No once console hardware is designed, its basic functionality is locked in until a completely new replacement is designed.
And with current consoles running all functions via a hypervisor, we're not likely to see complete access to functionality anyway (probably about the time they're ready to be replaced).
With regard to on-die consolidation, I rather meant that if it offered no benefit to a PC user, then it would present some disadvantages.
Again, with what AMD is proposing, I can see a clear advantage in performance rather than just a lowering of costs.
If PowerVR has advanced as much as you've pointed out, perhaps some of Intel's on-die projects will feature it.
Hopefully, we won't be forced in that direction with PPCs until an advantage to the user is present.

>> Does a CPU implementing VSX automatically support VMX/AltiVec,
>> i.e. is VSX a strict superset?

> AFAIK, yes. [...] VSX is like an extention, or a superset as you put it.

That would be the best thing I heard since reading first about VSX and would fully make up for the diverging focus from AltiVec/VMX.

> I don't know if that's guaranteed to be so according to the Power ISA,
> but at least on Power7 they implemented both.

Err, now that sounds like a contradiction to what you just wrote before. If POWER7 implements both VSX and AltiVec/VMX (separately), then it would mean that the latter is *not* automatically there by having the former implemented, i.e. a processor with VSX but *without* AltiVec/VMX compatibility would be technically possible (and conforming to Power ISA 2.06+).

> Though, I doubt that they would implement one without the other, to be honest.

I fear that if Power ISA 2.06+ allows to implement VSX without AltiVec/VMX compatibility then Freescale will do just that, if they adopt VSX at all that is ;-)

Quote:

Yes, you're right. The fact is that I'm confused myself. From the doc I posted earlier (page 4):

Quote:

It's apparent that VSX is an extention of VMX. I got confused because those few times I read about VSX, I missed -or they omitted- VMX mentioned. And until now -that is until you made me read more about it :) - I thought they were distinctive units.

[ Edited by feanor on 2010/7/7 1:00 ]

> No once console hardware is designed, its basic functionality is locked in
> until a completely new replacement is designed.

I know, but I'm not about the XBox360 or any other console hardware, but about the XCGPU in itself and the (theoretical, but most improbable) possibility to be able to use it in an own design which is not a console. But yes, since it's not available to anyone besides Microsoft anyway we can very well pretend this 'XCGPU' doesn't exist at all ;-)

> with current consoles running all functions via a hypervisor, we're not
> likely to see complete access to functionality anyway

Yes, I fully agree. See my statement there: https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7186&forum=11#74250

> If PowerVR has advanced as much as you've pointed out, perhaps
> some of Intel's on-die projects will feature it.

Maybe, not unlikely. After all, Intel is a PowerVR licensee. Intel used the PowerVR MBX in XScale PXA27x support chipsets years ago, and they currently (since November 2008) use the PowerVR SGX 535 renamed as GMA 500 in Atom Z5xx (Silverthorne) support chipsets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_2700G
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_500
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poulsbo_(chipset)#Graphics_core

|||


[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:50 ]

> With the Linkbook and the Asia etc. the strategy is a little different. It consumes
> less wattage even when in full-operation. (At least that is the case with the 5121e
> and I think that is the case with the ARM systems.)

"The biggest downer is an amazingly short battery life, someting very surprising, given the supposed MPC5121e SOC."
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6726&forum=11&start=60#73290

@ Velcro

literally an e300/400 doesn't lead nowhere. And while there are the limebooks I don't see them marketed in a way I would expect a market success. Look, last week there was a 99 EUR offer at a supermarket chain (Netto) for a little netbook, probably MIPS driven and coming with WinCE. More or less crap probably, but also working. *If* the limebook was offered at a similar price, or say 200 EUR (at least significantly less than an Atom based netbook), then I would assume they could get sold in serious quantities. But they aren't. Look to the southafrican offer. It is a combined offer for the device and the mobile internet access. But the prices doesn't seem too attractive to me. For that price they easily could include a higher spec'ed device.
But as said, if they would sell those mini laptops for 150 EUR I think they would find their way to enough customers. But with the current price tag it is just too little power. An Atom based device is not really more expensive, the announced ARM devices are cheaper and more powerful. The Atom based devices have long lasting batteries now (often 6-9 hours).
With a 8610 you cannot compete pricewise with an Atom board, but it has some serious power. Hence I think it would be the best chip for a netbook.
The limebook comes with a too little battery. That's pretty unfortunate IMHO, because that way they don't use one of their advantages - the really low power uptake.

Anyway, my Eee costed me ~250 EUR (incl. 19% VAT) nearly two years ago - I think that's the minimum bar to jump over if you want to score.

It must meet at least one of teh following criteria:
a) cheaper
b) offer much longer battery time
c) more powerful

c is out of question with an e300/400MHz, b) unfortunately not implemented with the limebook, a) could probably be, but curently isn't.
So yet, the limebook pulled the bar and got more or less diqualified. And to keep that sport analogy: Maybe they overjumped the 2m bar, which is really impressive (I cannot!!). But it isn't enough to join the elite. And as long as you don't join the elite you are not earning money/fame and must try harder or accept that it is (serious) hobby/amateurism only. The competition is just very hard.

> last week there was a 99 EUR offer at a supermarket chain (Netto) for a
> little netbook, probably MIPS driven

It's ARM9 (VIA VT8505), similar to some of the Cherrypal Africa devices with VT8500 (i.e. those Africas that were not XBurst/MIPS).

>It's ARM9 (VIA VT8505), similar to some of the Cherrypal Africa devices with VT8500 (i.e. those Africas that were not XBurst/MIPS).

That particular processor is usually supported by a chipset that only offers 800 x 480 video resolution.

And the XCGPU you mentioned, Andreas, may be two separate dies under a common heatspreader.



[ Edited by Jim on 2010/7/7 20:30 ]

> That particular processor is usually supported by a chipset that only offers
> 800 x 480 video resolution.

I knew that this POS netbook only supports this low resolution, but I didn't know if that's due to the lowres display or the chipset. So thanks for this info. Anyway, I just wanted to tell Zylesea that it's ARM and not MIPS as he supposed.

> the XCGPU you mentioned, Andreas, may be two separate dies
> under a common heatspreader.

That may be, yes. I really don't know, just trying to interpret Wikipedia's "same package" and "integrated chip".

I thought it was MIPS (I just read the advert that flew into my letterbox and didn't paid more attention) , because when netbooks (the class of devices not the TM) were rather new, the all cheap offers by several Telcos (IIRC Phonehouse, Vodafone) were MIPS based.
Anyway, *I* don't thought that particular offer was too interesting, except for the fact that supermarkets offer 99 EUR netbooks today that were probably sold off quiet well.
I know enough ppl who are kind of addicted to supermarket special offers - I call that the Aldi addiction desease and if I ever happen to write a Psychology thesis I will chose that topic. Well, actually not too likely and if I eventually change to Psychology (could happen) I will rather end up with cognition/vision/motion .

Psychology? What are you crazy, Zylesea? Stick with a hard science, everyone I now in that field has issues.

And Andreas, POS (?!), that's the harshest term I've ever seen you use.

Quote:
Coming from low level neuroscience I am considering to switch to a group working on mental movement representation and embodyment. It is something embedded into a interdisciplinary institute (CITEC Bielefeld), but that particular group I am considering belongs to the faculty of psychology and sports. So, don't worry I'll probably not ending up on the couch (at least not because of *that*)...

Quote:

I think Amiga has already done this to everyone here already (yeah, incl me :), or not?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:55 ]

> 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.

Answer from Preet Virk, strategic marketing director for Freescale's Networking Processor Division:

"The e5500 is [...] unrelated to a previously mentioned e700 family"
http://blogs.freescale.com/2010/06/23/what%e2%80%99s-up-with-64-bit-embedded-computing/#comment-292

But then, he had not been with Freescale before April 2009. So maybe he just doesn't know?

http://www.linkedin.com/in/preetvirk

Quote:

Your amigan spirit made you think we were still in the nineties... TVs now have DVI inputs.

But yes, I love that idea. I doubt many people will plug a netbook to a TV, but it's a feature that might give it an edge over the rest. What if we add a DVB decoder, and make it also a portable TV? What antenna would it need?

(Sesesh, I'm taking about adding features to a non-existing product)

Quote:

That's a very funny (and insightful) comment. Aren't there websites devoted to people arguing the merits of adding features to non-existent products?

Amigans disunited!

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:08 ]

> I spoke to the principle, not to these distinctions

It's not my fault if you use terms that actually do not represent your thoughts. I can't read your mind. So if you write about a "chip" then I assume you actually mean a chip. Make sure you say what you mean, else communication just cannot work. And if you don't know the proper terms then read up on them beforehand (Internet makes that part easy). It's really not that hard to grasp the concept of what a computer chip is, I think.
If you mean the "principle", as you say, then use the term "hardware". That's rather generic. A chip is a special kind of hardware, as is a core, which usually is part of a chip.

> The principle is wider

Your text mentioned a chip. That's what I referred to. It may be that you *thought* of the wider principle, i.e. hardware in general, but I can not read your thoughts.

> I spoke generally and informally.

I didn't know that the term "chip" does generally and informally describe the wider concept of hardware. I thought it's more the other way round (i.e. you can generally say "hardware" and refer to for instance a chip or a core, but you can't say "chip" and refer to other hardware than a chip).

> I don't "try to turn into" anything.

After I questioned your "chip" use you claimed you "spoke to the general idea of making use of (note: not necessarily "adding," esp. where already present) dedicated video hardware". But that's actually not what you *spoke* (= wrote) of, but rather what you may have *thought* of. That's a difference.

> Actually video is a narrower concept than graphics, so those
> words are as much narrower as wider.

Huh? I was never about "video" vs. "graphics" but about "hardware" vs. "chip". You can use for instance "video card" and "graphics card" synonymously (at least that's my understanding from reading native English speakers here and elsewhere) but you cannot use the term "graphics chip" and actually include it to mean a graphics core which is inside a SoC (which itself *is* the chip actually). (But you can use "graphics hardware" and mean for instance a graphics card, a graphics chip or a graphics core.)

> you really thought I meant that adding a second PowerVR to the
> 5121e board would boost its performance. Yes or no?

I didn't know what you *meant*. I just read what you *wrote*. And I tend to assume that one writes what he means. So the answer to your question is: Yes, I assumed that by "chip" you really meant a chip.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 06:58 ]

> I think the problem is with your perception not my expressing myself.

I think it's the opposite.

> Strangely enough, no-one else but you seemed to acquire from those
> clearly general words that I advocated putting a second PowerVR on a 5121e.

Huh? I didn't acquire that you "advocated putting a second PowerVR on a 5121e" (how should that even be done?) but that you advocated putting a second PowerVR on a board with an MPC5121e, i.e. in addition to the MPC5121e. Seems you never stop confusing boards and chips *sigh*

> you say yes, you really thought that was what I meant, eh?

Yes.

> Can we get a straight answer from you, Mr. Precision?

Of course. I'm known for giving straight answers all the time. As well as I like to get straight answers to my questions.

> That's honestly what you thought I meant?

Again: yes.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:09 ]

And now you realize that your fight was about a misunderstanding? You can't do that to all of us, we're all serios here!

Take both a rest, pick bigger and not discharged weapons, and then come back for the fight!

Quote:
Even this should be avoided if possible.
Video card and graphics card used to reference two very different types of hardware, specially in an amiga context where video was an important point. Too bad I can't remember the name of any video card which existed in the past :)

Nowaday, video card's hardware is probably nearly always part of a graphic card though...