Interesting, but they still make some secrecy about the cpu. And the page design... Well, taste differs. At least there is some kind of website now.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:37 ]

> You don't need that stuff for iBrowse or Frogger video player or UAE or
> whatever people use OS4 for now.

They mainly haven't been using IBrowse and surely not Frogger anymore for years because they have OWB, MPlayer and DVPlayer. And E-UAE for PPC being JIT-less can't have enough CPU power anyway.

> Does the X1000 represent a master plan to restart the Amiga ray-tracing market?

Why not? Blender is rather demanding.

> That thing probably will [...] consume lots of watts.

From the old A-Eon site:
"it's a dual-core Power Architecture CPU, with a very low Thermal Design Point."
...whatever value that should mean specifically.

> Acube's machines have seemed [...] Pegasos-like to me

Would they have been released 6 years ago, maybe. As 2007 and later released machines they're for my taste much too weak compared to Pegasos. I'm sure that the Pegasos II G4 will wipe the floor even with the yet to be released Sam460ex, and that'll be nearly 7 years after the release of the former.

> this X1000 from A-Eon "high-end" thing is not appealing at all.

...to you, that is.

Quote:

Sure, probably that CPU (which A-Eon childishly keep "secret") will be one of the least consuming components. The remaining will sure suck a lot of watts.

Overall, this "X-1000" computer is much too complex for the sort of things one can do with it. Let's see how many buy into that "Amiga" brand, because they make clear that's its main attraction.

Adding an XMOS chip with a silly new name is not brilliant engineering. Chances are that chip will stay idle forever, unless a very specific use is planned, and the corresponding software done.

The positive note? That, this time, the new computer does exist, and will be seen in public very soon. A first appeareance of a new computer, in a vintage computer show.

[ Edited by jcmarcos on 2010/4/15 14:03 ]

> that CPU (which A-Eon childishly keep "secret")

"the NDA is [...] incorporated into the CPU supply agreement."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31001&forum=2&start=160#546725

If this NDA really exists, I wouldn't call the secrecy childish.

> The remaining will sure suck a lot of watts.

That would mainly be the southbridge, which is rumoured to be the AMD SB600.

@all
Hi, news about MorphOS 2.5 ? :) :) ...sorry but It's more interesting then Sam and X1000 :) :)

> news about MorphOS 2.5 ? :) :) ...sorry but It's more interesting then Sam and X1000 :) :)

Then stop pushing this thread and keep pushing that one instead :-P

Quote:

That supposed NDA makes it even MORE childish. It's just another attempt at making it more interesting, with a supposed secrecy that adds a much needed fascination touch.

When you attempt to build a computer, you source desired components looking plainly at price and availability. If there's secrecy around any of them, that can only be bad, as it's just obstacles in a very, very complex race.

Come on, can't they source a CPU that's simply available, without any bullshit? It's just this amigan thinking again: "Look, we chose a weird CPU, because we're so cool we can't use a common one. It's so cool that we were forced to sing a secrecy contract with blood".

So we have to believe that a serious CPU manufacturer does choose, for its new product, a completely unknown company to make an almost unmarketable motherboard.

Quote:
Got any suitable recommendations?

Quote:
Why do you believe it is a serious CPU manufacturer?

Oh and btw... the bullshit angle seems to work well enough for other companies.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:36 ]

Quote:

I can't believe one has to sign an NDA to source a CPU for a new design. What makes me ill is that it's supposed to add an amigan edge to the project, like "gee, we'll be using a secret weapon nobody else has".
I thought amigans had grown enough to avoid the kind of plays. Is that secret going to impress anyone? Sure: Me. But for the negative part.

Quote:



On the other side, I had a look at A-Eon's revamped site, and had a wonderful long time reading the fantastic history behind the XMOS chip added to the X1000 (the only thing that makes it interesting).

That chip heralds back to the mythical INMOS Transputer, which sets the reader back to the eighties, the golden computer age when things were, actually, way more interesting and risky than now.

In one of the most convoluted twists in Amiga history, a revelation comes: The new Amiga X1000 is "the same" as an Atari Transputer Workstation!

Atari_Transputer.jpg

> you obviously really want to talk with me because you keep responding to my comments

You must be some kind of super-genius to come to that conclusion.

> even though I've made it clear that I really don't want to talk with you

But you do, don't you?

> you're an insulting, distasteful, tricky, anal-retentive human webspider.

That made me laugh, really :-D

> And a false accuser

You mean like TeleRead's Chris Meadows?

> who said I'm a liar but never did give any intelligible or genuine example.

I did, numerous times. It's just that you're not able to grasp, and you often don't remember what you wrote just before, which makes arguing with you a PITA. But I won't give up.

> You're deceptive and tricky.

False.

> For example in the other recent thread you intentionally misconstrue my comment
> about the 5121e that I point out as having 256 megs RAM as referring to the chip alone,
> when it was clear I referred to the board.

Why am I not surprised that you don't grasp my well-meant explanation of your misconception? Well, let's try once more:
There is no "the board" in regard to the MPC5121e . You didn't even say which MPC5121e equipped board you were referring to. In fact, there are *numerous* MPC5121e equipped boards with *different* amounts of RAM. So it just makes no sense stating that "the 5121e [has] double the RAM of Efika" like you did.

> It's tricky and deceptive, and intended to be annoying, i.e. trolling.

I just enlightened you about your misconception.

> you'll come back with some long-winded tricky babble that no-one but you
> understands

We both know that you don't understand what I write because you don't even read my answers properly. You even confessed that back in October.

> then hopefully I'll go back to ignoring you

We'll see.

> I should have said "that's idiotic" as Blender is available for modern PCs and there's
> no reason but masochism to try to start a ray-tracing business using Blender and
> an X1000 running OS4.

It's not about ray-tracing businesses to use OS4 but about OS4 users to be able to do ray-tracing without having to run the computation overnightly.

> That's marketing speak for the CPU and doesn't tell us or indicate whether the
> X1000 altogether will use a lot of watts

Yes, I just wanted to point out that the CPU has the minor part in that, provided A-Eon's statement holds true. So if the X1000 will use "lot of watts", then in conclusion the southbridge (probably AMD SB600), providing for the board I/O, and the gfx card will have to have the main part in watts usage.

> I'm sure you'll want to debate at length now exactly how many watts I mean by "a lot."

Wrong.

> I mean relative to other Amiga-like-OS hardware like Pegasos, Efika, Sam,
> various A1 versions, and PPC Mac mini.

Efika and Sam are economical in comparison to Nemo, that's for sure. But they're also much much weaker. We'll see how Nemo will compare to Pegasos II G4, AmigaOne-XE G4 and Mac mini G4 regarding power usage. Nemo will probably be hungrier (even when taking the gfx card, which is interchangeable in two of the three comparing machines, off the equation) but I think it's not sure that by much. Nemo mainly has CPU and southbridge, the others have CPU, northbridge and southbridge.

> I said "to me" in that sentence [...]
> I was making a statement of personal opinion.

Fair enough. My bad.

> clipped out the middle of it for no good reason to replace with your ellipsis

Huh? That's just because I didn't want to argue about "coolness" but only about the alleged Pegasos-likeness.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:15 ]

Quote:

It's most certainly the Titan from Intrinsity/AMCC (what else can it be?). I'd say they are serious...

>>> even though I've made it clear that I really don't want to talk with you

>> But you do, don't you?

> the answer is "no."

It's almost funny how you're always proving yourself false :-)

> we have to believe that a serious CPU manufacturer does choose, for its new product,
> a completely unknown company

I don't think it's a new product. And I don't think the CPU manufacturer chose A-Eon, but the other way round.

> In one of the most convoluted twists in Amiga history, a revelation comes:
> The new Amiga X1000 is "the same" as an Atari Transputer Workstation!

The Amiga has a history with the Transputer as well:

http://www.bboah.com/index.php?search=transputer&submit=Go&action=search
http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/prototypes/transputer.html

> It's most certainly the Titan from Intrinsity/AMCC

The only Titan core based chip that has been announced is the APM83290, which is available just up to 1.5 GHz. The X1000's CPU is announced to have 1.8 GHz.

> what else can it be?

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=6775&forum=11#69373
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&start=40#72160
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7001&forum=3&start=60#72176

:-)

Overclocked?

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:17 ]

@Velcro

You are posting in a public forum, you don't get to decide who responds to your posts :)

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:20 ]

> are you serious?!

Of course I am.

> Doesn't the fact that I didn't respond to you for months, despite your frequent responses
> to me, help to make you realize that I sincerely don't want to talk with you?!

The fact that you recently started responding to me again helps to make me realize that you sincerely do want to talk with me again.

> The only reason I do so now (please don't ellipse this out if you respond) is to try to get
> you to understand, so you will stop responding to me all the time.

If you really want to make me realize that you sincerely don't want to talk with me, the best way to show this would be actually not responding to me (like you did for the last months, as you say). At the moment you do the opposite. That's what I try to get you to understand.

> Overclocked?

Would be an option, technically. But I seriously doubt that.

|||

[ Edited by Velcro_SP 20.04.2011 - 07:12 ]