Quote:

The Nufront chip is fastest announced but I've no idea if it's actually shipping yet. They have shown it working a few times so i guess it'll be soon. That said, that clock and memory system should put it faster than any G4.

There will be others at a similar speed later in the year though.

Next year is where it gets really interesting with the A15 At 2.5GHz that should match any G5.

[ Edited by minator 10.07.2011 - 02:20 ]

> I've no idea if it's actually shipping yet.

According to the Nufront representative in the first video it is, including the 2.0 GHz version. The video is from early June btw.

> There will be others at a similar speed later in the year though.

Yes, but it won't be Cortex ones it seems ;-)

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=7675&forum=3&start=168

> Next year is where it gets really interesting with the A15
> At 2.5GHz that should match any G5.

We will see if there'll really be 2.5 GHz Cortex-A15 based chips as early as 2012. OMAP5 at least is only announced to go as fast as 2.0 GHz for 2012:

http://www.ti.com/ww/en/omap/omap5/omap5-OMAP5430.html
http://www.ti.com/ww/en/omap/omap5/omap5-OMAP5432.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-QzNpN77go

Quote:

I meant the ~1.8 GHz chips meant for later in the / year early 2010.

> I meant the ~1.8 GHz chips meant for later in the / year early 2010.

I guess that should read "later in the year / early 2012" ;-)
If you're now talking about early 2012 as well instead of just later this year like you did before then yes, there should be 1.8 GHz OMAP4470 in Q1/2012.

So I have to wait till next year for an ARM processor that runs as fast as my G4?
I think I'd prefer the G5.
Then, later, we can consider ARM (as more powerful CPUs come to market).

> So I have to wait till next year for an ARM processor that
> runs as fast as my G4?

As I said, Nufront claimed in early June that their 2.0 GHz Cortex-A9 chip was available. Is their claim true? I don't know.

> I think I'd prefer the G5.

Yes, at least there're already desktop systems built around that :-)

> Then, later, we can consider ARM

You mean "we" as in "the MorphOS Team"? ;-)

@Jim

ARM can't compete with x86 on desktop. IMHO choosing ARM would be a suicide. It doesn't fix any problem, it doesn't bring any advantage to customers, it's yet another hard to find hardware platform. If MorphOS was going to migrate to other cpu it should be x86 because you can buy x86 machines everywhere, there's enough variety. I'm not interested in vapour cpus with inflated benchmarks. ARMs performance sucks. 1Ghz ARM cpus are slower than all PPC equivalents. There's no ARM machine that can compete with a QuadG5 machine in price/performance right now.

If we switched to other architecture it should be x86 (it's cheap, it has a wide variety of models from low consumption to high performance, it's easy to find, it won't dissapear)

So BAF could also mean Blind ARM Follower? :-)

> It doesn't fix any problem, it doesn't bring any advantage to customers

It would at least make hardware available that you can buy unused. If you see that as an advantage would depend on whether you see the non-availability of unused hardware as a problem, though.

> 1Ghz ARM cpus are slower than all PPC equivalents.

I'm not sure that's a true statement. A comparison for instance between a 1 GHz PPC440 based chip (e.g. PPC460EX) and one core of a 1 GHz Cortex-A9 based chip would prove interesting I bet. We have NBench figures for 1 GHz Cortex-A9 for example. Now we'd only need someone with a Sam460ex to run this benchmark for us to get an idea of the trueness of your statement. Unless you think of NBench as an "inflated benchmark" that is ;-)

> There's no ARM machine that can compete with a QuadG5 machine in
> price/performance right now.

...and not in performance alone either :-)

> So BAF could also mean Blind ARM Follower? :-)

A MorphOS Team member making fun of ARM fans doesn't sound too good for an (allegedly rumoured) ARM port of MorphOS ;-)

Quote:

True but ARM doesn't try to compete on the desktop - at the moment.
They're moving up very rapidly though.
Currently, the highest end stuff is based on phone chips but that's changing as tablet chips become available. It'll get really interesting when server chips appear.

Quote:

Since when has cheap, available, new hardware been a disadvantage?

Quote:

Actually, at 6 billion a year they're pretty hard to avoid.

They're not exactly well represented in the desktop space (in the west) but there are some and there's more due at the end of the year.

If you just want a cheap ($149 - $199) dev board there's a few here:
http://www.linaro.org/low-cost-development-boards

Quote:

Can't argue with that.

Quote:

Good. Neither am I.

Quote:

You base this on what exactly?

Quote:

Quote:



Of course you can't be referring to me because this is one area where I can't be described as blind...

>> There's no ARM machine that can compete with a QuadG5
>> machine in price/performance right now.

> That'll change next year. The year after, the opposite will be true.

Don't be so sure about that. While it's true that ARM performance will increase over time and actually make a jump next year with the advent of Cortex-A15 based chips, leading also to an improvement in price-performance ratio, used quad-G5 Macs are becoming even cheaper, improving their price-performance ratio as well, all the time. Currently, the average price that a (fully functional) quad-G5 Mac is sold for on eBay Germany is about 530 EUR, whereas 16 months ago it was still 910 EUR, which is a reduction by 42%. If that trend continues (and I guess it does) new machines with future ARM chips will definitely have a rough ride beating used quad-G5 Macs in terms of price-performance ratio for some time to come.

Addendum:

> Page 12 of FTF11_NET_F1176 document mentions "Improved load /store
> to ease bit alignment" and "New instructions for video analytics".

Found another interesting comment on the new AltiVec in the QorIQ AMP:

"An important note regarding AltiVec is that some users have previously found the ISA difficult to use. AMP marks its relaunch in a form that allows a far easier definition of parameters."
http://www.techdesignforums.com/embedded/embedded-topics/freescale%E2%80%99s-qoriq-amp-series-illustrates-growing-demand-on-the-control-and-data-plane/

> The PA6T CPU paves the way for the introduction of SMP with AmigaOS4.x.

OS4 core developer tonyw:

"I would expect OS5 will be 64-bit and SMP."
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=33968&forum=33&start=20#622636

Seems SMP got postponed to "OS5".

Update:

> First solid information on POWER7 preceded its official release by 1.5 years.
> Going by that, 1 year from now plus 1.5 more years would mean early 2014
> for POWER8 release. But as we know that POWER8 is scheduled for 2013
> (and rather early than late that year), solid information may be imminent ;-)

Found three interesting files:

http://www.csiltd.co.uk/PDFS/ISD/Itanium%20-%20Reasons%20to%20Act%20Now.pdf (May 2011, page 10)
https://www-950.ibm.com/events/wwe/grp/grp006.nsf/vLookupPDFs/POWER7/$file/POWER7.pdf (June 2011, page 6)
http://maben.homeip.net/static/computers/aix/brochure/IBM%20Roadmap%20cf%20sparc%20itanium%20201106.ppt (June 2011, page 2)

They list as a POWER8 feature among others something called "Accelerators". And what is the real surprise for me here, those "Accelerators" are listed for the POWER7+ as well.


Edit:
Found a PDF where the POWER8's "Accelerators" became "Imbedded accelerators" (and also "Dynamic TurboCore" was added to the chip's features):

ftp://ftp.software.ibm.com/la/documents/stg/z/itso-mx/executive_briefing/power_systems_soluciones_para_un_planeta_mas_inteligente_freddy_alves.pdf (October 2011, page 27)

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 21.03.2012 - 10:21 ]

Power8
Accelerators+?

> Power8
> Accelerators+?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm referring to :-)

Good find!

Look up the PowerEN and that might have some clues. Probably special blocks for crypto, network etc.

Another thing that IBM actually said in the past is Cell will merge into things like POWER. So don't be surprised if SPEs turn up at some point.

What I thought interesting was the mention of a very large cache, as if 32MB wasn't big enough already!

That said the IBM mainframes can have 196MB cache...

Of course being a "BAF" I had to mention this.

Netbooks were an early skirmish. Now things are about to get really interesting...

> Probably special blocks for crypto, network etc.

I hope not, but rather this:

> don't be surprised if SPEs turn up at some point.

...as that's exactly what Jim and I are talking about here in this thread regarding POWER8 all along. So no surprise from us I'm afraid. Seems you lost track a bit ;-) To see where this sub-discussion started in this thread three weeks ago refer to:

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7183&start=294

So I think that the mention of "Accelerators" in the PDF files I linked to might refer to SPEs rather than crypto or network accelerators.

Quote:

You expect people to read the entire thread before posting???

Think of it as a drive by posting.

> You expect people to read the entire thread before posting???

No, but I expect people who took part in a discussion before to not act as if it didn't happen. At least I wouldn't know why you say I shouldn't "be surprised if SPEs turn up at some point" in IBM POWER when three weeks ago you, Jim and me discussed exactly that and you even got to know that Jim and me had discussed this long before even.

> Think of it as a drive by posting.

Hard for me considering the history of this thread :-P

Was that only 3 weeks ago. Wow.

I couldn't tell you what I posted tonight never mind 3 weeks ago!

Really - I visit a lot of different sites...

> I couldn't tell you what I posted tonight never mind 3 weeks ago!

So my assessment that you lost track was correct obviously. I'm looking forward to you telling us to not be surprised if IBM POWER will come with SPEs and acting as if this discussion never happened, again, and again, and again... :-P