagnated and die size is too large (is there anything smaller the 90nm?).

Why are we still discussing the e300? I know you love banter/speculation with a focus on correct information, but this isn't far enough away from the PowerPC 603e for my tastes. Better processors than these have already reached EOL.

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/4 16:46 ]

> Nice to know that when Powermac support is introduced, I can spend a few hundred
> bucks and upgrade my Powermac's processor to match the X1000's horsepower.

AFAIK there's still nothing said about support for 3rd party processor upgrades. Do you think they'll work out of the box with MorphOS? Regarding the 7448 specifically: https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6910&forum=11#71008

> is there anything smaller the 90nm?

No, PPC970 family is 90 nm all over.

> Why are we still discussing the e300?

I think it's because some in this thread still see a market chance for an e300 based low-power nettop (like C114/C120/LimeBox/X1) or netbook (like LimeBook/Linkbook) running MorphOS. I just say that if it really must be e300 based (for whatever reason) then I'd be all for the MPC8377E. Anything performing below an 800 MHz e300 would be too weak for my own personal taste, in terms of nettops or netbooks that is (real desktop use being another matter altogether where I don't ever want to go below 1.5 GHz G4 again).

> this isn't far enough away from the PowerPC 603e for my tastes.

The e300c4 that is built in the MPC8377E (and MPC5121e) has twice the cache size of the 603e and is 2-way superscalar which the 603e (as well as e300 versions before e300c4) is not.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&post_id=64270#64270

Add to that the leap in clock rate from 300 MHz to 800 MHz. So I conclude that an 800 MHz e300c4 is at least 3 times as fast as a 300 MHz 603e in real life performance. That might be enough for a low-power nettop or netbook I think.

> Better processors than these have already reached EOL.

Yes, but you should see that there're actually two different things being discussed in this thread in parallel: (1) high-performing desktop systems and (2) low-power nettops/netbooks (where "faster" does often not equal "better").
If you're not interested in discussing (2) then you should simply ignore anything related to that, including the e300 discussion.

Quote:

Yes, you have a point. I have in strong interest in desktops and notebook computers, but the purpose of netbooks confuses me (perhaps longer battery life is the most important point).

I can see the advantages of lower power draw and more convenient compact size, but the low power processors and hard to read smaller displays really put me off.

As I don't have any input that's constructive or informative on the e300 discussion, I'm dropping out of that part of the thread.

And, since I also haven't seen a processor with an on die GPU that's worthy of consideration, I'll refrain from commenting on that concept. Maybe AMD or Intel's future planned releases will change my mind, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from Cyrix's shot at this idea.

While not intended for desktops or notebooks, an e5500 cored processor seems low draw enough for a good notebook. But the cost and complication of notebook design (and netbook design for that matter) make using anything but a pre-existing design impractical.

> While not intended for desktops or notebooks, an e5500 cored processor
> seems low draw enough for a good notebook.

Yes, you're obviously not the only one to come to that conclusion:

http://blogs.freescale.com/2010/06/23/what%e2%80%99s-up-with-64-bit-embedded-computing/#comments

Unfortunately, Preet Virk (who is strategic marketing director for Freescale's Networking Processor Division), while referring to Roberto's comment in general (and some points specifically), did not comment on his notebook remark.

Quote:

Am I the only one very scared at reading this phrase from him?

Quote:

It sounds like 64 bit processors were at people's homes by the time The Mamas and the Papas were still on the road... Or is it that his phrase ends up forty years later that it starts?

Alright, I also red sometime ago an IT expert saying the Commodore 64 was the first 64 bit computer.

Quote:

the key is "for super computers", so nothing like "people's homes".

Quote:

Ha ha ha! Good one! No.

> Or is it that his phrase ends up forty years later that it starts?

Rather twenty years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEC_Multia (1994)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64 (1996)

More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing#64-bit_address_timeline

> the key is "for super computers", so nothing like "people's homes".

Huh? "Home computers and gaming consoles" very much sounds like "people's homes".

Quote:

Don't know about the majority, but I liked the idea of an ultra small notebook for years. I am not at home quite often, a netbook is just tiny enough to get carried with you all the time. Think about those ppl who don't drive trucks, SUVs or the likes, but rather go by train or bicycle. Size does matter The pocket mony price is another plus.
I was hoping for an ultracheap mini ppc laptop when I heard about the 5200 years ago, but this was a while b4 Asus came along with their Eee. Manwhile the market has changed a lot and getting a foot between the door became more diffucult. And an 300/400MHz definitely leads nowhere today. An e300/800 could be still okay today, but only if really dirt cheap. I would focus on QorIQ.
I am still a bit sad about the 86xx. The 8610 would have made a nice netbbok, but e600 seems to be EOL - well, who knows maybe Freescale rediscovers Altivec one day. At least ppc got a bit of momentum again recently.

> maybe Freescale rediscovers Altivec one day.

I fear that won't happen. Regarding Power Architecture it's all about VSX today:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6196&forum=11&start=140#74094
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AltiVec#VSX

But I don't know enough about VSX to make a proper comparison to AltiVec/VMX. Feanor?

Quote:

Yes, like, say, absurd demands like HD video in a four inch screen, powered by batteries. The worst thing is that now it IS actually possible!

(Am I the only one who still remembers when one had to wait for a computer to finish something?)