>> "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

> I am told by Andreas no Gfx board supported by SAM460ex board will be supported

Huh? Where have I told this?

> 60+ GBP empty Xena card :-)

It's 45 GBP empty Xorro card.

Quote:

Surely, there are no Postage, Import taxes etc.

>>> I am told by Andreas no Gfx board supported by SAM460ex board will be supported

>> Huh? Where have I told this?

> Well actually you havent said ANY tested cards, which equals it.

Whatever this sentence is supposed to mean, let me once again stress that your claim that you were told by me "no Gfx board supported by SAM460ex board will be supported" is not true. It's either an unfortunate misunderstanding of what I wrote on your part or a blatant lie.

> Veil of mistery on realistic question. Why?

As much as I want to answer your question, I'm afraid I don't understand it.

Quote:

Its intelligence test, English is good and reasonable, no Patois involved.

>> your claim that you were told by me "no Gfx board supported by SAM460ex board
>> will be supported" is not true. It's either an unfortunate misunderstanding of what
>> I wrote on your part or a blatant lie.

> Good.

Does this mean you retract your false claim?

> Show me the list of supported cards, tested on SAM460ex since its very picky board.

As you've been told numerous times by now you know very well which card MorphOS on Sam460 was shown with at Pianeta Amiga last year.

>>> Veil of mistery on realistic question. Why?

>> As much as I want to answer your question, I'm afraid I don't understand it.

> Its intelligence test

Seems I'm too dumb for your test then.

> English is good and reasonable

That may be true, but I don't understand the meaning in the given context nonetheless. Maybe a native speaker can help me out here and dumb it down to my substandard command of the English language?

> Good.

Does this mean you retract your false claim?

> Show me the list of supported cards, tested on SAM460ex since its very picky board.

As you've been told numerous times by now you know very well which card MorphOS on Sam460 was shown with at Pianeta Amiga last year.

And cards are? Since you dont know the answer, how to contact Frank Mariak?
No cards are additionally listed at MOS.de website, there are no news at Pianeta Amiga show and only video seems to be from 2012
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=1450013991893417&set=vb.1441856596042490&type=3&theater
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ZLv1eehP4

ITIX claimed no RadeonHD support at all.
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=717508&postcount=61

> Its intelligence test

Seems I'm too dumb for your test then.

The only pic doesnt show gfx card
http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/sam460ex_3.png

> English is good and reasonable

That may be true, but I don't understand the meaning in the given context nonetheless. Maybe a native speaker can help me out here and dumb it down to my substandard command of the English language?[/quote]

Surely, I am dumb as dumber.



[color=#f2f2f2][ Edited by ASiegel 03.05.2014 - 19:05 ][/color]

Vox, when Mark and Frank feel like it, they'll let us all in on the secrets.
Until then, asking isn't going to get you anywhere.

You can be sure an R200 card will work, anything else is speculation.

And in my neck of the woods a Radeon 9250 sells for about $15, so even if its not the final card you wind up using its a minor investment.

>> As you've been told numerous times by now you know very well which card
>> MorphOS on Sam460 was shown with at Pianeta Amiga last year.

> And cards are?

Still the same you were told about two months ago:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=8931&start=97
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=38&topic_id=9764&start=30
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=38&topic_id=9764&start=94
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=9544&start=55
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=9587&start=40
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=9876&start=3

> you dont know the answer

I know it, but you just don't for whatever reason remember that you were given the answer already.

> how to contact Frank Mariak?

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7379&forum=12&start=1

> No cards are additionally listed at MOS.de website

That's obviously because support has not been released yet.

> there are no news at Pianeta Amiga show

You were given the MorphOS news from Pianeta Amiga 2013 many times here on MorphZone. Please don't pretend you don't know it. It's really getting tiresome.

> ITIX claimed no RadeonHD support at all.
> http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=717508&postcount=61

This comment is from 2012. Pianeta Amiga 2013 was in, you might have guessed it, 2013. Do you think it amounts to a contradiction that there were no plans to support a certain hardware in 2012, but in 2013 those plans changed? If yes, why so?

> The only pic doesnt show gfx card
> http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/sam460ex_3.png

Again, that's from 2012. Leave the past and look at 2013 pics there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=8931&start=95

>>> English is good and reasonable

>> That may be true, but I don't understand the meaning in the given context nonetheless.
>> Maybe a native speaker can help me out here and dumb it down to my substandard
>> command of the English language?

> Surely, I am dumb as dumber.

Either that, or you're playing some strange mental games.

>> Surely, I am dumb as dumber.

>Either that, or you're playing some strange mental games.

Um, Vox, unless you are really into pain, arguing with Andreas is pointless.
He's probably the best indexer of information I have ever run into, and he prides himself on his accuracy.

Its unlikely you'll find any flaws in his statements, AND if there ever is one he will probably be the one to mention it.

[ Edited by Jim 15.03.2014 - 00:42 ]

Update:

> T1023 mentioned with block diagram and specs in
> http://www.freescale.com/files/training/doc/dwf/DWF13_APF_NET_T0809.pdf (page 12)

Now announced with several more:

http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1916610

- QorIQ T1023/T1013 (block diagram, fact sheet)
- QorIQ T1024/T1014 (block diagram, fact sheet)
- QorIQ T4080

T4080 is pin compatible with T4240/T4160, and T1024/T1014 are pin compatible with T2081/T1042/T1040/T1022/T1020.

Make you wonder what kind of price they will be asking for the single core T1014.
This could help bring prices down.

> Any further information available on the T1042?

Prices for 1000 pcs. qty. revealed: 67...82 USD
Reference design board T1042RDB is 1250 USD.

http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=T1042&tab=Buy_Parametric_Tab
http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/brochure/PWRARCHQIQSG.pdf (page 7)

Freescale lists Avnet as their US distributor for these, and that firm does not have either part listed in their inventory.
Then again, this is new, so there may be a delay.
What speeds are they rated at?

Is there no way to report spam accounts?! -_-

Edit: Never mind ... Because I can't see the spam post anymore.

[ Edited by In_Correct 03.05.2014 - 23:33 ]

The speed ratings of the new T1042 processors appear to be 1200 and 1400 MHz as per Freescale.

"Last three letters of the processor's partnumber are decoded as follows:

------------------------------------
CPU speed: M = 1200 MHz
P = 1400 MHz
------------------------------------
DDR data rate: Q= 1600 MT/s
------------------------------------
Die revision: A = Rev 1.0
------------------------------------"

> The speed ratings of the new T1042 processors appear to be 1200 and 1400 MHz
> as per Freescale.

Thanks for reporting.

Quote:

I just got curious and asked them to clear it up.

I have no doubt these codes are explained somewhere, but I am no where near as good as you are at researching things like this (so I took the direct route).

Either T1042 (or their 1 and 2 core related parts) would make a nice basis for an economical SBC similar to (but more powerful than) the Samantha boards with a 4X PCI-e video slot.

Addendum:

> I guess we'll have to see if Freescale will follow through with their announcement
> or if the QorIQ T5 will suffer the same fate as the MPC75xx and MPC87xx.

It's now been three years since the initial QorIQ T5 announcement, and FTF Americas 2014 has passed without announcement of any specific T5xxx chip, and the subsequent QorIQ LS generation is at the ready with several chips announced, so I think it can be safely assumed that the QorIQ T5 has eventually joined the ranks of MPC75xx and MPC87xx (even though there are disconcertingly recent Freescale documents like this one (page 7) from January 2014 mentioning the 2.5 GHz QorIQ T5 as if it existed).

Addendum:

> for now the PacketPro family of chips has those members:
> APM86190 (Green Mamba, single-core)
> APM86290 (Green Mamba, dual-core)
> APM8639x (Diamondback, single-core and dual-core)
> APM86491 (Catalina, single-core)
> APM8669x (Black Mamba, single-core and dual-core)
> APM86791 (Keelback, single-core)
> I assume that there's an APM8659x still to come ;-)

...or not:

"we are no longer introducing new PowerPC product designs"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000144530514003286/amcc6-30x201410xq.htm (July 2014)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000144530514002375/amcc331201410-k.htm (May 2014)

"the transition from a pure PowerPC plus a tiny ARM on some of our chips is going to move to a big ARM and no PowerPC in the future."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000144530514001547/exhibit992transcriptofconf.htm (April 2014)

"up to a year ago, year and a half ago, we had a PowerPC business that we were also funding to make sure we had a roadmap."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/711065/000119312514024308/d667222dex992.htm (January 2014)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 12.08.2014 - 07:49 ]

I wonder why Freescale hasn't joined Open Power. Is that a sign that they are abandoning PPC altogether?

> I wonder why Freescale hasn't joined Open Power.

OpenPOWER deals with IBM's POWER microarchitectures. Freescale uses its own microarchitectures (like currently e5500/e6500). See my comment in the relevant thread there:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9463&forum=3&start=1

I'm not sure why Freescale should abandon its own microarchitectures in favour of IBM POWER at this point of time.

> Is that a sign that they are abandoning PPC altogether?

Freescale may or may not abandon Power Architecture (that's the ISA which both IBM POWER and Freescale e5500/e6500 are implementations of) in the future, but them not joining OpenPOWER is certainly no sign of that.

Quote:

So much for APM.
They failed to produce any really interesting PPCs recently.
I can not see them having them having that much success with ARM either.

> I think they should forget the x3500

In fact, I see indications that this may be the case. Refer to these blog articles and postings by A-Eon/AmigaKit where the X5000 is mentioned but the X3500 is not:

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=760751 (March)
http://blog.a-eon.biz/blog/?p=6167 (April)
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=768540 (July)
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=768736 (July)
http://blog.a-eon.biz/blog/?p=6392 (July)
http://blog.a-eon.biz/blog/?p=6725 (October)

(Besides, Trevor seems to increasingly sneak in spellings like "AMIGAone" and "AMIGA one" to the detriment of traditional "AmigaOne" or "AmigaONE".)


Edit: added one more link

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 12.10.2014 - 18:52 ]