ARM for the future?
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    > I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Microsoft and nVidia already have
    > something ARM-based cooking for the new Xbox though.


    The GPU vendor I've heard mentioned for the XBOX720 is ATI/AMD (with something based on the HD6000 series), not Nvidia.
    An ARM processor is by no means an absolute as I've heard rumors that speculate about both ARM and PPC based CPUs.
    The only hard news so far is on the GPU, which apparently is quite far along.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »06.02.12 - 22:53
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Jupp3
    Posts: 1193 from 2003/2/24
    From: Helsinki, Finland
    Yay for ARM devices locked to run only Windows 8!

    Quote:

    The Certification Requirements (for Windows 8) define a "custom" secure boot mode, in which a physically present user can add signatures for alternative operating systems to the system's signature database, allowing the system to boot those operating systems.

    But for ARM devices, Custom Mode is prohibited: "On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enable." [sic] Nor will users have the choice to simply disable secure boot, as they will on non-ARM systems: "Disabling Secure Boot MUST NOT be possible on ARM systems."

    Between these two requirements, any ARM device that ships with Windows 8 will never run another operating system, unless it is signed with a preloaded key or a security exploit is found that enables users to circumvent secure boot

    I'm not sure if it's actually as bad (but very close) as it initially sounds, I think other operating systems MIGHT be allowed - as long as they are pre-installed besides Windows 8 before shipping to customers. Good luck getting MorphOS (or anything besides Android) through.

    Of course this didn't come THAT long after Microsoft trying to convince that "the customer is in control of their PC." (without telling, whether the "customer" is end user, or device manufacturer. So even some X86 systems might be locked)
  • »07.02.12 - 15:13
    Profile Visit Website
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1369 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    I'm not sure if it's actually as bad (but very close) as it initially sounds, I think other operating systems MIGHT be allowed - as long as they are pre-installed besides Windows 8 before shipping to customers. Good luck getting MorphOS (or anything besides Android) through.


    At this point, it is still unknown whether Windows 8 will feature a desktop user interface on ARM platforms or not. There is a good chance that it will only be available on tablet devices (for the forseeable future), which are not very attractive for MorphOS to begin with since its more traditional user interface essentially requires a mouse and keyboard.

    Update: Microsoft has clarified the issue in the mean time. Link: Windows 8 Blog

    [ Edited by ASiegel 10.02.2012 - 08:03 ]
  • »07.02.12 - 17:34
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    Update:

    >>>> I wouldn't be entirely surprised if Microsoft and nVidia already have
    >>>> something ARM-based cooking for the new Xbox though.

    >>> A week ago rumours to that effect (sans the "nVidia" part) have started
    >>> to circulate: [...]
    >>> http://msnerd.tumblr.com/post/12233928364/clarity

    >> Well, it makes perfect sense, it fits well within all the communicated and/or
    >> rumored timetables, and goes totally in line with everything they have done
    >> and announced this far, so I think it's a very credible rumor!

    > There're also rumours to the opposite effect, not mentioning ARM at all:
    > "the chip itself is a little bit grey in areas. [...] IBM is also involved,
    > so eDRAM is very likely, something our sources are all confirming.
    > This means the CPU is very likely to be a PowerPC of one sort
    > or other too. Then again, [...] there are strong and credible rumors
    > of it being an AMD x86 core ala Trinity. In any case more
    > SemiAccurate moles are still saying PowerPC, that architecture
    > makes much more sense here."
    > http://semiaccurate.com/2011/12/05/exclusive-xbox-next-chip-just-taped-out/

    "Sources close to Xbox World magazine have revealed that Durango’s devkit features a “monster” 16-core IBM PowerPC CPU"
    http://sillegamer.com/2012/04/06/xbox-720-devkit-specs-detailed-includes-16-core-processor/
  • »09.04.12 - 15:23
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Wow, I just can't see an ARM processor in the new XBOX.
    These new rumours seem more in line with an evolutionary change (as opposed to revolutionary)
    And this machine has to take on the Wii U.

    An ARM based machine wouldn't stand a chance.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »10.04.12 - 03:28
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    takemehomegrandma
    Posts: 2720 from 2003/2/24
    Quote:

    The publication states that current devkits will not mirror the final hardware in appearance


    BTW, does *16* cores really make sense in this type of application?
    MorphOS is Amiga done right! :-)
    MorphOS NG will be AROS done right! :-)
  • »10.04.12 - 05:32
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > "The publication states that current devkits will not mirror the
    > final hardware in appearance"

    Nonetheless, Power Architecture in the devkits means the final hardware will be based on Power Architecture as well.

    > does *16* cores really make sense in this type of application?

    Some people think that "16 cores" really means 16 threads, i.e. 4 cores with 4 threads each etc.
  • »10.04.12 - 08:47
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    takemehomegrandma
    Posts: 2720 from 2003/2/24
    Quote:

    Nonetheless, Power Architecture in the devkits means the final hardware will be based on Power Architecture as well.


    Indeed that's highly probable, I'm sure we'll know in time (it's a *long* time to "late of 2013").

    AFAIK, both Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 devkits are based on Intel x86/Windows to be used in combination with the console HW. But what if the console HW isn't there yet? The development cycle of a new game is often several years, thus the development of the games that should be present upon launch of the platform needs to be developed way ahead. Playstation 3 games were shown running before the PS3 HW was ready:

    "Sony officially unveiled the PlayStation 3 (then marketed as PLAYSTATION 3) to the public on May 16, 2005 at the E3 2005 conference, along with a 'boomerang' shaped prototype design of the Sixaxis controller. A functional version of the system was not present there, nor at the Tokyo Game Show in September 2005, although demonstrations (such as Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots) were held at both events on software development kits and comparable personal computer hardware."

    I'm not saying it won't be PPC/Power based, only that the architecture per se is more interesting to the tool chain developers than to the games developers, and *if* the new Xbox would turn out to be yet another fruit of the Microsoft/nVidia cooperation on ARM, then the new "killer games" to sell the platform needs to be developed *now*, while the CPU simply isn't finished so there is no way that a devkit using this CPU could be provided at this time, simply because it doesn't exist yet, so it would have to be something different, but preferably something with similar specifications (like RISC, many registers, etc).

    Again, just speculating here of course and only hypothetical in any way, but fact is that it kind of coincides with nVidia launching its "x86 killer" ARM chips (sometime in 2013), there would be many benefits of using them (not only technological), and *there is* this statement that "current devkits will not mirror the final hardware".

    Let me turn it around to you, and ask the question: If *you* would be using the nVidia "Denver" (to be released in 2013) in your next games console, a good selection of games need to be ready within one and a half year of time from now, a devkit needs to be released about now, and the devkit needed a year or so by itself to be developed, how would *you* have done it a year ago (or whatever time it takes to develop a devkit)?

    Quote:

    Some people think that "16 cores" really means 16 threads, i.e. 4 cores with 4 threads each etc.


    Yeah I read the comments (some of them are quite funny BTW, but comments on these kind of pages usually are ;-)), but I think my question still remains though...?
    MorphOS is Amiga done right! :-)
    MorphOS NG will be AROS done right! :-)
  • »10.04.12 - 10:18
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    minator
    Posts: 365 from 2003/3/28
    Sounds like they're using the IBM wire speed processor in the dev kits.

    The final chip could thus be a cut down version of it with the 360's AltiVec added.

    16 cores of that will be an absolute beast!





    I found the rumours of the PS4 to be interesting.
    So far all I've heard is it'll be x86 based but frankly it sounds like it'll be *slower* than the PS3.

    If the PS4 is to be more powerful than then it either has a monster GPU or they've gone with Cell again.
  • »10.04.12 - 12:09
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > AFAIK, both Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 devkits are based on Intel
    > x86/Windows to be used in combination with the console HW.

    Yes, it makes sense to use relatively cheap off-the-shelf x86 computers as part of the devkits even for console hardware with a different ISA, but it surely wouldn't make sense the other way round, i.e. to develop and manufacture special devkits (or even special chips) based on Power Architecture for console hardware based on a different ISA. At least I can't imagine why the devkit for a console to be based on ARM or x86(-64) should be based on Power Architecture.
    Besides:
    "Before the launch of the Xbox 360, several Alpha development kits were spotted using Apple's Power Mac G5 hardware. This was because the system's PowerPC 970 processor running the same PowerPC architecture that the Xbox 360 would eventually run under IBM's Xenon processor."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360#Development

    > But what if the console HW isn't there yet?

    Use cheap x86 devkits rather than develop expensive, say, Power Architecture devkits for a, say, ARM console.
    This of course means that in reverse, a devkit based on x86(-64) wouldn't imply the slightest about the ISA of the respective console's final hardware.

    > *if* the new Xbox would turn out to be yet another fruit of the
    > Microsoft/nVidia cooperation on ARM, then the new "killer games" to
    > sell the platform needs to be developed *now*

    True, but I still think that would happen either on cheapish off-the-shelf x86(-64) hardware or maybe even on specially developed and manufactured ARMv7 hardware (as 32-bit ARMv8 (= AArch32) will be able to execute ARMv7 code as is, and source code migration to 64-bit ARMv8 (= AArch64) should be easy enough), not on specially developed and manufactured Power Architecture hardware.

    > it would have to be something different, but preferably something
    > with similar specifications (like RISC, many registers, etc).

    Admittedly, instruction count and register count do have an influence on the viability of system simulation, but I'm not sure if that would justify the costs of developing (or having developed) what's probably a new Power Architecture chip (provided the rumour is true, that is).

    > just speculating here of course and only hypothetical in any way

    Agreed.

    > fact is that it kind of coincides with nVidia launching its "x86
    > killer" ARM chips (sometime in 2013)

    Each and every hardware announced for 2013 "kind of coincides with nVidia [supposed to be] launching its "x86 killer" ARM chips" ;-)

    > *there is* this statement that "current devkits will not mirror the
    > final hardware".

    ..."in appearance". As far as I as a non-native English speaker am aware, this could as well just refer to how the hardware looks, i.e. the case design etc. And even if not, there're many things that can differ in a hardware design without the ISA or even the actual main processor chip to be any different.

    > If *you* would be using the nVidia "Denver" (to be released in 2013)
    > in your next games console, a good selection of games need to be
    > ready within one and a half year of time from now, a devkit needs to
    > be released about now, and the devkit needed a year or so by itself
    > to be developed, how would *you* have done it a year ago (or whatever
    > time it takes to develop a devkit)?

    I'd have opted for off-the-shelf x86(-64) hardware and done with that what you think they have possibly done with specially developed and manufactured Power Architecture hardware.

    > I think my question still remains though...?

    I do not know enough about modern game development to be able to judge the usefulness of 16 hardware threads or even 16 processor cores for that type of application.
  • »10.04.12 - 12:37
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Sounds like they're using the IBM wire speed processor in the dev kits.
    > The final chip could thus be a cut down version of it with the 360's AltiVec added.

    How would the game developers make use of VMX128 with a devkit that has the PowerEN chip? Simulating it in software with its AltiVec-lacking A2 cores?
  • »10.04.12 - 13:26
    Profile
  • Caterpillar
    Caterpillar
    AltiVeced
    Posts: 31 from 2011/10/25
    To "add" AltiVec should be no problem there. See GPul.
  • »10.04.12 - 14:43
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > To "add" AltiVec should be no problem there..

    In case that's a response to my question above:
    If minator is right and the devkits really have the PowerEN chip then they simply do not have VMX128 or standard AltiVec/VMX. How would it be added to the existing devkits? And assuming that was possible, how would the developers program for VMX128 as long as it has not been added to the devkits?
  • »10.04.12 - 14:54
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    minator
    Posts: 365 from 2003/3/28
    You'd probably not use it at this stage. I'd guess this is more about getting 16 core chips to developers to let them try using them. Handling all the cores is the difficult bit, vectorisation is relatively simple compared to that.

    They had a similar situation before. The G5s they used for the 360 have Altivec but it's not the same as the version in the 360 itself. IIRC the version in the 360 has more registers and additional instructions.
  • »10.04.12 - 22:30
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > You'd probably not use it at this stage. I'd guess this is more about getting
    > 16 core chips to developers to let them try using them. Handling all the cores
    > is the difficult bit, vectorisation is relatively simple compared to that.

    Agreed. That sounds reasonable. Let's wait and see if it's really the PowerEN chip in the devkits.

    > They had a similar situation before. The G5s they used for the 360 have Altivec
    > but it's not the same as the version in the 360 itself. IIRC the version in the 360
    > has more registers and additional instructions.

    Yes, VMX128 adds registers and certain instructions compared to standard AltiVec/VMX but also lacks certain standard instructions.
  • »10.04.12 - 23:02
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    minator
    Posts: 365 from 2003/3/28
    I suggest PowerEN because it's the only 16 core PPC I know of, but then I remembered the Blue Gene chips have 16 cores now as well. Both use the A2 core which sounds remarkably similar to the PPC core used in the 360 and Cell.
  • »11.04.12 - 10:09
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > I suggest PowerEN because it's the only 16 core PPC I know of, but
    > then I remembered the Blue Gene chips have 16 cores now as well. Both
    > use the A2 core which sounds remarkably similar to the PPC core used
    > in the 360 and Cell.

    Well, it could as well be a yet undisclosed chip different from PowerEN or Power BQC, but still be compound of 16 A2 cores. Or it could be a chip compound of 16 cores that are not A2 and which may be containing VMX128-compatible execution units, thus even be a sample chip of what's supposed to be used in the finalized console hardware.
    If we take this current rumour serious, I guess the public information available (16 Power Architecture cores) is still much too sparse to hazard any educated guess of substance.
  • »11.04.12 - 14:32
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    >Some people think that "16 cores" really means 16 threads, i.e. 4 cores with 4 threads each etc.

    Or two main cores (SPEs) and 14 PPEs?
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »11.04.12 - 20:08
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    minator
    Posts: 365 from 2003/3/28
    Andreas_Wolf,
    Quote:

    Well, it could as well be a yet undisclosed chip different from PowerEN or Power BQC


    Could be, but those already exist and developing a new chip just for a dev kit makes no sense at all.
  • »11.04.12 - 20:27
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> Some people think that "16 cores" really means 16 threads,
    >> i.e. 4 cores with 4 threads each etc.

    > Or two main cores (SPEs) and 14 PPEs?

    Apart from the fact that you're confusing SPEs with PPEs, I very much doubt that Microsoft will use a chip that follows the Cell concept. Durango's (and its devkit's) CPU will most likely have symmetric cores, just like Xenon/XCGPU has.
  • »11.04.12 - 21:19
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > developing a new chip just for a dev kit makes no sense at all.

    True, hence my suggestion of the devkit's chip being a "sample chip of what's supposed to be used in the finalized console hardware".
  • »11.04.12 - 21:20
    Profile
  • Caterpillar
    Caterpillar
    AltiVeced
    Posts: 31 from 2011/10/25
    Andreas_Wolf,
    Quote:

    > To "add" AltiVec should be no problem there..

    In case that's a response to my question above:
    If minator is right and the devkits really have the PowerEN chip then they simply do not have VMX128 or standard AltiVec/VMX. How would it be added to the existing devkits? And assuming that was possible, how would the developers program for VMX128 as long as it has not been added to the devkits?


    A PowerEN with AltiVec is impossible??
    Remember Nintendos G3 with AltiVec?
  • »12.04.12 - 15:26
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 12058 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > A PowerEN with AltiVec is impossible??

    No, I said that the *existing* and *disclosed* PowerEN chips, which are compound of AltiVec-less A2 cores and are what minator explicitly referred to and what I replied to, do not have AltiVec. We were *not* talking about hypothetical future PowerEN chips, which may or may not be compound of AltiVec-enabled cores. The very reason that minator was suggesting the non-AltiVec PowerEN chip is that it already exists. It's just not possible to add AltiVec to already shipped devkits afterwards.
    Apart from that, I wouldn't know why IBM should call a chip based on hypothetical AltiVec-enabled A2 cores and specially developed for Microsoft for use in a games console (and its devkit) "PowerEN" of all things, given that this name is already in use for a networking/server hybrid chip. It's not like any chip based on A2 cores is automatically a PowerEN chip (see the already mentioned Power BQC chip for instance).

    > Remember Nintendos G3 with AltiVec?

    No, I don't. Gekko doesn't have AltiVec.

    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7675&start=156
    https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=7794&start=1
  • »12.04.12 - 16:54
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4977 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    16 symmetric cores?
    No way, game code generally isn't well suited to parallel processing.

    All this flailing around in the dark isn't terribly productive.

    I believe its safe to assume that all the replacements for the leading game consoles will remain PPC based.
    But so far, we've only received significant info on the Wii U.

    More is known about the XBOX720's GPU then its CPU.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »12.04.12 - 17:27
    Profile