But keep in mind that MorphOS is no an OS very useful for phones. It is not secure per se and the UI is rather designed for the desktop.
The arm-netbooks are another story. While MorphOS could shine on them in theory, their big success is long promised, but eventually at least very delayed.
But okay, we discussed theoretical ISA switche backa and forth...

Lets see Powerbook and G5 support first.

But when this guy gets so much PR with his 25$ ARM stick, maybe it would be worthwhile to do something similar (probably a little bit more expensive though) with the 5125? Anyone some serious spare money to spend? Some expertise to bring in? I would join such an effort immediately. The 5125 is cheap, rather complete (sound is missing), probably similar powerful and energy efficient. C'mon - what we're waiting for

But the Question is....would like the MorphOS Team develop MorphOS for ARM?
But I think, ARM or Intel are the only way to generate new customers.

>Lets see Powerbook and G5 support first.

I'd definitely second Zylesea's opinion. These solutions would be faster and still be compatible with our current base of software. They are also fairly inexpensive (although obviously more than $25).

Frankly 700-800 Mhz isn't that impressive. And we still don't have SMP support, so multiple cores aren't useful.
As ARM moves toward 2Ghz and higher, it then becomes a more attractive solution.

> Frankly 700-800 Mhz isn't that impressive.

Yes, especially with ARM11. Cortex-A9 offers about twice the performance per clock and core compared to ARM11, thus quadruple the single-core performance when clocked at around 1.5 GHz.

>...especially with ARM11. Cortex-A9 offers about twice the performance per clock and core compared to ARM11, thus quadruple the single-core performance when clocked at around 1.5 GHz.

Yes, and faster versions on the horizon.
While I am impressed with ARM in general (and like the EfikaMX's design), the Cortex-A9 is the most impressive variant so far.
If it wasn't a little buggy, I would already be using a Pandaboard.
And TI next revision look even more promising.

If we're going to replace our PPCs, I'd prefer it be with a MORE powerful solution (not a less powerful one).

> the Cortex-A9 is the most impressive variant so far.

Yes, so far Cortex-A9 leads the bunch. Just for fun I compiled a small list* of DMIPS per MHz and core figures for various recent and future cores implementing ARM ISA:

ARM Cortex-A8: 2.0
Qualcomm Scorpion: 2.1
Marvell Sheeva PJ4: 2.4
ARM Cortex-A9: 2.5
Qualcomm Krait: 3.0...3.5 (estimated)
ARM Cortex-A15: 3.5 (estimated)

* Edit: updated list there

> If it wasn't a little buggy, I would already be using a Pandaboard.

There are also other Cortex-A9 boards, for instance the Snowball (available end of Q2/2011 starting at 225 USD):

http://www.igloocommunity.org
http://www.calao-systems.com/articles.php?lng=en&pg=6186
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUpgpjJl-5g

[ Edited by Andreas_Wolf 14.11.2012 - 00:49 ]

>- 1 x GPS (Ex. Antenna),
- 1x 3 Axis Accelerometer,
- 1x 3 Axis Magnetometer,
- 1x 3 Axis Gyrometer,
- 1x Pressure sensor,

Interesting added features on this one Andreas. Thanks Andreas.
ARM Cortex-A15 really looks promising.

I can understand your disagreement with takemehomegrandma. ARM11 is a much older, weaker performing platform.The ARM Cortex-A8 in the Efika MX would definitely be a better processor.
I wonder why, if he was going to compare PPC and ARM processors, he did choose to compare the CPUs used in the Efikas?

> I wonder why, if he was going to compare PPC and ARM processors,
> he did choose to compare the CPUs used in the Efikas?

He didn't. He compared the MPC5121e (which is not used in any Efika) to i.MX51, i.MX53, Tegra 1 and Tegra 2 because he was talking about netbooks and nettops at this point. In fact, it's quite reasonable to compare these chips for those particular types of applications. Nothing wrong with that as there's currently no better integrated PPC chip than the MPC5121e for such purposes. What I found (and still find) debatable though was his following claim that "all of those ARM chips performs much better than" the MPC5121e as I think that might not be true for the ARM11 based Tegra 1. That's why I asked him for evidence regarding the "Tegra 1" part of his claim specifically.

>That's why I asked him for evidence regarding the "Tegra 1" part of his claim specifically.

Its is questionable. The performance of an older ARM design may not perform as well as even a relatively low end PPC. Later ARM design, as your figure pointed out, clearly would be competitive.

While I find Zylesea's argument for a low end PPC system somewhat unappealing, I don't think a Tegra1 would be preferable. I not even sure that focusing on the Cortex A9 is wise with the A15 coming soon.

I know I keep beating on this same drum, but there is never too much CPU power. If we are to replace our PPCs (which perform more then adequately), we should aim higher. Cortex A9 would be a bare minimum. They're cheap.

> Its is questionable.

Yes, highly. But apparently takemehomegrandma doesn't think so. At least he actively chose not to retract or qualify his claim.

> Later ARM design, as your figure pointed out, clearly would be competitive.

Yes, that's why I didn't challenge the "i.MX51", "i.MX53" and "Tegra 2" parts of takemehomegrandma's claim. It's obvious that those chips are not only competitive but outperform the MPC5121e. And btw, I didn't say Tegra 1 was not competitive compared to the MPC5121e. What I said was that I doubt that Tegra 1 "performs much better than" MPC5121e. That's not the same statement, as something that isn't much better wouldn't have to be worse. It can very well be only slightly better or about on par.

> with the A15 coming soon.

"Soon" as in "in 1.5+ years" ;-) Btw, Qualcomm announced Krait sampling for Q2/2011, so while probably not quite as fast as Cortex-A15 it should be there way earlier and still be faster than Cortex-A9.

Jim,
Quote:
That's all a matter of price. I also think a cpu of the e300/400 class is not first choice for general computing today (but am typing this particular post using my e300/400 computer), but as a little toy/fun thing/low performance - low wattage thing for pocket money it actually may make some very good sense.
Look to this raspberrypi guy - he got quite some attention for a probably similar powerful device.

> this raspberrypi guy

Just in case his name doesn't ring a bell to anyone: http://hol.abime.net/hol_search.php?N_ref_artist=256 :-)

Sorry Zylesea. I can understand your point, but for a few dollars more we can have a much more powerful system.

Sure, for a few more bucks you can make more powerful systems, but then the competition snaps in. For a more powerful system you'll soon reach price regions where Atom et al are home already. Indeed it is possible to sell stuff there, too. But the whole key is that with the 512x family you could offer small cheap computers which in that kind are pretty rare yet. Nothing to do too seroius computing on, but for fun, for niche, for lowest price. That's the whole point.

Yes, and I'd agree you have a very valid point. By the time you factor in a Cortex A9 you're probably at Atom price levels. The fact that there is a processor that can under cut Atom prices makes it worth considering.

Update:

>> If it wasn't a little buggy, I would already be using a Pandaboard.

> There are also other Cortex-A9 boards, for instance the Snowball
> (available end of Q2/2011 starting at 225 USD)

And another one (Origen) starting at 199 USD (available end of June):

http://www.origenboard.org
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1rlCTNOiyA

Quote:

You beat me to it!
Probably the fastest ARM around right now CPU and GPU wise (The GPU is a quad core Mali-400).

It's the same chip as the Galaxy SII, more powerful than the iPad2!

> Probably the fastest ARM around right now CPU and GPU wise
> (The GPU is a quad core Mali-400).

Yes, it's 20% higher clocked than the SoC on the Snowball board, which seems to have only single-core Mali-400.

Update:

>> Probably Consoles as well.

> "01net also claims to know some of the technical specifications of the new console
> (translation from Develop): 'CPU is custom IBM PowerPC with three cores [...]'"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Caf%C3%A9#April_2011

More rumours, this time regarding another console:

"IBM sources claim that the new multi core PowerPC processor, which Big Blue, has spent several years developing is now part of a joint development project with the Japanese company. [...] The new 32nm Cell processor is tipped to be capable of up to 16 SPEs which is twice as fast as the current Cell processor according to IBM leaks."
http://www.smarthouse.com.au/Gaming/Industry/F5C6F8A6

(I remain very sceptical regarding this specific article as it contains some severe factual flaws.)

I've heard the 3 core IBM Wii2 a few times now. Sounds perfectly plausible.


Sony recently said they're not spending as much on the PS4 development so if anything that points to a new version of Cell. Anything else means they'll have to rewrite everything and that'll be rather expensive.

Adding a second Cell, upping the RAM and updating the GPU is the easiest option technology wise and gives them backwards compatibility. At 32nm they can probably up the clock quite a bit as well. IBM already had better Cell tech in the works so it could be a better version of Cell. IBM didn't stop Cell development (they publicly canned one chip and everyone thought Cell was dead). They had been working on a 32SPE + 4 PPE chip with the PPEs based on a POWER7 core. Don't know what happened to it but they said they were merging Cell with something else, presumably POWER.

> Adding a second Cell

As I read the article linked to above the PS4 is rumoured to be powered by a single (new) Cell processor with 16 SPEs. Maybe this new Cell will have two PPEs (like the cancelled PowerXCell 32ii was supposed to have, only with half the amount of SPEs) but I doubt they will put two Cell chips there as I think it wouldn't make sense if they're going to have a new Cell chip developed anyway.

> IBM didn't stop Cell development

Indeed.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=6768&start=35
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=6993&start=80

> they publicly canned one chip

Actually, it was two chips.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=6993&start=70

> everyone thought Cell was dead

Yes, which was surprising as the declaration of death was qualified almost immediately:

http://www.hardwareheaven.com/news.php?newsid=344

> They had been working on a 32SPE + 4 PPE chip

...and one with 2 PPEs.

> with the PPEs based on a POWER7 core.

Interesting, I hadn't read that anywhere before. I'd rather have suspected a POWER6 offshoot. No IBM roadmap document on PowerXCell 32ii and 32iv I ever came across mentioned the base of their enhanced PPE called PPE' therein. A quick googling revealed this as the source for the POWER7 claim (translated):

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=ja&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fd.hatena.ne.jp%2Fpetacell%2F20080621

Thanks for this bit of info.

> they said they were merging Cell with something else, presumably POWER.

Yes, that's what I understood as well (see first two links).

SPEs servicing a much more powerful out of order Power processor core?
Sounds great. Should be much more powerful then any proposed Cell derivative.
The only negative to this is the attendant increased complication creating optimized code for any CPU coupled with SPEs.

> Should be much more powerful then any proposed Cell derivative.

That depends on the definition of "Cell derivative". I suspect most people would have called 32 SPEs servicing two or four trimmed POWER7 cores, all packed together in a chip named PowerXCell 32ii or PowerXCell 32iv, a "Cell derivative". I'd say the inclusion of the SPEs is what makes a Cell a Cell. Thus any number of SPEs servicing one or more trimmed POWER8 cores, all packed together in one chip, would be called a "Cell derivative" by most people as well, I guess. That said, it's interesting to think about whether non-trimmed POWER8 + SPEs would be percieved as POWER with added SPEs or rather as Cell with POWER PPE ;-)

> The only negative to this is the attendant increased complication
> creating optimized code for any CPU coupled with SPEs.

At least compared to current Cell chips there would be no such increase. And regarding the PPE an out-of-order core requires less optimization than an in-order core ;-)

>I'd say the inclusion of the SPEs is what makes a Cell a Cell.

THAT'S an interesting definition Andreas.
From my examination of the two Cell processor that were made and the immediate potential successors, I thought the shift to a Power 6 successor (as the core CPU) was really significant.
Of course, the SPEs have also evolved. CellBE's SPE were much less powerful then its sucessor's SPEs.
So both the Core CPU (PPE) and its attendant SPEs continue to evolve.
Power7's core processor should be far beyond any previous PPE core. As we don't yet know how much improvement has been made in the SPE's perhaps my biased focus is unjustified.
Is it a Cell derivative? Yes, I guess it is. But as a Power6 successor Its also so much more.

> Power7's core processor should be far beyond any previous PPE core.

Yes, that's a given, even if stripped down. The same applies to POWER8 to an even greater extent. If the PS4's Cell should have a POWER PPE I'm inclined to believe it will be derived from POWER8, not from POWER7 like was planned for the PowerXCell 32ii and 32iv.

> we don't yet know how much improvement has been made in the SPE's

True. According to IBM roadmaps the PowerXCell 32ii's and 32iv's eSPE was not supposed to improve in SP FP or DP FP performance over the PowerXCell 8i's eDP SPE. Some suspected cache enlargement and latency reduction though.

http://www.google.com/search?q=powerxcell+edp+espe

> Is it a Cell derivative? Yes, I guess it is.

So we have the same point of view. Nice.

> But as a Power6 successor Its also so much more.

That's called product line evolution ;-)