All these execution per clock comments just crack me up.
If you to look at it this simplistically, a 6809 would look just as good as a 68000 in that the 6809 executes memory reads or writes in one cycle while the 68000 requires four cycles.
Well, but that's because the 68K is microcoded. The 68060 is not, and it requires only one cycle for all simple instructions. And 4 cycles/instruction also only holds for simple ones on the 68K. I do not know about the 6809, but it is likely that this is a hardwired design. At least the 6502 was, but of course both are much simpler, so no surprise. If you look at microcode, the Z80 required much more cycles for similar instructions - same problem.
As to comparing a 200-300 MHz 68K equivalent (or even 68040 equivalent) to a PPC, that's completely absurd.
To bring this back to an apples vs. apples comparison, you *can* compare it to a 233 MHz G3-PPC, which existed back then. Still have a machine sitting somewhere in the basement. I do not know what the result might be, but I wouldn't be too much surprised if the G3-PPC @ 233Mhz would - on approximately equivalent algorithms - perform worse.
Yes, of course, *that* is a pretty slow machine (an old power mac) by today's standards. Don't tell me, I'm perfectly aware of this.
When you have your hardware, run ANY basic benchmark for CPU performance and memory bandwidth and I'll throw you back figures from a relatively slow PPC based system.
You can certainly do that, but then that's not what my software runs on. It would - at best - run under emulation under the PPC, and that gives you yet again completely different figures.
When we talk about about emulation - and we can do that of course - then what do I need a PPC for in first place? I've here a pretty nice i5 sitting in my office. fsUAE is not exactly usable on this machine due to the bad quality of the user interface and the overall integration of the system, but *if* you want to compare raw horse power, not counting the quality of the emulation, the GUI, the system integration and the performance of the chip set emulation, my immediate guess would be that this is quite a bit faster than emulation on any PPC you can buy today.
Unfortunately, that's not exactly a usable solution for me - actually neither the PPC.
But then I guess you guys (and Gunnar) know better.
Right?
It's a matter of the problem definition, or your requirements. Not a matter of "knowing better". If your goal is to have an Amiga system that feels like an Amiga system, then that's a perfectly fine option.
If I decide to buy a Vampire for my A2000, I'm still buying an X5000.
Because even a Tabor board would mop up a Vampire based computer.
And an X5000 is going to be much more competent than Tabor.
And I don't have a problem with that, either. Go, have your fun - if this is what you want, why should anyone stop you.
Just because you consider this a good hobby, does not mean I do. But that doesn't make things better or worse.
So before you sound too much like "the moon landings were fake" conspiracy nut jobs (or worse yet, people dumb enough to buy into Donald Trump), take the tinfoil cap off your head, get a cool drink of water and think this over.
Conspiracy? I don't think anyone here has illusions on the performance of the system, or on why the 68K development was stopped. That was certainly not a conspiracy of any kind. It was a market decision Motorola made, and a plausible one back then with the facts they had. Looking back, with what we know today, it was probably not the ideal decision, but so what. No hard feelings about it.
Its FPGA based, and not even a high end FPGA (which would cost big bucks), so its never going to be competitive with an even moderately modern ASIC.
Sure, and your point is? I mean, is anyone seriously considering doing - or willing to pay - an ASIC? It's not a realistic option in first place, so why bother?