>> POWER7

> ...wasn't really the issue here.

POWER7 does meet your criterion of being one of the "flavors of *current* PPC".

>> Yes, a fair comparison ... POWER7

> Sigh.

Don't make up quotes. I clearly said that comparing POWER7 and current ARM chips based on performance would be *not* fair. I chose POWER7 in that statement because it's the best performing PPC chip in existence currently. This was an answer to you quoting Jim's statement on ARM chips not being "as powerful as PPCs". I don't know which "PPCs" Jim meant to refer to specifically, so I simply chose to take the most powerful one to illustrate my point that comparing performance alone is not fair.

> Most people in this community who casually makes comparisons of
> various CPU platforms, usually does that based on one single point of
> view; Traditional Desktops. Like Crumb and Jim above.

You could as well exchange "POWER7" for "PA6T" or "PPC970" in my statement. Would work as well to make my point, albeit not as nicely as their performance edge over current ARMs is smaller than POWER7's of course.

> when desktop-oriented guys makes casual comparisons about architectures,
> it all really sums up to what's available from Intel and AMD

Huh? How could a comparison between current ARM chips and current PPC chips (that's what we (including Crumb and Jim) have been talking about, remember?) include anything "from Intel and AMD"?

> application CPU [...] which is what ARM has been from the beginning.
> [...] general desktop arena, [...] ARM hasn't got there yet

ARM architecture was already in the "general desktop arena", which is the arena it was originally developed for. After all, Acorn, who invented the ARM architecture, was a producer of desktop class computers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Archimedes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risc_PC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_A7000

So if it will play a role in desktop computing in the future it will be a *return* for ARM architecture to its origins, not a first.

> the PPC camp would probably put forward the 5121e, and the ARM camp
> could choose from, say, the i.MX51, i.MX53, Tegra 1 or Tegra 2. All of those
> ARM chips performs much better than the PPC

A core performance comparison of 800 MHz Tegra 1 (ARM11 core) vs. 400 MHz MPC5121e (e300c4 core) should prove interesting I think. Btw, how's your performance comparison between your 800 MHz Efika MX and an 800 MHz Sam440 doing? ;-)

> One other of the the target application areas of the mobileGT 5121e is
> automotive infotainment, but I'll tell you what - many car manufacturers
> are working with ARM and Android now for exactly this area. Many of
> Freescale's ARM CPU directly targets applications previously owned by PPC.

I'll tell you what as well. We (that is mostly Neko and me) had this very discussion almost two years ago here on MorphZone. There I absolutely acknowledged that Freescale was substituting PPC (MobileGT) by ARM (i.MX) in automotive *infotainment*, no argument about that at all:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=6428&start=14

> ARM most often comes out on top in comparisons (performance, features, etc).

That would depend on the specific application.

> Home servers/NAS units are other kinds of consumer applications
> where ARM would compete (and beat) PPC

Any details to back up the "beat" part of your claim? As a side note, MIPS is strong in the communications and networking market as well:

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4206111/MIPS-vs--Power--Truth-about-comms-market-share ("MIPS’ definition of the communication market includes [...] also WiFi, broadband access points and customer premise equipment where MIPS is traditionally strong.")

> POWER7 doesn't really fit the picture...

I think you're just mistaken as to why I decided to mention it.

>> Freescale ... nonsense roadmap

> Freescale is obviously at least a year behind the competition in the ARM market

That's not what I was referring to with my remark on this "nonsense roadmap" thing, and you know it. A 4+ GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 based i.MX63 processor in 2011, which is what Freescale had in their April 2010 i.MX roadmap, would not only put Freescale on par with the competition but far far ahead. Only problem was that this roadmap could already be recognized as pure hubris in June 2010 when I found it.

> to suggest that Freescale wouldn't have a future planned for
> their i.MX effort is nonsense

Yes, that's why I didn't do that.

> Roadmaps are snapshots of how future plans look at that moment
> in time, nothing else, and future targets are *moving* targets, so much
> can change after such a snap shot has been taken, so they are only
> relevant for a limited amount of time.

You're trying to be funny here? I mean, really, did you find a 4+ GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 based processor supposed to be coming from Freescale (or anybody else for that matter) in 2011 realistic in mid-2010, considering that ARM Ltd. itself has been specifying the Cortex-A9 at 2 GHz "typical operation" as you well know?

> Your whole perception of reality seems to be based on links and web references

No, you're mistaken again. It's just that my perception of Freescale's roadmaps is based on what roadmaps Freescale makes publically available on the web. It's certainly not my fault when roadmaps do not even make sense at the time they're published, is it?

> but that gives a very poor view of the reality

As you correctly stated before, roadmaps are essentially about plans for the future, less about current reality. If you say that publically available roadmaps give "a very poor view" of a company's plans for the future then what do you think should someone who doesn't have access to confidential roadmaps take as basis for judging the company's plans for the future that gives a better view than the publically available roadmaps?

> it's a good thing that at least Genesi isn't relying on linked
> images on websites to get info

Yes, of course. Genesi are a Freescale business partner which suggests that they have an NDA with Freescale and thus access to confidential Freescale product roadmaps. So they simply don't have to rely on publically available roadmaps from Freescale. I don't know about you but I don't have an NDA with Freescale so I don't have access to confidential Freescale product roadmaps (and if I had I wouldn't be allowed to discuss them in public anyway) and thus have to base my judgements on publically available roadmaps.

> they are friends with the people who are making those road maps in the first place

Oh, "friends", really? That's a strange word in the context of business relations I think. But anyway, I would like Genesi to ask their alleged "friends" what they intended by putting a 4+ GHz quad-core Cortex-A9 based i.MX63 processor for 2011 in their April 2010 i.MX roadmap.

> so they (and others) have a better source or info...

Yes, of course. Nobody doubted that.

> You don't understand why I choose to neglect it, do you?

I think I do.

> I choose to neglect it because it's *painfully irrelevant*

No, they *are* consumer products based on PPC, so they're clearly relevant in the context of "consumer products based on PPC" (which is a category that you chose, not me). If you think that something, albeit existing and fitting your category, for whatever reason lacks significance then you're free to mitigate your claim by using for instance "almost nobody" and "almost no". I surely wouldn't object to that.

> not because I don't know about it, so there is no need for you to try to "enlighten" me.

I didn't intend to "enlighten" you. I merely asked you if production had stopped as that wouldn't be so surprising to me (web store listings could as well be remnants). And it would have explained your "nobody" and "no" statements very well.

> it's quite old now and nothing new based on PPC followed it

That doesn't change the fact that it's "consumer products based on PPC", in our context at least as long as it's still getting produced. You didn't answer my question regarding production status of those devices so I take it they're still being produced.

> I'll happily *continue* to neglect it and stick to my statement

Of course I can't force you to be truthful. But I'll continue to take the opportunity to make annotations or corrections whenever I feel you've swept something under the table or have not been truthful.

@Andreas

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you derail yet another fine thread with your inability to discuss whats really being discussed instead of marking words out of context. And it's way too much text. And it's off topic anyway. Sorry.

> I'm not going to let you derail yet another fine thread

Trying to be funny again? This thread was dead since January. I tried to exhume it in February, in March and now in May again. This latest attempt of mine from three days ago seems to have been successful. So it doesn't make sense to say that I derailed this thread when in fact I'm the one who resurrected it, but then such claim fits your other nonsense claims very well. (And btw, what does "yet another" refer to specifically?)

> with your inability to discuss whats really being discussed

That's rich coming from someone who suddenly talks about "what's available from Intel and AMD" in a discussion about ARM and how it compares to PPC.

> instead of marking words out of context.

That's rich coming from someone who misquotes me with "Yes, a fair comparison ... POWER7" when in fact I said the exact opposite.

> it's way too much text.

Much nonsense induces much rectification as well as many questions you're probably not going to answer anyway.

> it's off topic anyway.

You didn't even read (or comprehend?) what I wrote but say it's off topic? Interesting. Let me list some points of our dispute that are clearly connected to the topic of ARM and thus on-topic in this thread by definition:

1. You claim that ARM was originally designed for other purposes than desktop computing. This is false. ARM was originally designed for desktop computing and nothing else.
2. You claim that ARM11 outperforms e300c4 but fail to back up that claim.
3. You say you think that your Efika MX outperforms an equally clocked Sam440 but so far refuse to perform actual testing.
4. You claim that generally ARM "most often comes out on top in comparisons (performance, features, etc)" compared to PPC. Such statement doesn't make sense without specifying a particular application.
5. You claim that ARM beats PPC in "Home servers/NAS units" but fail to back up that claim (or even to define what you mean by "beat", could be performance, numbers, revenue or anything).
6. You don't want to admit that Freescale's public i.MX roadmap from April 2010 was nothing but a bad joke and was recognizable as exactly that from April 2010 on.

takemehomegrandma, Which one of PPC and ARM do *you* think has the brightest future (in a 5-10 year perspective)?

What option do you think would be the best for MorphOS, provided the developers wants to keep going for another 5-10 years:
1) Stay forever on PPC
2) Migrate to ARM (doesn't necessarily mean abandoning PPC)
3) Migrate to x86 (doesn't necessarily mean abandoning PPC)

Quote:
Well, I am not Andreas, but I pick up this question as well: I think it is difficukt to say how the future will be. I am almost sure x86 will rule the average desktop market for the years to come. User'S don't have many convincing reasons to switch isa. They use x86 now and they will continue to do so. It is a thing of convenience and laziness and experinence (never change a running system). I think ARM wil *not* challenge teh desktop market.
But in server and business computer land ARM may get some serious market share with the windows port.
Anyway, what's for MorphOS to do then?
I think the only cpu that *for sure* will stay in desktop country is x86. Sinc new ppc desktop gear is rather unlikely in the coming few years I would favor a switch to x86 following roughly what I outlined here: https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6570&forum=3&post_id=66869#66869

Thing is, if Freescale does it and ships the QorIQ Altivec chips and somehow a general purpose board for a not too insane price appears I'd suggest keep ppc. It is not because I think ppc is the holy grail or such, but because MorphOS is small and the developers have limited resources only. An ISA switch may be too demanding for the given man power.
All in all I think ARM is not the best choice for MorphOS. It would be trading one niche for the next one. If changing the ISA becomes unevitable eventually, then better chose the most popuar ISA. And for desktop computers that is - and will be - without any doubt x86 (for the next couple of years at least). I am willing to bet quite some serious money that it will be no prob to buy an x86 compatible general purpose/desktop computer in 2025. But I do have my concerns about an ARM based comparable machine in that regard though. ARM may or may not be successful in desktop land, x86 just is.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
And I still think it would be a realistic scenario. The 5125 is a really ultra cheap SoC that is pretty capable of something. It really doesn't need to hide.
Okay, ppc currently lacks desktop processors and very mobile solutions but in many other areas the sitution isn't that bad. And in my recognition the 5125 is one of the most interesting chips Freescale ever made (in regard of the total cost of a system/performance).

T5040 baby, that's what I want. Enable ASMP under MorphOS and see what can be done with four cores.

> Enable ASMP under MorphOS and see what can
> be done with four cores.

MorphOS already runs on machines with two cores/processors, so for "enabling" ASMP in MorphOS no new hardware would be required.

True, and ASMP wouldn't break legacy compatibility.
We already have dual CPU G4s, so we're ready.
The G5 support a total of four cores doesn't it (or is it only two)?
I still like the T5020 and T5040 though.
who says PPC is dead?

> The G5 support a total of four cores doesn't it (or is it only two)?

Yes, the top model of the last PowerMac G5 generation has two dual-core CPUs, i.e. four cores overall.

While I think my minimalistic 5125 board idea was already ultra low cost, here's another approach that actually is *really* low cost:
http://www.raspberrypi.org/

I'd call that estimated price tag ambitious, but possilbe in bulk loads with close to no earnings (it is aimed as kind of charity project).

More tech details, performance and such would interesting though.

> More tech details, performance and such would interesting though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi
-> "Broadcom processor 2763" ->
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoCore

More:
http://www.google.com/search?q=bcm2763+arm11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi

Whoa! Neat device. I wouldn't mind trying to figure out how to connect multiple Raspberries to a central hub or another motherboard.

The heck with multiple Raspberry Pi devices being connected together, I wonder how well it would run MorphOS2.x with just one device?

Wouldn't it be faster than an Efika5200b? Of course it is only theoretical, as MorphOS2.x does not run on ARM architecture. Perhaps it could run AROS though?

Well, probabbly. an ARM11 700MHz based device would be faster than an e300/400MHZ. From raw computing power I think it should be more than two times as fast as the e300/400 (about 1800 MIPS vs. 800 MIPS AFAIK). Plus the Efika 5200 has some additional bottlenecks.
For the ARM thingie there's the question how the video engine could be used, but it can deliver quite some multimedia content. Seems pretty attractive. Anyway, I guess a 5125 device could deliver quite some fun as well. But it is all rather void: there's no MorphOS for ARM (yet) and no cheap 5125 device.

What I think is remarkable: A never heard of before prototype project gains pretty much PR (I read about that in my local newspaper a few days ago). If, years ago, Genesi would have had that PR with their 99 US$ Efika, maybe more ppl would have bought such a thing. Years ago the 99 US$ Efika was quite attractive. But it had its design flaws (my major critics back then: ATX instead of 5VDC, usb1.1 only), too.

> an ARM11 700MHz based device would be faster than an e300/400MHZ.

When takemehomegrandma claimed two weeks ago in this very thread that an 800 MHz ARM11 core outperforms a 400 MHz e300c4 core I called him out on that. Needless to say that he has failed to provide evidence.

> From raw computing power I think it should be more than two times
> as fast as the e300/400 (about 1800 MIPS vs. 800 MIPS AFAIK).

With "MIPS" you mean "DMIPS", right? DMIPS performance of MPC5200B's e300c0 is only 4% less than that of e300c4, so they're about on par. 1800 DMIPS for 700 MHz would mean about 2.6 DMIPS per MHz for ARM11. That would be more than Cortex-A9 (2.5 DMIPS per MHz), so very unlikely. Where do you have that figure from? According to ARM Ltd. the ARM11 core delivers about half that performance, namely between 1.18 and 1.54 DMIPS per MHz (depending on the specific type of ARM11 core) and thus between 826 and 1078 DMIPS at 700 MHz. Add to this that the Dhrystone benchmark is probably not suited to benefit from a processor's out-of-order execution capability which the e300 provides but the ARM11 does not.

DMIPS per MHz figures for different ARM11 types:
1.18: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm1136.php?tab=Performance
1.25: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm1136.php?tab=Specifications
1.25: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm1176.php?tab=Specifications
1.41: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm1156.php?tab=Performance
1.54: http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm1156.php?tab=Specifications

I don't know which one of these cores the BCM2763 incorporates though.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:
Somewhere I read 2600 DMIPS for 1 GHz and drew my conclusion for the 700MHz chip. Sorry, messed up values, since the 2600 was not the 1GHz 1core version, but for some 4 core version. Had only a quick look (and false) look regarding computing power for this chip yet. I now also read about ~1.2 DMIPS/MHz. Well, with DMIPS values like that the device is of course still highly interesting and impressive for that little money, but not that otally blowing as I first thought - i.e. it then seems rather on par with e300/400. The inbuild powerful video codec is a very nice feature though of course.

> Somewhere I read 2600 DMIPS for 1 GHz and drew my conclusion for
> the 700MHz chip. Sorry, messed up values, since the 2600 was not the
> 1GHz 1core version, but for some 4 core version.

I think that must have been a dual-core ARM11MPCore chip, not quad-core. Your figure was about double the true figure, not quadruple.

http://www.arm.com/products/processors/classic/arm11/arm11-mpcore.php?tab=Performance

> Perhaps it could run AROS though?

There's a short thread on this device on aros-exec.org:

http://aros-exec.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5956&forum=4

Quote:

I never said I was going to serve you with anything Andreas, so I haven't failed. It's all in your head, like so many other things, and I really wish you would keep it there. Your brains incapability to follow a discussion at large, and comprehend the essence of it, is notorious; all the time you seem to stumble and fall on the words a discussion is made of, with the result of you completely missing out on the discussion itself. You have showed this behavior in practically all threads you have taken part in, and this one as well. If your Asperger brain can't identify a pattern it can handle and process (preferably in the shape of some list of indexable details you can save as links) it tries to recompute it into a pattern it *can* handle and process (which probably will be some list of indexable details you can save as links), and then you will start discussing *this* instead of what was *really* being discussed... and yet another thread derails! Yet again! The ironic thing is that when people simply stops replying to your posts, you probably feel like you have "won" the discussion, and that you are right in your claims. You are actually showing signs of it here, in this very thread. But don't worry, I actually think all this (and you as a character as well) is highly amusing, and I honestly think that every community should have room for some originals, as it sure spices up the atmosphere...

> I never said I was going to serve you with anything Andreas, so I haven't failed.

You made a claim and didn't back it up when called out on it. That's what I call a failure to provide evidence. Whether you failed deliberately or not is another matter.

> It's all in your head

No, your claim about ARM11 outperforming e300c4 is right here in this thread for everybody to read:

"the PPC camp would probably put forward the 5121e, and the ARM camp could choose from, say, the i.MX51, i.MX53, Tegra 1 or Tegra 2. All of those ARM chips performs much better than the PPC"
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7675&start=89

As you know, it's the "Tegra 1" part of your claim I've been objecting to. Tegra 1 has an ARM11 core and clocks up to 800 MHz, MPC5121e has an e300c4 core and clocks up to 400 MHz. So it's your claim that 800 MHz ARM11 "performs much better than" 400 MHz e300c4. I can't see why that claim should be in my head when in fact it's in what you wrote.

> I really wish you would keep it there.

I really wish you'd keep your nonsense claims wherever they are prior to you spouting them out in public.

> Your brains incapability to follow a discussion at large, and
> comprehend the essence of it, is notorious

The essence of a discussion (if there is such thing by default at all) is determined by the essences of the statements that discussion is compound of. You made several dubious statements on the topic of ARM in this thread, which I listed there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7675&start=92 (last part)

So far, you chose to not address my objections and questions regarding those statements.

> all the time you seem to stumble and fall on the words a discussion is made of

Words are what constitute the meaning of a proposition for its recipient. You wrote "Tegra 1" but didn't mean to write "Tegra 1"? Your problem, not mine. It could have been easy for you to retract the "Tegra 1" part of your claim and I'd have been fine by it, but you chose not to retract it. You're the only one responsible for your choices.

> with the result of you completely missing out on the discussion itself.

No, I understand the "discussion itself" very well. But that doesn't mean I won't address what I believe are lies or false statements or ask questions regarding what I believe are dubious statements, be they part or not of what you think the "essence" is.

> You have showed this behavior in practically all threads you
> have taken part in, and this one as well.

That's true. Whenever I see something on the message boards I'm active on which I think is a lie, a false statement or a dubious statement I feel free to address it either by outright correcting it (often with links) or by asking questions.

> If your Asperger brain can't identify a pattern it can handle and process

Huh? I *can* identify, handle and process the "Tegra 1" part of your claim. That's the reason I objected to it. Or what alleged "pattern" do you refer to regarding your "performs much better than" claim?

> it tries to recompute it into a pattern it *can* handle and process

Huh? I didn't "recompute" anything. Your claim that Tegra 1 "performs much better than" MPC5121e is written by you as clear as it could be. Substituting "Tegra 1" by "ARM11" and "5121e" by "e300c4" was done by me in order to abstract from the whole SoC to the part delivering the core performance. The clock frequencies were mentioned by me to point at the maximum core frequencies the Tegra 1 and the MPC5121e can operate at (to make a fair assessment and not compare to a lowly clocked 400 MHz Tegra 1 for instance). So where did I "recompute" anything?

> then you will start discussing *this* instead of what was *really* being discussed...

If you don't want things being discussed then don't mention them. In particular: If you don't want your performance claims regarding Tegra 1 (in comparison to MPC5121e) being discussed then don't make them in the first place. Simple.

> yet another thread derails! Yet again!

You're the one derailing it. Performance comparison between Tegra 1 and MPC5121e is well within the scope of this thread's topic I'd say (else your original attempt at comparing them would have been off-topic already). Your discussion of my "Asperger brain" and my posting habits is definitely not. (Btw, what do "yet another" and "yet again" refer to specifically?)

> The ironic thing is that when people simply stops replying to your posts,
> you probably feel like you have "won" the discussion

If someone makes a certain claim and I ask for evidence regarding this claim but this someone won't address this request I'm inclined to believe he has no such evidence but pulled the claim from his behind. There's nothing ironic about that.

> and that you are right in your claims.

Huh? It's *your* claim that Tegra 1 "performs much better than" MPC5121e, not mine. I didn't even claim the opposite but just asked you for evidence to back up your claim.

> I actually think all this (and you as a character as well) is highly amusing

I'm glad to be able to bring some joy into your life :-)

You *still* don't get it, do you? Well, I rest my case...

> You *still* don't get it, do you?

Right, I still don't get your claim that Tegra 1 "performs much better than" MPC5121e.

> I rest my case...

Thought so. You're a loudmouth who's not able or willing to back up his claims with evidence when challenged on them.

I think the ARM platform is a very nice solution
Because the OS needs new computer. A SAm is to expensive and to slow.

[ Editiert durch Aramon 27.05.2011 - 13:20 ]

If the MorphOS Dev. Team was already working on a port to any Arm based hardware, the Raspberry Pi sure would be a great entry point, low end system, if it really does go into full scale production and can be sold for $25, like it is advertised as a target price.

Porting to Arm would mean that soon MorphOS2.x could be running on all kinds of cell phones and tablets and netbooks (not that I really want to run MorphOS2.x on a phone).