>...Paul's recommendation was the addition of the xCORE stuff.

Yes, as I have mentioned it was an Xcore design that originally set me off looking for Paul.
And once I saw what his company was marketing I contacted him for advice.

So...when Nemo was announced I had my suspicions about a link between A-eon and Varisys that was later confirmed.

A fun period.
Just when you thought that PPCs didn't have much of a future in desktop computing A-eon manages to produce a run of boards with a rare PPC that Apple helped kill.
Then Freescale develops not one but two 64bit PPC cores.
And here we are, still discussing the immanent death of the PPC while IBM promotes Power8.

As usual, my mistake.

I thought that the QorIQ CPU's were not yet available for Paul Gentle to recommend in 2010, so thought that you had gotten the two CPU's reversed in your sentence.

Also, great work finding that quote of mine (which I of course can't remember from a thread I was only mildly interested in long ago, and since I have trouble with many aspects of my memory, specially relatively short term memory, these days. Getting older is so much fun!)

Quote:

Yes the memory thing IS so much fun.
I have classes starting in July and while I did great in those I took in the past (the last almost 20 years ago) my recall isn't what it used to be.
It will be challenging.

As to the cpu choice on Nemo, you are lucky that Trevor pressed for his preference.
You have a neat system.

> when Nemo was announced I had my suspicions about a link between A-eon and Varisys

You were in contact with Varisys already in January 2010?

Quote:

Yes, from late the year before.
By February of 2010 Paul had handed my inquiries off to Adam Barnes his Technical Director.

The quote I posted is from April 2010.

I wasn't looking for A-eon's design team.
Rather, I was just interested in Paul's designs.
And I thought I could use his advice with the MPC8640/8641D project I was working on.
Although I must admit to being skeptical when Nemo was announced as so many announcements in the Amiga community are pure vapor.

[ Edited by Jim 27.05.2016 - 01:07 ]

Addendum:

> drivers for [...] onboard Ethernet are still not completed.

The long story as told by Hyperion director Costel 'Cyborg' Mincea five days ago:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.os4welt.de/viewtopic.php?p=32421%23p32421 (relevant part starts at 5th paragraph)

Quote:

How or why anyone would work with any of these companies involved is beyond me. That thread is validating ever single negative yet obvious statement that has been said over the last 10+ years. 2018 most certainly appears to be the year anything and everything OS4 related dies off painfully.

Quote:

Kudos to Cyborg to bringing it to nearly functional state (and dont know why inclusion on FE disc).

Find it astonishing he was never sent another Nemo board to complete it. I would send mine to Germany
to get thing done.

Sound driver was done, net driver, warp3D for all Radeon HD, Timberwolf done and Libre beta (CFE bugfixing ...) and it could be way more pleasent experience then it was.

I dont like OS4 will die out, but its easy to unerstand why and how.


[ Edited by vox 22.01.2018 - 18:30 ]

> Cyborg [...] was never sent another Nemo board to complete it.

If you take the time to read his posting to the end you'll find that he writes he was sent a replacement by A-Eon in 2015.

read the costel post make me really happy with my choice of No More A-eon in My home...
now i have a micro A1 the true real amigaone machine, the quad g5 the best powerpc desktop machine with the hope of morphos on it... and a threadripper 1950x that will make me happy emulating x5000

>micro A1

Ugh, flawed Northbridge.
A Pegasos II maybe, any early AmigaOne, no thanks.

> micro A1 the true real amigaone machine

...that wasn't allowed to be officially called an "AmigaOne" ;-)

Quote:

no the pegasos2 is the best ng ever made . amen

Quote:

Yes, few years late when he was under heavy x5000 development or similar. This gap to task wait seems to be crucial since there seems to be no one else assigned to task.

Quote:

Let's face it, the situation is pathetic. The more I compare the X1000 to the X5000/20, the greater my appreciation for the former is.
Not a bad little system.
Not as powerful as a Quad G5, but still pretty cool.

However, since we aren't likely to see MorphOS on an X1000 or a Quad G5...and things seem pretty terminal for big endian PPCs...it is what it is.

Quote:

PA Semi has awful MIPS per Mhz ratio degrading its 1.8Ghz nominal rating, but when used dual core, with FPU instructions, it has fast mem and SATA and board is quite expandable. Its bi-endian arhitecture, 64-bit, G5 class overall in all but integer performance. Too bad its not that easy to add support for another mobo with no financial stimulation (MorphOS). Its quite enjoyable under Linux, but sigh, change to Southern Island cards created no 3D problem under Linux, rendering many installations unusable incl. X1000 Ubuntu Remix sold by AEON. In the end there is no system that completely use it, and CFE is ... built for routers and should stay there.

saga of wasted computer potential. So contrary to Amiga spirit of squeezing maximimum out of it.

Quote:

Best way out: Don't look back and welcome spectre/meltdown x64

Quote:

Yeah, but the system has a nice set of expansion slots backed up by more PCI-e channels.
And the processor is slightly better than a G4 (as well as being full 64 bit).

The more I'm learning about the X5000's expansion , the more troubled I am about it's limitations. Then again there's the difference in memory bandwidth.

> The more I'm learning about the X5000's expansion , the more troubled I am about
> it's limitations. Then again there's the difference in memory bandwidth.

"Then again" or rather "furthermore"? ;-)

Grammatically, you are right to point that out.
But actually my final comment was a bit recursive.

I am beginning to think the e5500 and e6500 cores may not be reaching anything close to their supposed memory bandwidth.

> I am beginning to think the e5500 and e6500 cores may not be reaching
> anything close to their supposed memory bandwidth.

If the cause of the memory performance issue is in the SoC, I think it's in the SoC's 'uncore' (memory controller) rather than its core.

Quote:

I'd like to see some bandwidth figures for the T10xx CPUs when interfaced with DDR4.
The DDR3 controller used with other e5500 and e6500 cored CPUs does seem to be the issue.

Quote:

I thought the memory bandwidth and speed for the X1000's PA6T, was one of its few advantages, when compared to the older Apple G4 & G5 computers? Or is the PA6T an exception for e6500 cored CPU's, when it comes to memory bandwidth?

It's probably that I'm not paying attention to this discussion, so I have made an incorrect assumption (again).

Edit: I probably should have changed "memory bandwidth" above, to read/write speed to RAM.

[ Edited by amigadave 27.01.2018 - 16:04 ]

Quote:

Yep, I think Andreas mentioned this before in response to a similar comment.
The PA6T in the X1000 was produced by PA Semi and does not use a Freescale core.
And yes, it's got better memory bandwidth then a G4 (not sure about the G5 though) as well as the e5500 and e6500 based Socs.

So, even with older DDR2 memory, the X1000's memory controller performs much better than the X5000.

>> is the PA6T an exception for e6500 cored CPU's [...]?

> I think Andreas mentioned this before in response to a similar comment.

Indeed, I did:
http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=12137&start=94

> yes, it's got better memory bandwidth then a G4 (not sure about the G5 though)

Yes, also better than the G5.

http://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=11&topic_id=11137&start=624