>> Varisys has past experience with PA6T and MPC86xx, which bplan may not have.

> I was trying to point out that the chosen CPU is a mistake.

That's why I also mentioned Varisys's experience with MPC86xx. Or would you consider that choice a mistake as well? If yes: What Power Architecture CPU wouldn't be a mistake in your eyes?

> Powerful (for what?)

See my posting I linked to for some examples.

> already at its end of life

Probably there won't be any other PWRficient CPU than PA6T-1682M, yes. But that wouldn't stop A-Eon from using a newer Power Architecture CPU (QorIQ P5 for instance, see what Varisys responded to Jim's inquiry) in an X1000 successor (should there ever be one, that is). I think PA6T will continue to be manufactured for some years to come, at least until mid-2011 (to mid-2013 maximum) on behalf of Apple, and on behalf of someone else after that.

> Where is this CPU used in volume? I thought it was kept because of some
> contracts with US army, that have systems that use it

Yes, with US DoD (that includes army as well as navy and air force), and exactly that's where this CPU is used in (rather low) volume (see Zylesea's reply). It seems you answered your own question ;-)

>> In September 2008, Apple started volume production of the chip again.

> Sure? Would love sources about this.

See the link in:
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7001&start=127

At least in July 2008 that was said to be the plan. I don't have any reasons to doubt that they did what they said they'd do.

> really, that would explain why the specs can't be the ones
> chosen by a sensible engineer.

As I wrote, the exact specs were decided not until one year after Hermans had his rough idea. According to A-Eon, it was the OS4 development team (it was not said who in person) who decided the exact specs. (Mind you, A-Eon was founded in April 2009, i.e. some months *after* Varisys had started the board development.) With one exception: As you might remember, A-Eon said that the suggestion to include the XCore came from Varisys.
Unfortunately, we'll probably never know to what extent the May 2007 announcement of Amiga Inc.'s and ACK's 'Power Design' had an influence on the design decisions for Nemo/X1000 ;-)

>> AFAIK, bplan don't have any past experience with the PA6T.

> That's my way to insist in taking that fantaaaaastic CPU out of the picture.

Same question as above: What suitable Power Architecture CPU is in *your* picture then which bplan has more (or at least the same) experience with than Varisys?
There's really only one coming to my mind: the PPC970(MP), see the TetraPower/Bimini board. But I doubt that the PPC970MP, which is not a SoC and thus requires the CPC945 northbridge (50 to 100 USD), would be a better solution than the PA6T, neither technically nor economically. To quote Neko:

"The BOM cost for a 1.5GHz quad-core board was over $900 (reaching 750 EUR at the time!) including processors for the complex dual-sided PCB. For >2GHz it hit $1500. Genesi would not sell a single unit at that price. Given that it had to use expensive RAM, expensive disks, weird cases (BTX pretty much got abandoned halfway through).. we would have to sell systems at the same cost as an Apple G5 (nearing $3000).. which defeated the whole object of the project."

Using only one instead of two PPC970MP CPUs wouldn't save that much, 250 to 300 USD at 1.8 GHz and 200 to 250 USD at 1.5 GHz.

Quote:

In my opinion, as I've expressed many times, the MPC8610 is the sensible choice. There's only two drawbacks:

1.- Every CPU looses value as time passes: This little clever MPC8610 isn't exactly a wonder nowadays. Not to mention what it would look like by the time you finally start selling a board with it.

2.- My opinion isn't worth a dime, of course.

Hey, what the hell happened to the (Nec?) RedTail?!

Quote:

I see recent videogames and high definition content. Fine. In my opinion, these aren't absolute requirements for our little world. Moreso if meeting them complicates things as much as it does (once again, this statement is void if we could use a certain very popular brand of CPUs).

But opinions are like asses: Everybody has one

And I like PowerPC, but like many others, only for breed reasons. Nothing rational. Other CPUs are as clever, if not more, tha "ours".

Quote:

And yet they use it as the standing stone for a revolution.

Quote:

Noticed the ROTFL of many at reading the last three words?

Quote:

Then, it would be using a "dead" CPU as the standing stone for a revolution which will be the standing stone for a second revolution. All sounding very real.

Quote:

If only making a new computer would take half a year... See, even the humble Efika 5200 took years to mature.
Then, I die with envy at those computers being made so easily (in comparison) just because they use "normal" CPUs. Heck, even the whole rest of our computers is made with "normal" components, and yet the biggest problem is connecting them to the weird CPUs we love.

Quote:

Very, very nicely spotted, Andreas, as always. More interesting is that, even back then, you cared to use Wayback's Machine cache...

Quote:

Fantastic trip in time with those links, mate. The most complete information about the mythical G5 computer Genesi wanted to make, please guys take a look, even at the first link Andreas collected back then.

I also remember Matt "Neko" Sealey saying the 970 was basically an expensive bitch, and thus project didn't make sense.

That kind of sensible reasoning is completely absent in the X-1000 project. Not that I care much about it, but when one thinks the Amiga name has been dragged in the mud enough already, yet another guy is able to do it once more. Amazing.

> the MPC8610 is the sensible choice.

There you go. As I mentioned, Varisys claim to have experience with MPC86xx, which bplan doesn't have to my knowledge (I doubt that the Efika 8610 exists in more than on paper only). That's why I'd see no sensible reason to chose bplan over Varisys in commissioning an MPC8610 based design (unless Varisys would request too much money). And yes, I know that the 'MPC8610 Open Source Mainboard' is supposed to be developed by bplan once the required bounty cash is there (which will never happen IMO).

> what the hell happened to the (Nec?) RedTail?!

Really don't know. I've never come across anything else than this Japanese NEC webpage mentioning the board and having a picture of it and Lonelywildone's Youtube video showing it in action.

> I see recent videogames and high definition content. Fine. In my opinion, these
> aren't absolute requirements for our little world.

I didn't label them "absolute requirements", but rather said these are *my* requirements. And I can very well imagine that I'm not alone regarding these.

> Moreso if meeting them complicates things as much as it does

That seems to be the case on the OS4 side, yes. In MorphOS realm, where I reside, there's plenty 1.5(+) GHz G4 hardware available :-)

> I like PowerPC, but like many others, only for breed reasons. Nothing rational.

Fair enough. If you are interested, my own stance on Power Architecture can be read there.

>> Probably there won't be any other PWRficient CPU than PA6T-1682M, yes.

> And yet they use it as the standing stone for a revolution.

To be fair, the PA6T-1682M is what it is. It's currently available (though A-Eon's supplier is still a mystery) and its specs don't suddenly change just because there'll be no successor to this chip. As I said, an assumed future X1000 successor could have quite another Power Architecture CPU and still be superior to the X1000.
Going by your reasoning, the EOL fact could have as well been used against anything e600 based (MPC8641/8640/8610), at least from January 2009 on when BBRV revealed this sad fact.

>> that wouldn't stop A-Eon from using QorIQ P5 for instance, in an X1000 successor

> Noticed the ROTFL of many at reading the last three words?

You can ROTFL as much as you want. That won't change the fact that the PWRficient being EOL'd certainly wouldn't stop A-Eon from having an X1000 successor developed. There's a million reasons which are better suited to stop them from ever making a successor.

>> should there ever be one, that is

> Then, it would be using a "dead" CPU as the standing stone for a revolution
> which will be the standing stone for a second revolution.

With "one" I was referring to "X1000 successor", not to "X1000".

> All sounding very real.

You assume too much. I don't say that there'll ever be an X1000 successor. I don't even say that there'll definitely be a commercial release of the X1000 itself. The point I try to make is that it won't be the PWRficient being EOL'd that would stop A-Eon from making a superior successor to the X1000.

>> I think PA6T will continue to be manufactured for some years to come,
>> at least until mid-2011 (to mid-2013 maximum) on behalf of Apple, and
>> on behalf of someone else after that.

> If only making a new computer would take half a year...

What does "half a year" refer to in context of PA6T availability?

> even back then, you cared to use Wayback's Machine cache...

Look closer, there's an edit notice. It's not that I foresaw amiga.com going offline or losing content :-)

> I also remember Matt "Neko" Sealey saying the 970 was basically an
> expensive bitch, and thus project didn't make sense.

I think it wasn't so much for the price of the PPC970 CPU itself (see my quote of Neko's statement), else Genesi wouldn't have dared to start the project in the first place.

Quote:

Ah, sure. But we're talking about future hardware, not present. A new computer that has chosen a "wrong" CPU just because it's fast, and MorphOS is useful on not fast computers. Fast computers are nice, but not at any cost, not to mention as the opening of a new era.

Quote:

I think you didn't catch my sarcasm: That new computer barely exists, and yet one has to think about a succesor! That's a new twist on the "Osborne Syndrome"!

Quote:

I'm saying that, by the time you finish the new computer, the CPU will no longer be available.

Quote:

Sure, my rude adjective applies to something that not only is expensive in itself, it also demands expensive companions...

By the way, in further posts, I'll use your classic quoting with the ">" sign, which is much more space-wise efficient than the standard one I've used. Heck, when quotes take more space than actual answers, there's something wrong!

> we're talking about future hardware, not present.

I look forward to PowerMac G5 support in MorphOS. While being present hardware in general it's nevertheless future hardware in terms of MorphOS ;-) But you're right that due to their target market's special nature most new Power Architecture CPUs (especially the more affordable ones) probably don't (and won't) meet let alone exceed a 1.5 GHz G4 in raw performance.

> MorphOS is useful on not fast computers.

Sure. It's certain applications that require raw performance, not MorphOS in itself.

> That new computer barely exists, and yet one has to think about a succesor!

I was trying to make a certain point. For that I needed a hypothetical X1000 successor for illustration purposes. Look at it as some kind of thought experiment.

> That's a new twist on the "Osborne Syndrome"!

Nobody's announced an X1000 successor as far as I can see. The computer hardware principle that a successor should be superior to its predecessor surely wasn't invented by me.

>>> If only making a new computer would take half a year...

>> What does "half a year" refer to in context of PA6T availability?

> I'm saying that, by the time you finish the new computer, the CPU
> will no longer be available.

Apple will have the PA6T manufactured until mid-2011 at least. By that time and assuming the X1000 will still not be commercially available the actual development time will have crossed the 2.5 years mark. That's as much as five times "half a year" ;-)
But you're right in that A-Eon could get into hot water if they don't get the X1000 to market soon. That's assuming Apple really choose the minimum time they're obliged to have the PA6T manufactured *and* don't find anybody to buy the design from them.

Quote:

I'd be surprised if no other company will produce them under Apple's license later on. Demand from the military market is there. And this market is a good market to earn money. Probably too little fish for Apple, but for a smaller company a good catch. But I wouldn't bet on falling prices though.

If I had to design a ppc board today, I'd probably go the QorIQ route now. Nevertheless, the 86xx cpus are still kind of attractive, but of course they haven't gotten better over the years. But still I would like to see an 8610 board.
QorIQ offers a modern process, brillant throughput, rather reasonable prices and at least some future plan (if they just decided to shrink the process for the e600 and did an e600 QorIQ - I would like that).

On the software side I hope that one day MorphOS can somehow utilize additional cores. But I think with the upcoming support for maschines having more than one cpu/core, the developers will sooner or later get bored enough to do some CoreUp.library or such (or will some other company do some WarpCore.lib...?).

Quote:

Who actually makes the chips for Apple?

Quote:

Reading "apple" and "license" on the same line gives me the creeps...

Quote:

This phrase has sparked a wild dream in my head: Why don't we make our own PowerPC CPU? No, I'm not crazy, it's those guys with FPGAs and Verilogs who are crazy. Really, could it be possible, at least as an initial step towards fereing ourselves from the CPU shortage (that we chose ourselves, precisely)?

I've crazily wrote "opencores.org" in my browser, and the first thing I've seen there is... what's that, "zorro" word? Heck, amiga infests everything

Quote:

Sure, looks like a nice CPU family. But more importantly, it's almost the only one we can "choose"...

> under Apple's license

As far as I've understood what became public in 2008, Apple won't license the PA6T design but they're supposed to *sell* it. Or do you have any new information on that?

> Who actually makes the chips for Apple?

I guess it's still the same company that manufactured the PA6T on behalf of P.A.Semi and which I mentioned 3 days ago. But there's a chance that they switched fabs. The Apple A4 is produced by Samsung for instance (A4 has (ex-)Intrinsity's/Samsung's Hummingbird core (enhanced ARM Cortex-A8 core) with on-chip peripherals probably designed by the former P.A.Semi team (except for the GPU)).

> Why don't we make our own PowerPC CPU? [...] Really, could it be possible [...]?

Last time I looked you had to acquire an architectural license from IBM to do that in a legal way.

Quote:

Well I wrote about boards rather than cpus. There is a shortage of new ppc boards suitable for MorphOS, but not of cpus.
The 86xx still would do nice, the QorIQ, while designed for communication stuff, has some options and there is also?the ibm 476 which seems rather nice. For low cost Applied Micro has nice offerings, probably their Titan will be nice, too.
Okay, ppc is currently not on par with Core i7 or the likes (well, there are the server chips by IBM, but that's another story...)., but there are plenty useful PPCs. What is not plenty is boards - boards that are interesting for general computing and not inside some high or low end router, car electric, game console, deadly missile or laser printer.

> the ibm 476 which seems rather nice.

Again the same question like 2.5 months ago: Do you mean the LSI Axxia? After all, the IBM PPC476 ist just a core.

> probably their Titan will be nice, too.

Seems you missed something:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=75799#75799 (see edit note)

Quote:

I mean the 476 core which seems rather nice.Unfortunately that core got used by LSI only and while I don't know the cost of their chip I guess this 476 incarnation is not the best candidate for a new cost sensitive and powerful mainboard. Maybe we will see some other 476 based chip popping up (but I haven't heard of any).
But as sad, *I* would go for QorIQ if I had to design a ppc mainboard today. With regard to MorphOS and Altivec I would still rate the 86xx rather interesting, but 86xx reached EOL while QorIQ didn't.
Quote:

Indeed. Have been on vaccation most of August (it's alwysa a pleasure to be offline for about a month once a year).

> I mean the 476 core

Yes, that's what you wrote. But as you cannot put a CPU core on a PCB without having wrapped a chip round that core I assumed that you might probably not mean the PPC476 core as such but rather an actual (i.e. existing) chip with that core inside.

> Maybe we will see some other 476 based chip popping up (but I haven't heard of any).

Me neither. That's been the reason for my question.

> 86xx reached EOL while QorIQ didn't.

Yes, Freescale's Power Architecture roadmap explicitly paints the QorIQ P4 and P5 chip families as replacements for the MPC86xx chip family.

@thread

I mean at least another fruitful Amiga year.

Another PPC MorphOS spec (could be two, still), two PPC Amigas announced to ship, more news over NatAmi, ARES distro plus new AROS bundles (altogether with wifi nearly done).

So one's gotta get another legal fight. Year without a legal fight ain't Amiga year.

Addendum:

> it's said that "just the CPU is 400-450 euro".

Remarkably, in the coming Amiga Future issue #89 Trevor Dickinson dares to write:

"The PA6T-1682M is a [...] low cost [...] Power Architecture CPU"
http://www.amigafuture.de/album_pic.php?pic_id=16353

"I Believe"

Wow! Some people believe in UFOs, Bigfoot, and Atlantis too!
That slogan is a little too close to the promos for the X-files for comfort.

> "I Believe"

Higher resolution image for your pleasure, uploaded 10 weeks ago:

http://www.a-eon.com/pics/I_Believe.jpg

Funnily, this poster still refers to the year 2010. Somehow I've problems imagining there's still someone who believes in a 2010 release of the X1000 ;-)

Thankx for posting the E-mail Jim! I needed a cheer me up! BTW, how are your balls?

Funny coincidence. LinkedIn just gave me Bill McEwen as "people you may know". I passed on that one ;)

Jim, stay away from Bigfoot, he is actually real and hopefully working on new 3D drivers :D

As I've got an R400 waiting to be used, that is the best news I've received in a long time.
But I thought Frank did the video drivers.

>> Bigfoot, he is actually real and hopefully working on new 3D drivers :D

> that is the best news I've received in a long time.

Huh? What news?

> I thought Frank did the video drivers.

Code:

Btw, 2D drivers on the other hand are inside mossys:devs/monitors/ :-)

OK, I just assumed Frank had something to do with video card development as his last message to me mentioned working on the X600 cards for the G5 (in preference to the R400 series)


[ Edited by Jim on 2011/3/5 4:42 ]

> I just assumed Frank had something to do with video card development

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22vision+factory+development%22+mariak ;-)

And it seems you missed my comment about the 2D drivers (mind you, pampers talked about 3D drivers).

> his last message to me mentioned working on the R600 cards for the G5
> (in preference to the R400 series)

R600? Do you mean a personal message he sent to you? The latest public message by him regarding graphics driver development that I'm aware of is this:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7648&forum=3&post_id=80696#80696

Quote:

Please avoid new/more confusion :) I was obviously refering to the Radeon >X<600 model which is a R3xx based card used for example in the iSight iMacG5. I have no plans to work on R600 range card support for now.

P.S.: This is totally unrelated to the original topic, though ....