>> "G5" is the name Apple has used only for the PPC970 family, which the PA6T
>> doesn't belong to [...]. So I wouldn't call the PA6T a "type of G5 CPU".

> its a overall designation

...used by Apple for the members of the PPC970 microarchitecture family, which the PA6T isn't a member of.

> not a single chip

Yes, hence PPC970 *family*.

> similar to PIII and PIV arhitectires.

Yes, PIII and PIV are distinct microarchitecture families, just like the PPC970 and the PWRficient are. You just prove my point.

> So if G5 overally designates PPC64 chip, yes PWR Eff is G5.

But it doesn't. Besides PPC970 family, chips implementing PPC64 ISA are the POWER3/4/5/6/7/8, PowerEN, Power BQC, Cell BE, PowerXCell 8i, Xenon/XCGPU, PWRficient PA6T-1682M and QorIQ P5/T1/T2/T4 (forgot anything?). Except the PPC970 chips, none of them is a "G5".

> Examle shown is that Mint PPC64 is called G5.

As you were already explained, that's because it comes with a PPC970-compatible kernel that's not compatible with other PPC64 chips.

> I would call it, and would not be much wrong.

But wrong nevertheless.

> As much as I would say my AMCC460 is G3 class chip meaning similar
> ahitecture and performance as Apple designated for G3s.

Yes, you can call the PPC460EX a "G3 *class* chip", but as G3 is PPC7xx you wouldn't call it a "G3 chip", right? I never objected to anyone calling the PA6T a "G5 *class* chip". The word "class" makes the whole difference here, you see?

>>> Its kind of PentiumPro or 64-bit modern arhitecture designation.

>> Sorry, I don't understand this, and especially not as a reasoning as to
>> why the PA6T should be called a "G5".

> you pretend to be an unformed person while you do know your ropes.

Sorry? It gets even more confusing for me. What ropes?

> I don`t link it to a single IBM CPU

Me neither. I link it to a certain microarchitecture family which consist of three IBM CPUs: PPC970, PPC970FX and PPC970MP.

> was never officially called G5.

It was, by the inventor of the "G5" moniker.

>>> PA Semi is great chip

>> No, it was a company that was purchased by another company. The chip is
>> called PWRficient PA6T-1682M (full name).

> Since it made only one chip and ceased to exist, it might well be the same.

No, even a company that only made one single product isn't the same as its product. What can be considered though is PWRficient = PA6T-1682M = PA6T.

> Maybe I am too lame, maybe the name is too complex.

You find "PA6T" too complex?

>>> It seems Pa Semi on Nemo is downclocked to 1.8GHz from 2Ghz

>> No, according to Varisys and A-Eon it isn't:
>> https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7183&start=472

> according to all PA Semi materials it never went below 2Ghz

"PA6T-1682M-FCN 2.0 GHz
PA6T-1682M-FCG 1.5 GHz
PA6T-1682M-FCD 1.0 GHz"
http://www.hotchips.org/wp-content/uploads/hc_archives/hc18/2_Mon/HC18.S2/HC18.S2T1.pdf (page 26)
http://www.ll.mit.edu/HPEC/agendas/proc07/Day3/19_Bannon_Precis.pdf (page 7)
http://www.ncu.edu.tw/~ncume_ee/digilogi/dsp96212-PWRficient_PA_Semi_Bus_Boards_PBannon.pdf (page 28)

> all materials including AEONs says 5W at 2Ghz.

That's just for one CPU core. For the complete chip the above-linked documents say 13/17 to 25 W at 2 GHz. And it's obvious that the PA6T ran at 2 GHz (and probably even higher) in PA Semi's labs but that doesn't change the fact that according to A-Eon and Varisys no 2 GHz version was sold on the free market, just up to 1.8 GHz. I believe them, and EETimes backs this up too.

>> I for one trust Varisys in their statement, and EETimes agrees with that

> Ever heard of marketing?

Yes, that's why I believe A-Eon and Varisys when they say that PA Semi's 2 GHz claim was just a marketing stunt.

> look at all PA Semi materials.

I did. The mention of 2 GHz chips doesn't mean they were for sale at any point in time.

> it seems chip works fine at 2Ghz being overclocked

So you have tried it on the X1000?

>>> Its now possible to buy it at 2Ghz at selected dealers.
>>> http://forum.hyperion-entertainment.biz/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=2199

>> No, it's not. It's still running at 1.8 GHz. Trevor even clarifies that
>> right in the thread you link to. May I propose that you go out of your
>> way and read your own link?

> its possible to buy it at 2Ghz.

No, Trevor says it's not and I believe him over you any day, especially when it comes to his own products.

> Read my lines more carefully.

You claiming something doesn't make it true.

> Yes, I have read the post I have posted.

So you read where Trevor says that it's not possible to buy the X1000 at 2 GHz?

> its doesnt matter is it half, third or 10%.

Yes, because it's more than half.

> anything beyond 2D is kind of vital to me.

Again, graphics is not a Nemo board feature so counting it as unsupported Nemo board feature is cheating.

>> Your statement that the Atari Falcon is more "Amigish" than Amiga 600,
>> Amiga 1200, Amiga 4000 or Amiga CD32 is laughable at best.

> way more useful chips then not so fast AGA was introduced which has proven
> to be generation leap - especially because Paula remained the same. [...]
> specs of A600, A1200 and even A4000 and especially CD32 were almost obsolete
> day they were out. [...] it was defenetely lack of innovation. [...] So in sense in which
> A1000, A500 and A3000 were really steps forward, CDTV was nice try, and
> A500+,A600 and even A1200,A4000,CD32 means of cheap survival, yes, Falcon was
> quite Amigish.

I still don't understand how that makes the Atari Falcon more "Amigish" than Amiga 600, Amiga 1200, Amiga 4000 or Amiga CD32. The Amiga was a certain evolutionary hardware architecture. It seems like you just use the word "Amigish" as a synonym for the word "innovative". That's way too generic in my book.

>> I will continue to refute your claim of "false advertising with its
>> comparison to Transputer".

> How Xena is very expandable?

A-Eon talks about the possibility of "highly multi-threaded applications to run in parallel" on "a Xorro board with an array of additional XMOS chips", which is what they compare to the Transputer concept of old. This is not an unfair comparison I'd say.

> What shared arhitecture it has with Transputer concept?

I'm not an expert on the Transputer concept, but you can start your research there:

"XMOS was founded in July 2005 by Ali Dixon [...], James Foster [...], Noel Hurley [...], David May (former chief architect of Inmos), and Hitesh Mehta [...]. [...] The name XMOS is a loose reference to Inmos. Some concepts found in XMOS technology are part of the Transputer legacy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMOS#Company_history

> How can it be hacked? Is it a funky programmable chip? How to reach up to 400MIPS?

Is any of this part of the Transputer concept?

>>> and adding more Xena cores (how when Xorro isn`t it? Via USB? PCI?)

>> http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1135

> you provide links as matter of further info, but this time it has zero relevance.

It has as it contains an answer to your question.

> its much better to discuss matters, then to just post links.

I post links for a reason. But this you can't know of course when you won't stop your habit of ignoring them.

> Or best, to provide your own answers and then give some nice and useful links

I do accompany my links with text when the link alone doesn't give the answer I intend to give. If it does, I don't.

> Cirrus Logic quite strange components

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9884&forum=11&start=6