> Except (of course) MorphOS doesn't support GPU assisted decoding

GPU accelerated video decoding is again another matter than video decoding done by dedicated video decoding cores. AFAIK, current devices with Cortex-A9 core(s) do it the latter way, not the former. MorphOS supports neither, and it wouldn't automatically support either solution if it was made to run on Cortex-A9.

Interesting. I had assumed they would use the GPU.
If the documentation for this function and existing Android or Linux code examples exists, why couldn't the guys use this functionality.

To me, this would be a great selling point on ISA transition.

>> GPU accelerated video decoding is again another matter than video
>> decoding done by dedicated video decoding cores. AFAIK, current
>> devices with Cortex-A9 core(s) do it the latter way, not the former.

> Interesting. I had assumed they would use the GPU.

I assume from the block diagrams of various chips with Cortex-A9 core(s) where it can be seen that the 2D/3D GPUs are distinct from the video decoding/encoding units:

http://www.freescale.com/files/graphic/block_diagram/IMX6Q_BD_IMG.jpg
http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/file/product/Exynos4210-0-0.jpg
http://focus.ti.com/en/graphics/wtbu/OMAP_44x.jpg
http://www.stericsson.com/images/block_diagram/U9500.jpg
http://www.nufront.com/UploadFiles/image/%E6%97%A0%E6%A0%87%E9%A2%98.bmp

> If the documentation for this function and existing Android or Linux
> code examples exists, why couldn't the guys use this functionality.

If the premises you mention are met, then I think the MorphOS Team could provide support for the dedicated video decoding cores that are inside the ARM SoCs. It'd mainly be a matter of human resources I think, so a hypothetical MorphOS running on Cortex-A9 may (initially) very well lack support for several on-chip functionalities such as video decoding or 3D graphics.

Andreas_Wolf,
Quote:

Yes.
GPUs need more power than dedicated video blocks so that alone will get them used.

GPUs also aren't really suited for this sort of thing, they can accelerate some of it but not all.

>>> Denver based CPU's [...] and *I still* wouldn't be surprised if at least one
>>> of the upcoming console platforms will use this, most probable the new
>>> X-box, for several reasons

>> I'm quite confident that Project Denver will be too late to both the next
>> XBox party and the PS4 party.

> Smoke and mirrors... I bet! ;-)

3 weeks ago, Tegra 6 ("Parker") with Denver cores got announced for 2015 as the first Denver-based chip to be released:

http://blogs.nvidia.com/2013/03/nvidia-ceo-updates-nvidias-roadmap/
http://semiaccurate.com/2013/05/21/nvidias-tegra-roadmap-slip-is-now-official/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tegra#Parker

PS4 release: Q4 2013
XBox360 successor release: Q4 2013

So Denver will be much too late and you will lose your bet ;-)


Edit: added another link
Edit2: refined release date of XBox360 successor

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 22.05.2013 - 12:57 ]

> I'm going to quote myself here because of pure laziness:
> http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60755
> [...]
> A clean slate would be required to incorporate features like these and make an
> architectural jump in a "fairly easy" way. This will probably also mean handling
> 68k apps in a similar way as AROS does [...]. I think this approach would be totally
> acceptable for a 4.x branch of MorphOS, incorporating all those new interesting core
> OS features (more addressable memory, true SMP, true MP, 64-bit, etc, that simply
> *can't exist* in a legacy Amiga context without breaking the Amiga part of it (no
> matter what some people claim)), and do an architectural jump at the same time.

Interesting article on this by MorphOS user and MorphZone member Eric W. Schwartz published online in early August:

http://web.archive.org/web/20160820171814/amigamccc.org/journal/1308eric.htm

The article is confusing 'ABI' with 'API' on one occurence but apart from that little glitch I think it's a rather accurate summary of the status quo.


Edit: changed URL to Wayback Machine

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 08.05.2023 - 13:59 ]

Quote:


Yes, I agree that Eric Schwartz article sums up the current status of the Amiga, Morph, and AROS communities very well. I also agree with his assessment that we do not currently have enough programmers to create new, or ported software for our existing PPC and AROS platforms, and that if/when MorphOS, or AmigaOS4.x moves from PPC to x86/x64 architecture, we will probably have even less programmers producing new software for our systems to run.

The only thing that might make such a move attractive, would be the ability to also run Linux, or Windows software via some kind of wrapper, or virtual machine, from within this hypothetical new MorphOS, or AmigaOS4.x operating system, until enough new "Native" software could be created.

Yes, good reference.
And it brings a certain sense of deja vue.
We suffered from a similar problem in the '80s and '90s with 68K OS-9 systems.
A small market without many developers.
We couldn't offer the kind of software choices that were available with more broadly adopted OS'.

Frankly, I'm surprised that there is as much software for MorphOS as there is.
A lot of man hours are going into the creation of software for a very small audience.

> IIRC the nVidia president pronounced their "Denver" to be a "x86 killer" though,
> and I think they will make Denver based CPU's for all kinds of applications,
> including desktop and servers

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7675&forum=3&start=568