MorphZone

New SAM460EX

Andreas_Wolf

# 464
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> yes, they appear to have given some early Titan products to select
> customers. You and I will never see one.

Fair enough, but I don't consider me to be any kind of gold standard. It's funny to imagine only the things existing that I've seen with my own eyes ;-)

> Why not migrate Titan to a finer process? Wouldn't that afford the possibility
> of higher clocking?

Yes, that's the rule of thumb. Seems there's more to the story than Applied Micro's telling.

> Does the loss of their design partner to Apple mean that some part of the
> intellectual property behind Titan can no longer be used?

That would certainly be the perfect excuse. But remarkably, they don't use it.

> I'm further confused by their references to IBM design components. Does either Titan
> or the PPC465 use significant design elements from their older IBM licensed products?

I can't say for Titan, but PPC465 is IBM IP the same way the other cores (PPC405, PPC440, PPC464(FP)) used by Applied Micro are. And considering that both PPC464 and PPC465 belong to the same core family (PPC460) I'd think that they share some significant design resemblances.
»28.09.10 - 22:45

Jim

# 465
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

So you've got a situation where there are some obvious questions left unanswered?

I'm not worried, If there's anyone here who's more likely to figure this out then you, I haven't met him.

I look forward to what ever you come up with (unless this remains a mystery and thus totally shatters my sense of the universal scheme of things).

[ Edited by Jim on 2010/9/29 1:22 ]
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»28.09.10 - 23:22

Andreas_Wolf

# 466
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> So you've got a situation where there are some obvious questions left unanswered?

Yes.

> I look forward to what ever you come up with

I'll keep you posted.
»29.09.10 - 00:00

Andreas_Wolf

# 467
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

Update:

> I wonder if Freescale will implement AltiVec in QorIQ
> a) as a sub-unit of e500/e5500 core (like with e600) and thus create new core(s) or
> b) as a coprocessor unit to e500/e5500 core or
> c) simply by taking e600 core and continuing its development (i.e. e600 based QorIQ) ;-)

Freescale decided for option 'a' according to this:

"According to Freescale, AltiVec requires about as much die area as a data cache. As processors integrate more features, the portion of a die used by the CPUs is diminishing. Thus, the cost of adding AltiVec is fairly minimal, even when multiplied by several CPU cores. Once Freescale implements AltiVec into its CPU cores, we expect the company to offer it in all five tiers of the QorIQ family."
http://www.linleygroup.com/Newsletters/LinleyWire/wire101001.html#3

And according to this it seems that it will be members of the recent QorIQ P series that will get AltiVec (not just the future QorIQ T series as I suspected as a possibility at first).
»02.10.10 - 12:46

Andreas_Wolf

# 468
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

Addendum:

> They don't seem to be sure if PacketPro is 1.5 or 2.0 GHz.

One more (external) source supporting the '1.5 GHz' version:

"PacketPro [...] will feature one or two PowerPC CPU cores running at up to 1.5GHz."
http://www.linleygroup.com/Newsletters/LinleyWire/wire101001.html#1

Some more from that same article:

"PacketPro is essentially AppliedMicro's Plan B. The company set out to design its own PowerPC-compatible CPU, code-named Titan, but that project ran well behind schedule and was ultimately canceled. From its ashes, and amidst a change in corporate management, the PacketPro product line was born."

That "amidst a change in corporate management" part is interesting. The Titan core based APM83290/"Gemini" processor was announced in October 2009. Logically, the switch from Titan core based APM83290 to PPC465 core based PacketPro must have happened somewhen after that. Applied Micro's CEO transition was announced in late January 2009 to be completed in early June 2009. In August 2009 the CEO transition was presented (page 3) by the company as being completed. So if I'm not mistaken then there must have been a time period of at least about half a year between the completion of the "change in corporate management" and the birth of PacketPro (and thus the abandonment of Titan). (Not to mention that as recent as July/August 2010 Applied Micro presented Titan as still going well.)
»02.10.10 - 13:57

Jim

# 469
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

From that information, it would appear that Applied Micro hasn't been that honest about its latest products in development.
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»02.10.10 - 22:26

Andreas_Wolf

# 470
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> From that information, it would appear that Applied Micro hasn't been that
> honest about its latest products in development.

You refer to PacketPro's clock frequency discrepancy?
»03.10.10 - 12:33

Andreas_Wolf

# 471
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Freescale's marketing can be confusing

Absolutely. Look at this:

"AltiVec SIMD has long been recognized for its performance in the PowerQUICC processor line"
http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/homepage.jsp?code=QORIQ_HOME

AltiVec in PowerQUICC? Huh? While it's true that they present QorIQ P1 to P3 as PowerQUICC replacements and QorIQ P4 and P5 as MPC86xx replacements that surely doesn't make MPC86xx a PowerQUICC, does it? Are they now trying to retroactively subsume MPC86xx (or even MPC74xx) as PowerQUICC?
»03.10.10 - 14:45

Jim

# 472
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
> From that information, it would appear that Applied Micro hasn't been that
> honest about its latest products in development.

You refer to PacketPro's clock frequency discrepancy?

No, although that is confusing. What I meant was that it seems as though Applied Micro came to the decision to change course awhile ago, but until recently has still been touting Titan.

The more I compare the two companies, the more I lean toward Freescale (and QorIQ).
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»03.10.10 - 17:26

Andreas_Wolf

# 473
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

>>> From that information, it would appear that Applied Micro hasn't been that
>>> honest about its latest products in development.

>> You refer to PacketPro's clock frequency discrepancy?

> No [...]. What I meant was that it seems as though Applied Micro came to the
> decision to change course awhile ago, but until recently has still been touting Titan.

But that's not what you could have extrapolated "from that information" in my posting you replied to, is it? After all, the "amidst a change in corporate management" statement, which made me wonder, stems from the Linley Group, not from Applied Micro. As far as I can see, Applied Micro never claimed that the switch from Titan core based APM83290 to PPC465 core based PacketPro happened or was decided "amidst a change in corporate management". To me it seems that with spreading misinformation like this the Linley Group is contributing to the confusion created by Applied Micro more than it's helping to resolve it, which makes it even harder to tell fact from fiction.
»03.10.10 - 22:27

Jim

# 474
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

It doesn't help that Applied Micro withholds a great deal of information. In a vacuum information like the stuff you quoted from Linley Group stands unchallenged.
And Applied Micro is even worse than Freescale at this, but they both often allow their working partners to release information before they do themselves.

The dates you've mentioned for the likely shift in development are close to when I approached Applied Micro about an NDA. No one I talked to was anything but positive about the Titan core. But at the time, their reason for no giving me an NDA (you don't maintain a website) was pretty lame (considering I wasn't interested in promoting my endeavors on the internet).

Finally, I still don't understand why Applied Micro is harder to establish a relationship with than IBM (which is in itself pretty close mouthed, but not that bad).
I don't get my suspicions about Applied Micro's solely from your postings. It's the entire way they've dragged out this situation and the incomplete information a half-truths we've been getting the whole time.
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»03.10.10 - 22:54

Andreas_Wolf

# 475
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> In a vacuum information like the stuff you quoted from
> Linley Group stands unchallenged.

It's not quite a vacuum. Some information are fixed, like for instance the fact that Applied Micro publically announced the APM83290 in October 2009. Do you really consider it possible that they had scrapped Titan and the first CPU to be based on it *before* they publically announced that CPU?

> The dates you've mentioned for the likely shift in development

What's to be considered likely in this case strongly depends on which source of information is followed, and beyond that at which point in time it is followed, as even one and the same source doesn't shy away from changing the story back and forth as time passes.

> are close to when I approached Applied Micro about an NDA.
> No one I talked to was anything but positive about the Titan core.

When was that exactly?

> their reason for no giving me an NDA (you don't maintain a website)
> was pretty lame

I remember you mentioned that in early July, a mere three days before the Linley Group reported on July 5th that Titan had been killed. Now do you retrospectively suppose that your contacts at Applied Micro only pretended to be positive about Titan, hiding their true feelings and/or knowledge in that matter?

> I don't get my suspicions about Applied Micro's solely from your postings.

I very much hope so. After all, you had closer contact to them than me (which isn't that hard considering that I had absolutely no contact with them to date ;-) I merely quote and combine statements I can find on the freely accessible part of the Internet here.

> the incomplete information a half-truths we've been getting the whole time

...not to forget the mutually contradicting information.
»04.10.10 - 00:25

Jim

# 476
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 4976 from 2009/1/28

From: Delaware, USA

You got far closer to the truth at a distance than I did via direct inquiry, Andreas. And, yes, that sounds about the right date. Further, not only did their reps claim that their partners were testing the first Titan based processors. They claimed this was the first of a family of processors. The reasoning (as presented to me) for not accepting my request for an NDA is that they preferred to work (initially) with the small group of qualified partners they were already working with.
Having just finishing a couple of months of inquiries to IBM, that logic sounded a lot like IBM logic (which made sense considering AMCC's origins).
Now you tie together all these statements that don't agree with each other. What other conclusion is there other than that Applied Micro concealed that it was not moving forward with the long touted Titan core and was instead moving to a backup plan?
The problem is I can't think of an alternate reason for these circumstances. I don't lean to paranoid speculation, but I do feel deceived. And I don't really trust the company.
"Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
»04.10.10 - 01:12

Andreas_Wolf

# 477
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> that sounds about the right date.

You mean that Applied Micro rejected your NDA request just before you told me here on MorphZone, i.e. in late June or very early July?

> not only did their reps claim that their partners were testing the first
> Titan based processors.

Which I believe was the truth, judging from all information we have to date.

> The reasoning (as presented to me) for not accepting my request for an NDA
> is that they preferred to work (initially) with the small group of qualified partners
> they were already working with.

That sounds somewhat reasonable. But didn't you say before that it was the odd requirement to maintain a website?

> that logic sounded a lot like IBM logic (which made sense considering AMCC's origins).

AMCC was founded in 1979. They acquired IBM's PPC4xx processor business (including some 70 engineers, but no management people) only in 2004, which I think is much too little connection between the two companies to draw such a conclusion. So I think this same pattern you experienced is rather coincidence.

> you tie together all these statements that don't agree with each other.

I'd rather say I contrast them with each other.

> What other conclusion is there other than that Applied Micro concealed
> that it was not moving forward with the long touted Titan core and was
> instead moving to a backup plan?

Whatever answer I'd give to this question it wouldn't explain the Linley Group even adding to the confusion by making claims (that Titan and the first CPU to be based on it were scrapped *before* that CPU was publically announced) that contradict both Applied Micro's story as presented to the public and what probably really happened. I don't think that the Linley Group's recent claim, which even challenges an older statement from them (presenting Apple's Intrinsity acquirement in April 2010 as reason), stands unchallenged.

> I do feel deceived.

Now imagine how their investors and share holders will feel as soon as they find out (or did they already?) ;-)
»04.10.10 - 04:02

jcmarcos

# 478
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Andreas, Jim, could you post some kind of resume, or a status report about this fascinating discussion? It's not easy to follow, but right not, mi conclusion is that freescale is the best (read: less worse) PowerPC chip provider (ugh!)

Could you add the IBM PowerEN to your discussion? It was announced back on february, and I don't recall seeing it mentioned here:

Quote:

Roberto Innocenti wrote on powerdeveloper.org:

A2 Core, full 64 bit based on Power Architecture? technology and support Power ISA 2.06
2.3GHz 45nm SOI with 16 cores and 64 Threads
Low power, highly scalable design - 25-75W chip at full frequency

Alright, it's a router/server thingie, but very interesting, don't you think?

[ Edited by jcmarcos on 2010/10/5 17:26 ]
»05.10.10 - 06:42

Andreas_Wolf

# 479
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Could you add the IBM PowerEN to your discussion?
> [...] I don't recall seeing it mentioned here

Huh? Are there several 'jcmarcos' on this forum? ;-) That other 'jcmarcos' even quoted me and my link discussing PowerEN less than 2 months ago:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&post_id=75802#75802

> It was announced back on february

Yes, but not yet dubbed "PowerEN" back then:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6268&forum=11&post_id=71155#71155

Btw, I think that Roberto Innocenti posted to the wrong thread because, opposed to what he seems to imply, the PowerEN has nothing to do with his fantasy "cell quad-core processor" for PSP2 which he started the thread about. He should have posted his recent comment there:
http://www.powerdeveloper.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1847
»05.10.10 - 18:50

jcmarcos

# 480
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:
Quote:

jcmarcos wrote:
Could you add the IBM PowerEN to your discussion? I don't recall seeing it mentioned here

You even quoted me and my link discussing PowerEN less than 2 months ago

Whoooops! Sorry... That's why I said that I didn't recall. Anyway, what do you think about the PowerEN? Or it's lack of corporate drivel, like the Titan, makes it uninteresting?
»06.10.10 - 14:42

Andreas_Wolf

# 481
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> what do you think about the PowerEN?

In the context of mobile (read: netbooks/notebooks) or desktop computing I don't find it that much interesting because it seems to lack in on-chip peripheral controllers: there's apparently just (as much as four) 10GbE and only two PCIe (Gen2) lanes, nothing more. See this presentation from August/September:

http://www.power.org/events/POWERWEBINAR082010/IBM_final_powerorg_2010Aug31_-_Gene.pdf
»06.10.10 - 15:28

jcmarcos

# 482
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:

I don't find it that much interesting because it seems to lack in on-chip peripheral controllers

Sure. It's no more interesting than any other router processor. Pity. So back to the one-and-only QorIQ speculation, I guess...
»07.10.10 - 07:35

Andreas_Wolf

# 483
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> back to the one-and-only QorIQ speculation, I guess...

QorIQ, while definitely being the most interesting one due to the recent AltiVec announcement, is not the only current/future Power Architecture processor that has more than Ethernet and PCIe: PacketPro has USB2/3, SATA and SDHC, and Axxia has USB2 and something denoted "Flash" in the block diagram (which probably means some SD standard).
»07.10.10 - 13:22

Andreas_Wolf

# 484

Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> the powermac is much better

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

Code:

---> CPU <---
MAX MIPS: 2332

---> L1 <---
READ32: 4511 MB/Sec
READ64: 9011 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 4449 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 8882 MB/Sec

---> L2 <---
READ32: 1061 MB/Sec
READ64: 1061 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 520 MB/Sec

---> RAM <---
READ32: 311 MB/Sec
READ64: 310 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 521 MB/Sec
WRITE: 1251 MB/Sec (Tricky)

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 72 MB/Sec
WRITE: 261 MB/Sec

Source: http://www.amigans.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=59270#forumpost59270

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

Code:

---> CPU <---
MAX MIPS:  4475

---> L1 <---
READ32:  5687 MB/Sec
READ64:  11372 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 4874 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 3794 MB/Sec

---> L2 <---
READ32:  2579 MB/Sec
READ64:  3363 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2330 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 2952 MB/Sec

---> RAM <---
READ32:  387 MB/Sec
READ64:  403 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 771 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 771 MB/Sec
WRITE: 809 MB/Sec (Tricky)

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ:  32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 180 MB/Sec

Used benchmarking program is RAGEMEM v0.37 (run on MorphOS via OS4Emu):
http://os4depot.net/?function=showfile&file=utility/benchmark/ragemem.lha

»11.11.10 - 23:38

Andreas_Wolf

# 485
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

Update:

> PPC470: 2.3 or 2.5 (varying with information source)

According to IBM* the PPC476FP core even delivers 2.7 DMIPS/MHz. That puts it above e500mc (2.5 DMIPS/MHz).

* PPC476FP Core Product Brief (August 2010, page 2)
»12.11.10 - 23:55

Andreas_Wolf

# 486

Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):
> [...]
> Used benchmarking program is RAGEMEM v0.37 (run on MorphOS via OS4Emu)

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.0 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

Code:

[Dec 12 14:52:26 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
0.00:00:17.07 [10,124,948 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
Default core : #-1 (undefined)
Fastest core : #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
[Dec 12 14:52:45 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:04 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.44 [3,055,014 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:04 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:22 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
0.00:00:16.08 [3,286,052 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:22 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
[Dec 12 14:53:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
0.00:00:16.07 [3,137,568 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:40 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
[Dec 12 14:53:59 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
0.00:00:16.08 [2,964,053 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:53:59 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
[Dec 12 14:54:18 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
0.00:00:16.07 [2,981,904 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 14:54:18 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
Default core : #-1 (undefined)
Fastest core : #1 (KKS 2-pipe)

Source: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32858&forum=33#591840

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

Code:

[Dec 12 19:51:51 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar).
[Dec 12 19:52:11 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #0 (KOGE 3.1 Scalar)
                      0.00:00:16.62 [14,881,017 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:11 UTC] OGR-NG: using core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid).
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] OGR-NG: Benchmark for core #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
                      0.00:00:17.23 [31,267,175 nodes/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] OGR-NG benchmark summary :
                      Default core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
                      Fastest core : #1 (KOGE 3.1 Hybrid)
[Dec 12 19:52:30 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:52:49 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 2-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.11 [5,763,995 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:52:49 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (KKS 2-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:53:08 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (KKS 2-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.99 [5,647,545 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:08 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (KKS 604e).
[Dec 12 19:53:27 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (KKS 604e)
                      0.00:00:16.63 [5,773,289 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:27 UTC] RC5-72: using core #3 (KKS 7400).
[Dec 12 19:53:46 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #3 (KKS 7400)
                      0.00:00:16.09 [13,421,897 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:53:46 UTC] RC5-72: using core #4 (KKS 7450).
[Dec 12 19:54:05 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #4 (KKS 7450)
                      0.00:00:16.80 [15,701,333 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:05 UTC] RC5-72: using core #5 (MH 1-pipe).
[Dec 12 19:54:24 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #5 (MH 1-pipe)
                      0.00:00:16.70 [5,261,511 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:24 UTC] RC5-72: using core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e).
[Dec 12 19:54:43 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #6 (MH 1-pipe 604e)
                      0.00:00:16.10 [5,198,168 keys/sec]
[Dec 12 19:54:43 UTC] RC5-72 benchmark summary :
                      Default core : #4 (KKS 7450)
                      Fastest core : #4 (KKS 7450)

Used benchmarking program is dnetc (v2.9106-514 on MorphOS and v2.9105-511 on OS4*), run as "dnetc -bench":
http://www.distributed.net/Download_clients

Clock per clock comparison of the CPUs regarding OGR-NG and RC5-72:
In OGR-NG the 7447A/B is about 105% faster per clock than the 460EX. In RC5-72 the 7447A/B is about 220% faster per clock than the 460EX. This vast advantage of the 7447A/B is due to its ability to run AltiVec accelerated dnetc cores.

Clock per clock comparison of the CPUs regarding the particular dnetc cores**:
KOGE 3.1 Scalar: 460EX is 2% faster per clock.
MH 2-pipe: 7447A/B is 26% faster per clock.
KKS 2-pipe: 7447A/B is 15% faster per clock.
KKS 604e: 7447A/B is 23% faster per clock.
MH 1-pipe: 7447A/B is 18% faster per clock.
MH 1-pipe 604e: 7447A/B is 16% faster per clock.

* Using the very same version on MorphOS as on OS4 doesn't result in any significant changes.
** KOGE 3.1 Hybrid, KKS 7400 and KKS 7450 are N/A on 460EX due to missing AltiVec support in that processor.

»12.12.10 - 19:11

jcmarcos

# 487
Paladin of the Pegasos

Posts: 1178 from 2003/3/13

From: Pinto, Madrid ...

Quote:

Andreas_Wolf wrote:

Comparison Sam460ex at 1.167 GHz (OS4) vs. Mac mini G4 at 1.5 GHz (MorphOS):

Sam460ex results:

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 72 MB/Sec
WRITE: 261 MB/Sec

Mac mini G4 results (my machine):

---> VIDEO BUS <---
READ: 32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 180 MB/Sec

Those figures surprise me. I never thought a SAM would be in any way trouncing a MacMini (or almost any other PowerPC AmigaOS/MorphOS computer). Could anyone ellaborate? What's "wrong" on the MacMini?
»13.12.10 - 09:10

Andreas_Wolf

# 488
Yokemate of Keyboards

Posts: 11795 from 2003/5/22

From: Germany

> What's "wrong" on the MacMini?

While I don't have an answer to that question I just want to add that it's not only the Mac mini showing such low figures compared to the Sam460ex:

------------------------------
Powermac G4 Gigabit (7455 1GHz)
[...]
VIDEO BUS
READ: 38 MB/Sec
WRITE: 126 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33#588009

------------------------------
PowerBook 1.67GHz
[...]
--- VIDEO BUS ---
READ: 32 MB/Sec
WRITE: 159 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33&start=40#588294

Pegasos II G4 seems to be placed between G4 Macs and Sam460ex:

------------------------------
Pegasos II 1GHz
[...]
--- VIDEO BUS ---
READ: 52 MB/Sec
WRITE: 220 MB/Sec
------------------------------
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=32673&forum=33&start=40#588294

For me it's not clear whether the Sam460ex results are derived from PCI (onboard GPU or Radeon in PCI slot) or from PCIe.
»13.12.10 - 09:51