Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: on November 06, 2003, 08:23:45 PM
-
Check out the "Dolphin" emulator for windows here (http://www.emulation64.com)
Or is it just a hoax?
Hope not.
-
You can emulate a PowerPC on a 6502 if you want. It would run far too slow to be any use, but ;-)
Sure, the x86 can emulate PowerPC, just like PowerPC can emulate x86. Don't expect it to be as fast as the real thing, though.
-
xeron wrote:
You can emulate a PowerPC on a 6502 if you want. It would run far too slow to be any use, but ;-)
Sure, the x86 can emulate PowerPC, just like PowerPC can emulate x86. Don't expect it to be as fast as the real thing, though.
A 3GHz x86 CPU emulating a PPC has got to be faster than a 600MHz G3 or near enough same speed though. Amithlon for OS4 anyone? ;-)
-
@mdma
Only with JIT-tech or similar.
UAE-non-JIT for example just reaches medicore 030-speed on PCs
over 1ghz .......
-
mdma wrote:
A 3GHz x86 CPU emulating a PPC has got to be faster than a 600MHz G3 or near enough same speed though. Amithlon for OS4 anyone? ;-)
Your maths are likely to be somewhat wrong. The PowerPC is a relatively modern processor. Remember, clockspeed is not an indication of how powerful a processor is.
-
A 3GHz x86 CPU emulating a PPC has got to be faster than a 600MHz G3 or near enough same speed though.
With MMU emulation it is going to crawl.
-
I have searched for years on this issue with no results. Aparently its next to impossible to do even an ancient power pc. Many companies have promised (I.E. softmac) but failed to deliver. Obe Wan Kenobi can't help you. Microcode solutions is your only hope.
Microcode-solutions (http://www.microcode-solutions.com/)emaculation (http://www.emaculation.com/ppc.php) :-?
-
there are two links smashed together in above post sorry.
-
xeron wrote:
mdma wrote:
A 3GHz x86 CPU emulating a PPC has got to be faster than a 600MHz G3 or near enough same speed though. Amithlon for OS4 anyone? ;-)
Your maths are likely to be somewhat wrong. The PowerPC is a relatively modern processor. Remember, clockspeed is not an indication of how powerful a processor is.
Note that modern X86 processors (e.g. K6/K7/K8 and Pentium Pro/II/III/VI) translates X86 ISA into smaller RISC like instructions via HW decoder/translator before pumping it into the Post-RISC pipelines architecture. Think of Transmeta software/hardware translator done in pure HW acceleration. This techniques enable X86 CPU manufactures to change the cores without changing the ISA.
To reach reasonably high Mhz speed (in region of 1.8Ghz at this time**), IBM's PowerPC 970 employs a similar action (i.e. decode/crush stage) with PowerPC ISA.
-
I wonder what level of decomposition is used for the PPC ISA? The instructions are far simpler and more orthogonal than x86 ones to start with...
-
I wonder what level of decomposition is used for the PPC ISA? The instructions are far simpler and more orthogonal than x86 ones to start with...
Well, IBM has decided to employ crush/decode way and 16 depth pipeline stages for reaching reasonably high Mhz (compared to Motorola’s PowerPCs).
X86 translation/decode HW has this thing called "zero cycle decoding" for for certain instructions. With AMD64, they have sawn off the 16bit stuff in the AMD64 mode.
-
itix wrote:
A 3GHz x86 CPU emulating a PPC has got to be faster than a 600MHz G3 or near enough same speed though.
With MMU emulation it is going to crawl.
Has anyone looked at the AVI's on that link I posted? It looks pretty fast to me. Maybe it is a JIT emulator?
-
I see no reason why a PPC-JIT could not be make for an x86, and I would not be surprised if the Modern x86 gave exceptional performance.
As a Side note I ran WinUAE on my new 3ghz machine and was able to Emulate an A500 to perfection. Even the sound was faultless... I used a 60Hz Video sync (It's a shame the PC can't generate a 50Hz one:-( ), bur all my old games ran perfectly. It did a similarly great job emulation an A1200 (basicly the same, but with the addition of an EC020+AGA and 2Meg Chip ram). There was an some issues with the display going black at time (which I think is a bug in UAE).
Then I decided to switch the JIT on (Fastest Possible setting and Direct)... wow!!! Speed checkers were reporting about 2500MIPS (this only happens when you have the 60Hz sync on, otherwise the timers run too fast). The Sysinfo comment was "Phone Me", I tried it didn't work :-(
Now where did I put my Imagine disks!!! :-)
-
Sysspeed just shows 2500 mips coz the JIT skips the fake instructions from Sysspeed so it thinks it's that fast..... same as on mos .... but the actuall speed is much lower.
Now don't get me wrong i never used UAE and never will but i just happen to know this....
Amiga emulation .... bah ... get a real Amiga....
-
mdma wrote:
Has anyone looked at the AVI's on that link I posted? It looks pretty fast to me. Maybe it is a JIT emulator?
For starters the Gamecube processor (Gekko) is not a full spec PowerPC chip, and IIRC its not super fast either. I don't know how much cache it has onboard, or if you need to emulate the MMU for the Gamecube.
-
bloodline wrote:
I see no reason why a PPC-JIT could not be make for an x86,
Of course not. There is no technical reason why you can't do that.
and I would not be surprised if the Modern x86 gave exceptional performance.
This is where I disagree, depending on what you mean by "exceptional". x86 is faster than PowerPC, but only by a small margin. Remember when x86 and m68k were in the same league? Don't you remember how slowly PC-Task ran? The reason you can emulate 68k Amigas so fast is that the 68k range is so utterly behind x86.
I reckon you might get PowerPC 601 speeds on a fast x86. Of course this is blind conjecture, just like all the other estimates posted here.
-
Djole_ wrote:
Sysspeed just shows 2500 mips coz the JIT skips the fake instructions from Sysspeed so it thinks it's that fast..... same as on mos .... but the actuall speed is much lower.
Now don't get me wrong i never used UAE and never will but i just happen to know this....
Amiga emulation .... bah ... get a real Amiga....
Maybe SysInfo does, but I wrote my own speed tester that simply times how long it takes to execute 10000 loops of testing every 68K instruction in as many different addressing modes I could think of.
I would be happy to send it to you.
The timer is a simple int5 (VBL) councter that counts up one every VBL, and treats every 60 as a second. As the VBL was tied to my GFXcards 60Hz, it should be very accurate.
-
This is where I disagree, depending on what you mean by "exceptional". x86 is faster than PowerPC, but only by a small margin. Remember when x86 and m68k were in the same league? Don't you remember how slowly PC-Task ran? The reason you can emulate 68k Amigas so fast is that the 68k range is so utterly behind x86.
I reckon you might get PowerPC 601 speeds on a fast x86. Of course this is blind conjecture, just like all the other estimates posted here.
I think there is a language barrier there. You seem to think by exceptional I mean better than. I don't.
By exceptional, I mean that a PPC JIT should be able to perform very, very well (Since I don't know any figures, I won't embaress myelf trying to make any up), probably giving a similar price performace ratio (ie an $800 x86 CPU+Mobo running a PPC JIT, may well perform the same as an $800 PPX + Mobo).
The modern x86 and PPC are not really as different as people here want them to be... With a JIT, things get really nice.
-
bloodline wrote:
up), probably giving a similar price performace ratio (ie an $800 x86 CPU+Mobo running a PPC JIT, may well perform the same as an $800 PPX + Mobo).
No language barrier there. I just disagree.
The modern x86 and PPC are not really as different as people here want them to be... With a JIT, things get really nice.
They don't have to be significantly different for emulation to cause an overhead. No matter how similar the design philosophy between two processors, it doesn't change the fact that every instruction has to be translated into several native instructions. The fact is that code targetted for PowerPC processors expects to get PowerPC level performance. I don't think you'll get that, even with JIT, right now, with a full PowerPC emulation (and by full, I mean with the MMU etc.)
-
They don't have to be significantly different for emulation to cause an overhead. No matter how similar the design philosophy between two processors, it doesn't change the fact that every instruction has to be translated into several native instructions. The fact is that code targetted for PowerPC processors expects to get PowerPC level performance. I don't think you'll get that, even with JIT, right now, with a full PowerPC emulation (and by full, I mean with the MMU etc.)
Well, I don't see there needs to be much over head with simple emulation of the instructions.
But I do agree the MMU (and Altivec etc...) is a totally different matter.
My mind set is that most programs don't know or care about the MMU, so if you are (for example) running an AROS PPC program on an AROS x86 system using a JIT then the CPU native OS, would take care of the MMU.*
*This argument applies ot Linux, BeOS etc...
-Edit- I'd love to try PPC emualtion out. But I know next nothing about the PPC (Tried to learn the ASM once but it was too boring, like x86), surely there must be someone here with the experience to make a test program.
-
Right, well, I just think if you wrote, for example, a Power Mac emulator for windows, you'd get a fairly sluggish mac. Like VirtualPC on the Mac, it runs Windows 98, Office etc. quite happily but its not exactly speedy. I certainly don't think you'll get anything like a modern iMac.
-
Maybe SysInfo does, but I wrote my own speed tester that simply times how long it takes to execute 10000 loops of testing every 68K instruction in as many different addressing modes I could think of.
Can I have this? I'd like to check it out on MorphOS.
-
itix wrote:
Maybe SysInfo does, but I wrote my own speed tester that simply times how long it takes to execute 10000 loops of testing every 68K instruction in as many different addressing modes I could think of.
Can I have this? I'd like to check it out on MorphOS.
Sure, just send an email to my openamiga AT ahsodit DOT com address and I'll send it to you.
-EDIT- I'm intregued to know how well it works on MOS! I don't think I used any harware specific stuff, but I do instal an interrupt handler in the VBL interupt... I assume this is emulated, and is at 50/60Hz or the results the program will gives are going to be wrong.
-
bloodline wrote:
-EDIT- I'm intregued to know how well it works on MOS! I don't think I used any harware specific stuff, but I do instal an interrupt handler in the VBL interupt... I assume this is emulated, and is at 50/60Hz or the results the program will gives are going to be wrong.
This is actually a pretty bad way to do it, since on Picasso96 VBL emulation is optional (and most people don't use 60Hz on SVGA monitors), on real Amigas the actual frequency depends on the TV format (PAL, NTSC, DBLPal, DBLNtsc, Multiscan etc.), and isn't likely to be particularily accurate on emulated systems.
A much better way would be to use timer.device, since on classic hardware it uses the CIA timers, and under OS4 (and presumably MOS) it uses the PowerPCs onboard timer.
At the end of the day there is no really accurate way to do it on both Amigas and UAE, since there are no particularily accurate timers in UAE (and I count the VBL into that).
-
this thread makes me sick
-
Note that modern X86 processors (e.g. K6/K7/K8 and Pentium Pro/II/III/VI) translates X86 ISA into smaller RISC like instructions via HW decoder/translator before pumping it into the Post-RISC pipelines architecture.
I seem to remember writing a long article explaining why thet's really only a myth. It looks that way at the high level but at the lower levels the original ISA adds a great deal of complexity that pretty much cannot be removed without either breaking compatibility or destroying performance.
I'd bet even Transmeta CPUs have hardware dedicated to the x86 ISA.
PPC Vs x86 (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997)
Well, I don't see there needs to be much over head with simple emulation of the instructions.
But I do agree the MMU (and Altivec etc...) is a totally different matter.
But it's also involves emulation of the 32 registers using just 8 and somehow mapping the PPC FPU onto the x86 FPU which is a completely different design. This is going to be amazingly complex and probably horribly slow due to constant cache thrashing - before even starting on Altivec or the FPU.
That said IIRC Motorola has a PPC emulator for the PC.
-
xeron wrote:
bloodline wrote:
-EDIT- I'm intregued to know how well it works on MOS! I don't think I used any harware specific stuff, but I do instal an interrupt handler in the VBL interupt... I assume this is emulated, and is at 50/60Hz or the results the program will gives are going to be wrong.
This is actually a pretty bad way to do it, since on Picasso96 VBL emulation is optional (and most people don't use 60Hz on SVGA monitors), on real Amigas the actual frequency depends on the TV format (PAL, NTSC, DBLPal, DBLNtsc, Multiscan etc.), and isn't likely to be particularily accurate on emulated systems.
A much better way would be to use timer.device, since on classic hardware it uses the CIA timers, and under OS4 (and presumably MOS) it uses the PowerPCs onboard timer.
At the end of the day there is no really accurate way to do it on both Amigas and UAE, since there are no particularily accurate timers in UAE (and I count the VBL into that).
The Timer device just gave weird results in UAE. So I decided to use the VBL since I knew for sure that It would be at 60Hz (as this can be set on the latest version of WinUAE). It doesn't really matter how accurate it is, all one needs to know is that it's a lot.
@lempkee
Why not tell someone who cares, or even, and this might be a bit difficult for you, Don't read the threads that make you sick...
Hey why not do something positive and learn about the issues being disccused so that you can add something constructive?
-
minator wrote:
Note that modern X86 processors (e.g. K6/K7/K8 and Pentium Pro/II/III/VI) translates X86 ISA into smaller RISC like instructions via HW decoder/translator before pumping it into the Post-RISC pipelines architecture.
I seem to remember writing a long article explaining why thet's really only a myth. It looks that way at the high level but at the lower levels the original ISA adds a great deal of complexity that pretty much cannot be removed without either breaking compatibility or destroying performance.
I'd bet even Transmeta CPUs have hardware dedicated to the x86 ISA.
PPC Vs x86 (http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3997)
Well, I don't see there needs to be much over head with simple emulation of the instructions.
But I do agree the MMU (and Altivec etc...) is a totally different matter.
But it's also involves emulation of the 32 registers using just 8 and somehow mapping the PPC FPU onto the x86 FPU which is a completely different design. This is going to be amazingly complex and probably horribly slow due to constant cache thrashing - before even starting on Altivec or the FPU.
That said IIRC Motorola has a PPC emulator for the PC.
I have already given my Critique of the outdated, but beautiful work of FUD that is the infamous CISC Vs RISC article. I won't rehash it here.
As for the Register limits of the x86, I agree that will have a penalty, of course it will, but the x86 CPU's pump thorugh a lot more instructions that even the fastest PPCs do, and the x86's have rather nice large Caches. All in all I would say that a PPC JIT emulator on the x86 would be pretty neat.
Note: acording to Transmeta, from when I Emailed them 2 years ago, the only "feature" that assisted in x86 emulation was that the Cruso was Little-Endien.
-
bloodline wrote:
As for the Register limits of the x86, I agree that will have a penalty, of course it will, but the x86 CPU's pump thorugh a lot more instructions that even the fastest PPCs do,
Uhh.. no, I think the PPC970 and Power 5 hold their own pretty well against the equivalent x86 chips. Even when you talk about the G3 and G4, the x86 doesn't "pump through" instructions quickly enough to emulate the PowerPC at real-world speeds. You won't get an x86 emulating a PowerPC keeping up with a Pegasos or AmigaOne. Not with high-end desktop x86 chips, anyway.
and the x86's have rather nice large Caches. All in all I would say that a PPC JIT emulator on the x86 would be pretty neat.
It would be OK. I'm not denying that, but your price/performance guestimate of an $800 x86 PC keeping up with an $800 PowerPC board is just fantasy land.
-
Uhh.. no, I think the PPC970 and Power 5 hold their own pretty well against the equivalent x86 chips. Even when you talk about the G3 and G4, the x86 doesn't "pump through" instructions quickly enough to emulate the PowerPC at real-world speeds. You won't get an x86 emulating a PowerPC keeping up with a Pegasos or AmigaOne. Not with high-end desktop x86 chips, anyway.
Yeah, I would bet the top of the range PPC970 would hold it's own against the equivilent speed AthlonXP (for example).
But I still think my price performance ratio holds.
-
why start the plan on killing amigaos before its out? , this is yet another example on how bad everything is if its not on an x86 ..
i am pretty sure there is a possibility of dooing it and i am pretty sure people will get very pissed off at it , so if you want to piss off anyone in the amiga market or morphos or mac etc, sure then do it, make everything x86 and lets move over to windows forever.....yay!
-
lempkee wrote:
why start the plan on killing amigaos before its out? , this is yet another example on how bad everything is if its not on an x86 ..
i am pretty sure there is a possibility of dooing it and i am pretty sure people will get very pissed off at it , so if you want to piss off anyone in the amiga market or morphos or mac etc, sure then do it, make everything x86 and lets move over to windows forever.....yay!
I really don't understand your problem. the PPC is just a CPU... It holds no emotional attachment. It's not like the Amiga Custom Chips, where I can understand the love that people have for them.
The PPC is just like the x86... when it comes to choice of CPU you only have one thing to consider (Providing compatibility is not an issue). Price Vs Performance.
I use the x86 because it's cheaper for me to do so. (not to mention the range of drivers and applications available to me that I need to get a job done).
I also do not see the need to limit AmigaOS to One CPU as you seem to. I would rather people have the choice to choose what Hardware they run it on.
Ok, so I'm Pro Choice... does that make me a bad person?
@Lempkee
Why is everthing x86 instantly windows? You are so biggoted
-
x86 != Windows
-
well I think its fairly obvious that people want PPC emulation so that they can a) illegally run Mac OS X, and b) in this community anyway, illegally run OS 4, and c) possibly write an illegal emulator for the Gamecube
Now, with that said, emulation of the PPC is certainly not illegal, and if more than 1% of people actually want to work on the emulator for academic purposes in learning CPU design, or even just to run PPC Linux, or an OS that doesn't have EULA instructions against running on your x86 box.
Then I would even defend the effort.
But I doubt you'll get to the 1% level.
With that said, I simply understand how the PPC emulation conversation *could* offend someone.
I am not offended, and I know everyone here, was in fact, discussing it on pure technical curiosity level.
-
bloodline wrote:
But I still think my price performance ratio holds.
Well, speaking as someone who has written a few emulation cores, I think you're off in fantasy land as I said earlier.
-
xeron wrote:
bloodline wrote:
But I still think my price performance ratio holds.
Well, speaking as someone who has written a few emulation cores, I think you're off in fantasy land as I said earlier.
I'm probably still in my little room, damn this wall is boring ;-)
I'm still interested in the technical aspects of this though. I don't doubt your technical prowess when it comes to emulation cores (what CPU's, if I may ask?). Since I have only read the theory behind them I have no experience in making them.
But from what I have read, a Dynamic compilation could provide really good performance.
I'm facinated but the Block approach to dynamic compilation.
-Edit- My answer to you, is that I don't know, but from theory I don't see why is would be a big problem. Since you have the experience to prove me wrong, I would urge you to write a PPC emulator and prove me wrong. I'm far more interested in the technical aspects than being right or wrong.
-
by lempkee on 2003/11/7 9:59:15
why start the plan on killing amigaos before its out? , this is yet another example on how bad everything is if its not on an x86 ..
What are you smoking before you read AO? This thread is talking about the possibility of PPC being run at a reasonable level on x86 and you automatically see it as a way to kill off OS4? You must have pretty low expectations on OS4 if you think this is going to kill it off.
Dammy
-
bloodline wrote:
I'm still interested in the technical aspects of this though. I don't doubt your technical prowess when it comes to emulation cores (what CPU's, if I may ask?).
Interpretive: Signetics 2650, Z80 and 6809 on 68000. Signetics 2650 on x86.
JIT: only theory, although I did write some test code that executed a small subset of 68000 on x86, which worked better than I expected.
But from what I have read, a Dynamic compilation could provide really good performance.
Really good is relative. Obviously it beats interpretive, as UAE and MorphOS prove, however the fastest 68000 is significantly slower than the average desktop x86 or PPC processor. The G3 and G4 PowerPC cores, however, are not only several orders of magnitude faster, but have a lot of registers and a totally different FPU to the x86. While the large cache on the x86 helps a lot, having to use memory as PowerPC registers is an overhead.
I'm not saying you can't push PowerPC code through an average desktop x86 quite quickly. As I stated elsewhere, you could probably run a wordprocessor on top of MacOS 9 or so and it would be a bit sluggish (Note: pure conjecture). But when you compare it to an actual G3 or G4, you just are not going to get the same sort of performance. Maybe with a high-end server chip, but your price/performance equation is out of the window by then.
All IMHO, of course.
-
@xeron
well I think you should give it a go, I really want to see how it performs :-)
Side note, if you fancy earning a bit of cash, and playing around with a 68K JIT on the x86... then there is the AROS Emulation bounty open :-)
-Edit- I am willing to conceed that my Price performance ratio only holds until there is a low priced PPC970 board available... Pegasos2 for example.
-
bloodline wrote:
@xeron
Side note, if you fancy earing a bit of cash, and playing around with a 68K JIT on the x86... then there is the AROS Emulation bounty open :-)
I never fancy doing anything that involves x86 assembly, even for cash. Besides, i'm somewhat busy organising an OS4 show, doing the websites for a UK AmigaOne dealer and a second hand guitar shop, and after that I'm going to start writing applications for OS4. Thats around my full-time job.
-
bloodline wrote:
-Edit- I am willing to conceed that my Price performance ratio only holds until there is a low priced PPC970 board available... Pegasos2 for example.
But I was talking about G3s and G4s.
-
xeron wrote:
bloodline wrote:
-Edit- I am willing to conceed that my Price performance ratio only holds until there is a low priced PPC970 board available... Pegasos2 for example.
But I was talking about G3s and G4s.
I was ina bit of a sticky situation a few weeks ago. I had to get a Laptop for music.
I had to decide which Laptop to get. I only had just over £1000 to spend.
It was a toss up between the PowerBook G4 876Mhz with 256meg RAM (40Gig HD + 12" screen) or a Pentium P4 3Ghz with 512Meg RAM (40Gig HD + 15.1" Screen + DVD-R/RW).
Not sure what to get, I decided to try out Reason and Logic (the music software I will be using, many thanks to a friend of mine for providing the Mac versions of the software to try) on both machines.
On the basis of that simple test, I was able to decide which one to get.
-
bloodline: please name one operating system that is tied to the x86 and dont name windows and linux.
when people starts a thread like this , just when things starts to look better, well its just like amithlon in 2001, it made people LEAVE! and they wont come back ..why? because they belive os4 will be emulated asap because of a thread like this, and everyone knows that by emulating a ppc will make the x86 even more popular and especially WINDOWS! .
linux never was a contender and never will be, it will remain as a geek os just like what it was designed to be.
anyone remeber the "UAE can do 3d?" thread that appeard here some time ago? , well did you notice who started it? and did you know that warp3d is out for uae because of it or hehe something? :D
well its just so typical, we have an excuse not to jump ship and then people make uae the same, soon there will be wos and pup support, soon it will have nova, soon it will have morphos...
getting tired? , yes u should.
anyway X86 = windows , linux = geek , amiga = emulators , beos died and became an x86 os which is kinda nice but i think that only because it DIED or heh..the ppc plattform around it.
-
Sysspeed just shows 2500 mips coz the JIT skips the fake instructions from Sysspeed so it thinks it's that fast..... same as on mos .... but the actuall speed is much lower.
Very true. Those speed testers are not reliable with JIT. Pegasos
G3@600MHz gave 3200 MIPS with SysSpeed.
Measuring the real performance of virtual CPU is very difficult. I
tried Bloodline's speedtest and test loops were completed in less than
1/50th of second.
Real world applications are needed to test emulation performance in
meaningful way.
-
by lempkee on 2003/11/7 12:10:59
when people starts a thread like this , just when things starts to look better, well its just like amithlon in 2001, it made people LEAVE! and they wont come back ..why? because they belive os4 will be emulated asap because of a thread like this, and everyone knows that by emulating a ppc will make the x86 even more popular and especially WINDOWS! .
Dude, your really Windowsphobic. If you really think that people will chose x86 (I'd say 95% of us already own atleast one x86 already) over PPC , that tells me two things.
1. x86 is that much superior to PPC, people will conceed to this if they use it (like they don't use it already).
2. The software and OS that is available to PPC is that inferior to those on x86.
If either of those two are true, any PPC platform and those OSs tied to PPC platforms are DOA because they can not compete.
well its just so typical, we have an excuse not to jump ship and then people make uae the same, soon there will be wos and pup support, soon it will have nova, soon it will have morphos...
I'm still trying to figure out who "we" is that your referring to. Is it the few hundred people that have not bought a x86 already that still like/love the Amiga? If so, more power to you but your limiting yourself and you should respect other's choices as they do yours. If people want to try to code a good PPC JIT for x86, more power to them as more choices are better then a single choice which isn't really a choice. If you want to buy a Peg or a A1, more power to you. I don't see the x86 guys jumping up and down about a x86 JIT for PPC, nor would I expect to see them to do so.
anyway X86 = windows , linux = geek , amiga = emulators , beos died and became an x86 os which is kinda nice but i think that only because it DIED or heh..the ppc plattform around it.
Be died because of management snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Be management decided to go IABe which they can no clue on how to do a STB OS and alienated the Be Devs. Sure reciepe for distaster, which happened. If anything, BeOS exploded in popularity (compared to when it was PPC only) when it went x86 because it allowed so many more devs to pitch in an code without having to buy some exotic (and expensive) BeBox. Again, Be went with giving people choices, and until their management got stupid, that choice was working.
Dammy
-
lempkee wrote:
when people starts a thread like this , just when things starts to look better, well its just like amithlon in 2001, it made people LEAVE! and they wont come back ..why? because they belive os4 will be emulated asap because of a thread like this, and everyone knows that by emulating a ppc will make the x86 even more popular and especially WINDOWS! .
I'm not sure how being able to emulate AmigaOS would make people leave it. Do you have any evidence to back up these claims?
well its just so typical, we have an excuse not to jump ship and then people make uae the same,
How is being able to use AmigaOS "jumping ship"? How do emulators make people "jump ship"?
-
xeron wrote:
I never fancy doing anything that involves x86 assembly, even for cash. Besides, i'm somewhat busy organising an OS4 show, doing the websites for a UK AmigaOne dealer and a second hand guitar shop, and after that I'm going to start writing applications for OS4. Thats around my full-time job.
How about the other way around then? x86-JIT emulator for PPC? That would be an excellent piece of software. I'd rather use x86 on PPC than PPC on x86 anyday! :-)
Go on Xeron, you know you want to! ;-)
-
when people starts a thread like this , just when things starts to look better, well its just like amithlon in 2001, it made people LEAVE! and they wont come back ..why? because they belive os4 will be emulated asap because of a thread like this, and everyone knows that by emulating a ppc will make the x86 even more popular and especially WINDOWS! .
Note that Linux X86 has leveraged the X86 desktop dominance to fight against the traditional Unix servers.
linux never was a contender and never will be, it will remain as a geek os just like what it was designed to be.
Tied Lindows 4.0?
Red Hat’s recent comment is just a cop out since their distro is just crap for desktop use.
anyone remeber the "UAE can do 3d?" thread that appeard here some time ago? , well did you notice who started it? and did you know that warp3d is out for uae because of it or hehe something? :D
Note that it didn't throw out Warp3D compatibility since it's just a wrapper for Window's 3D subsystems for WinUAE.
X86 = windows , linux = geek , amiga = emulators , beos died and became an x86 os which is kinda nice but i think that only because it DIED or heh..the ppc plattform around it.
I don’t think PowerPC alone would be an absolute guarantee in keeping out MS Windows since there is already a Windows NT 4.0 PowerPC edition. Please note the X-BOX 2. The Windows NT foundation for PowerPC is already has been completed. All it needs is a reactivation. We know the X-BOX is powered by a cut down Windows NT5 i.e. an OS built on NT4.
-
MarkTime wrote:
well I think its fairly obvious that people want PPC emulation so that they can a) illegally run Mac OS X, and b) in this community anyway, illegally run OS 4, and c) possibly write an illegal emulator for the Gamecube
Note that Microsoft is now aggressively selling VirtualPC for MacOS PPC market i.e. thus enabling them to sell more Windows products to this particular market.
-
Be died because of management snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Be management decided to go IABe which they can no clue on how to do a STB OS and alienated the Be Devs. Sure reciepe for distaster, which happened. If anything, BeOS exploded in popularity (compared to when it was PPC only) when it went x86 because it allowed so many more devs to pitch in an code without having to buy some exotic (and expensive) BeBox. Again, Be went with giving people choices, and until their management got stupid, that choice was working.
They didn't have much of a choice, they were held off shipping PCs due to MS licensing so were not going to make anything, they had enough money for a year left so they spent it on BeIA because they thought it might make them something. It didn't, but had they remained on course they would of most likely had the same fate.
This wasn't obvious at the time, the story only came out much later.
The eVilla might have saved them but it's performance was crippled by the sideways mounted screen and it never took off.
-
bloodline
I'm far more interested in the technical aspects than being right or wrong.
have already given my Critique of the outdated, but beautiful work of FUD that is the infamous CISC Vs RISC article. I won't rehash it here.
How can you claim to be only interested in the technical aspects then claim my article was "Outdated & FUD" - of which it was neither.
That RISC chips are more efficient than x86 is not exactly new news...
But you don't have to take my word for it read
this. (http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?ArticleID=RWT060503232439)
-
They didn't have much of a choice, they were held off shipping PCs due to MS licensing so were not going to make anything, they had enough money for a year left so they spent it on BeIA because they thought it might make them something. It didn't, but had they remained on course they would of most likely had the same fate.
I might be a little off topic, but I thought I'd toss in my two cents. :)
Another thing that killed BeOS was Microsoft "marketing". And I don't mean through normal channels... When I was head of IT/IS at AST Computers in Los Angeles we decided to launch two new Pentium-III lines (500MHz was as fast as they went at the time) with some nifty options: we decided to give the buyer the option of choosing which operating system was installed from the factory. Windows 98, Windows NT, Linux RedHat, or BeOS. (We were the first major manufacturer to even think about offering that choice.)
It took 2 weeks for Microsoft to hold a meeting with us and in no uncertain terms say "If you continue to offer those other operating systems with your new PCs, you will find there is a sudden shortage in the supply chain for ANY Microsoft operating systems for you." And, of course, since MS OSes comprised 99% of every PC system we (or Dell, or Quantex, or Gateway, or Micron) sold, we dropped BeOS and Linux as options. MS does the same thing to every manufacturer. You can't argue with them when you're selling 50,000 units at a time and you're told you might not be able to buy 50,000 Windows liscences... (this was before the class action lawsuit against MS by a group of linux users who demanded a refund for being forced to buy new pc's with windows already installed when they were not going to use it anyway)
Bastards. You can do anything when you have that much money. :-x
-
by minator on 2003/11/8 18:34:53
They didn't have much of a choice, they were held off shipping PCs due to MS licensing so were not going to make anything, they had enough money for a year left so they spent it on BeIA because they thought it might make them something. It didn't, but had they remained on course they would of most likely had the same fate.
This wasn't obvious at the time, the story only came out much later.
If they had maintained their heading instead of swerving into the the illfated IA, I think they could have survived by entering into the audio market niche. Yeah, M$ screwed them by putting preasure on the OEM not to dual boot Be with Windbloat. From what I remember and read on the audio software that was in the pipeline, they could have survived in the audio niche market.
Dammy
-
How can you claim to be only interested in the technical aspects then claim my article was "Outdated & FUD" - of which it was neither.
That RISC chips are more efficient than x86 is not exactly new news...
That comment says it all. You use the word efficient like it means something by itself.
I ask you is is more efficient for me to buy a 3Ghz P4 or a 876Mhz G4, for the same price? Efficiency is all relative.
I really don't want to have to go into the pointlessness or your article again, since I've already explained how you totally missed all the good points of the PPC and focused on just trying to make the PP look better (the PPC970 is a great chip why lie to make it look better?).
Yes, your article was horribly outdated. The PPC is no more RISC than the X86. Sure the architectures both started at different ends of the spectrum, but now they are so similar it's a pointless argument. Both chips are aimed at the same market (the desktop, thus both have evolved in a similar way)
If you talk to any CPU designer and use the words RISC and CISC he will probably laugh at you.
If you want to see real RISC chips then look at the Alpha, MIPS and ARM
As for your link?... Give up, look at a real site like:
http://www.arstechnica.com/
-
Why use any emulation of a processor?
Wouldn't it be better if you just could by aPCI card with the specefic processor in mind and some software and that's that.
Or maybe a dual processor card with both x86 and ppc?
It would be cheaper to do just a pci cardrd or similare instead of a woal motherboard.
-
by GPT on 2003/11/9 13:00:51
Why use any emulation of a processor?
Because it's MUCH cheaper to do so?
Dammy
-
That RISC chips are more efficient than x86 is not exactly new news...
One of the aspects of RISC concepts are the fix length instructions. Ever since AMD's K6 processor, it translates variable length CISC X86 instructions into fix length instructions “RISC86” (using AMD's words).
But you don't have to take my word for it read
Arstechnica's articles
RISC vs. CISC: The Post-RISC Era (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/4q99/risc-cisc/rvc-1.html)
G4 vs. K7: an architectural comparison (http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html)
AMD's 64-bit alternative: x86-64 (http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-3.html)
Chip Architect's
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_09_21_Detailed_Architecture_of_AMDs_64bit_Core.html (http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_09_21_Detailed_Architecture_of_AMDs_64bit_Core.html)
The links provided addresses most of Paul DeMone’s points.
-
One of the aspects of RISC concepts are the fix length instructions. Ever since AMD's K6 processor, it translates variable length CISC X86 instructions into fix length instructions “RISC86” (using AMD's words).
Modern achitectures are now investigating instruction compression. So that traditional "RISC" (ie fix length instruction) CPU's can enjoy the code density of "CISC" (variable instruction length) CPU's.
This makes those "RISC" chips work exactly the same way as the modern x86.... with Variable length instruction in memory decoded into fixed length instruction in the core.
Spooky how cool technology is when you bother to keep up to date.
-
That comment says it all. You use the word efficient like it means something by itself.
I ask you is is more efficient for me to buy a 3Ghz P4 or a 876Mhz G4, for the same price? Efficiency is all relative.
You're the one who said you one wants to look at things from a technical perspective, make up you mind, do you or don't you?
In terms of your laptop, efficiency is a big deal. If the CPU is effieient it'll give you longer battery life. Do you think a 50W difference is worth it for perhaps 2X the speed? The G4 uses 20W and thats an old version, the modern low voltage G4s go down to 7.5 Watts at 1GHz, Compared to the P4 which uses 70 Watts.
And for your application the fact the G4 has Altivec will make quite a difference, on Altivec code the G4 it's quite probably to outgun the P4 even at 3GHz - because the design is less efficient.
I really don't want to have to go into the pointlessness or your article again, since I've already explained how you totally missed all the good points of the PPC and focused on just trying to make the PP look better (the PPC970 is a great chip why lie to make it look better?).
Would you care to explain that accusation?
I did not lie about the 970.
Yes, your article was horribly outdated. The PPC is no more RISC than the X86. Sure the architectures both started at different ends of the spectrum, but now they are so similar it's a pointless argument. Both chips are aimed at the same market (the desktop, thus both have evolved in a similar way)
Did you even read the article? It was not from 1990!
The techniques and thus high level architectures have pretty much converged. I know that, I even explained it.
Underneath at the micro architecture level the impementation is very different and this difference is due to the ISA. Decoding the instructions into simpler blocks (which itself requires a stage) does not solve everything, you have the smaller number of registers to deal with. If the CPU has Out of Order execution the smaller number of registers is going to have a big impact on the design of that stage making it considerably more complex.
The P4 and Athlon are both very fast CPUs, but in order to get that speed they have to do a lot of work and consume a lot of power. If IBM put the effort into design they could produce a faster processor in the same silicon technology. I don't kow if the 970 reaches that goal (at least with current compilers) but I expect the next gen (due next summer) may do so.
If you talk to any CPU designer and use the words RISC and CISC he will probably laugh at you.
As for your link?... Give up, look at a real site like:
http://www.arstechnica.com/
Hate to tell you this but the site I linked to is frequented by er, CPU engineers...
If you want to see real RISC chips then look at the Alpha, MIPS and ARM
Alpha gave up being "pure" RISC in 1998. MIPs pioneered the long pipelines in use now in the early 90s.
ARM is "pure" RISC but they are desiged for low power, not speed. That said even they plan to go superscalar in their next revision.
-
@minator
I assure you that running a PPC at the same Clock speed as a Modern x86, will result in a very similar performance.
The chips are simply not that different!!
With out of order execution, then use Register Renaming, which allows for many more registers than architeurally avaiable. I would like to note that many "RISC" designs use Register windowing to limit the numer of Registers that the Programmer can see at any one time...
What you fail to understand is that All CPU designers use the same tricks to achieve speedups...
Oh, and if you want to say that the Alpha stoped being "RISC" at some point, then I would note that the PPC is far less "RISC", than just about any other RISC chip on the planet.
-Edit- "Altivec will out gun a P4" - you really have no clue what you are talking about... ok we get technical... look up instructions per cycle for the Altivec and then look at the instructions per cycle for SEE2 (etc...), then look at how many cycles per second the G4 (~1Ghz, since the) and the P4 (~3Ghz) run at... please don't be stupid.
-
In terms of your laptop, efficiency is a big deal.
What about the efficiency in using the money you have?
If the CPU is effieient it'll give you longer battery life. Do you think a 50W difference is worth it for perhaps 2X the speed? The G4 uses 20W and thats an old version, the modern low voltage G4s go down to 7.5 Watts at 1GHz, Compared to the P4 which uses 70 Watts.
Try against “Pentium M” i.e. Intel’s X86 processor designed solely for light and thin markets. Note that “Pentium M” @1.6Ghz integer performance is roughly equal to Pentium VI @ 2.5Ghz. Intel is offering two different X86 cores in the market place i.e.
1. X86 core that is IPC bias e.g. Pentium M.
2. X86 core that is clockspeed bias e.g. Pentium 4.
PS; It didn’t stop PC vendors in using Pentium M for blade servers.
And for your application the fact the G4 has Altivec will make quite a difference, on Altivec code the G4 it's quite probably to outgun the P4 even at 3GHz - because the design is less efficient.
Note that the Pentium VI was built for clock speed first than IPC second. The Altivec doesn’t rescue PowerMac G4 @1.4Ghz in every cases from being last in graphic extensive applications e.g. modern 3D games.
References;
http://www.barefeats.com//p4game.html
Note that next generation PowerMac G5 should have beaten the superseded AMD K7 Athlon MP@2.1Ghz(DDR266 FSB) due to G5’s “superior” DDR1000 FSB speed.
For completeness and optimised for gamming purposes, the Athlon MP’s chipset in that case was not even
1. AthlonXP3200+/NVIDIA’s nForce2 400 Ultra
2. Athlon FX51/64 3200+
3. Pentium VI@3.2Ghz/Extreme Edition.
PS; There are two types of Athlon MP @2.1 Ghz i.e.
1. Athlon MP 2600+ @2.1Ghz (use in barefeats test)
2. Athlon MP 2800+ @2.1Ghz
Reference for Athlons MP PR ratings;
http://www.pathwayexpress.com/catviewL.cfm?cid=CPU
If the CPU has Out of Order execution the smaller number of registers is going to have a big impact on the design of that stage making it considerably more complex.
Register renaming schemes is the way to expand the limited registers of the X86-32 limitations.
-
The P4 and Athlon are both very fast CPUs, but in order to get that speed they have to do a lot of work
Note that IBM's PowerPC 970 and AMD's Athlon 64 3200+ are both clocked at 2.0Ghz. AMD's Athlon 64 3200+ pretty much rivals/beats the Pentium VI @3.0Ghz in games (needs PIV @3.2C Ghz ).
In general performance; the Athlon 64 3200+ > Athlon XP 3200+/nForce II 400 Ultra**.
**Chipset type is important with AMD's K7 processors (e.g. in general, signal channel nVidia nForce2 400 > VIA KT600 > KT400A).
and consume a lot of power.
Note that the IBM PowerPC 970 has ~52~55million transistors, which is in the ball park of AMD’s Athlon XP-M Barton Core in regards thermal characteristics (without taking into an account of Speed-Step like technologies).
If IBM put the effort into design they could produce a faster processor in the same silicon technology. I don't kow if the 970 reaches that goal (at least with current compilers) but I expect the next gen (due next summer) may do so.
In terms of overall benchmarks results and even with superior FSB speed (in the case of K7); IBM's PPC 970 is struggling to beat/surplus the similar clocked late model AMD processors.
-
:edit:
posted by accident
-
when people starts a thread like this , just when things starts to look better, well its just like amithlon in 2001, it made people LEAVE!
@Lempkee,
Funny, I bought this for under $200. That brought money to Amiga. The REGGED copy of Ibrowse2.3 I have wasn't free either.
Hmm....I have a FAST amiga, faster that one I've EVER had and all for under 300$. You can't even get a decent a1200 new for that price. (oh, and I'm going to stop you right now before you embarass yourself with 'you can get yourself an a1200 with the magic pack bundle and a 200MB HDD for that price')
So, I supported a software market that is OBVIOUSLY dying, but I must STILL love, 'cos I bought them in the first place and you CONDEMN me for using an X86. That's just sad, Lempkee..... just sad.
I haven't bought an AmigaOne yet and I'm not going to, until OS4 is released. Quite frankly, the 'screenshots' that Hyperion have released are crap, 'cos they don't show anything, but eyecandy and I'm not about to shell out 800$ for a Mobo that has NO operating system. (You yourself, said you won't use anything but Amiga's OS, so I KNOW you're not using the 'geek' os of Linux.)
Why did you even bother to come in here? The people that posted would like to see if this is a viable project. You came in here, soley to B!TCH about 'traitors' to Amiga. If anything, it is YOU who is the traitor and the one leaving Amiga. Anyone of us here either owns or at one time owned an Amiga, but times change and so do people. Just because YOU decided to think of your Amiga like many people do a 62 VW Beetle, gives you NO right to judge others, simply 'cos they decided to move on and 'buy a new car'.
I'm suprised you even bought an AmigaOne. After all, it doesn't have custom chips. It's not a real 'amiga' or do you admit that amiga is 'only a name.'
I think you owe some people on this thread an apology. :-x
-
The thing I find most strange about people like Lempkee, is their unrelenting desire to say x86 this and x86 that... and how crap the PC is, etc... then they praise a machine that shares 95% of it's components with a PC (the only difference being the CPU and the Northbridge)!
I have not yet heard a logical and resonable reason not to use the x86 CPU, by the same token I have not heard a good reason not to use PPC. There is no good reason to slag other people off because they have weighed up the pros and cons and chosen one procesor or the other!
I must say that I do feels a strng affinity for the 68K (I grew up with it, I learned to program it, It's my "first love" CPU), but there comes a point when you have to say, "It's no longer useful". CPU's are commodities, they are not special they are homoginising. in 50 years (if we still use them) Microprocessors will all look the same.
I really can't get the idea that Amiga = AmigaONE either... the AmigaONE is just commodity hardware, it's no different to the Pegasos or even a PC... And that is a good thing since we all get to choose what we want, and the hardware isn't dramatically different.
Rant, rant....
To get back to the point, I am as interested to see PPC emulation on the x86 as I am to see x86 emulation on the PPC.
Oh, and before I forget, Lempkee, whay don't Hyperion "certify" a PPC emulator for the x86, that can run OS4... then they could sell more, you really should think before you post.
-
Bad evil Amithlon/UAE users plotting to destroy the Amiga church, we must protect our new hardware what costs 5x as much and twice as slow as a adverage x86 board.
How dare you people use these evil emulators on machines what are affordable when you should support the cause by purchasing rip off hardware from rip off companies what will dominate the world.
DIE x86 DIE---------------------------> RIP OFF PPC FOREVER!
-
How dare you people use these evil emulators on machines what are affordable when you should support the cause by purchasing rip off hardware from rip off companies what will dominate the world.
:roflmao:
HAHAHAHAHA A bit blunt and extreme, but funny as hell!
Just remember Paul, we may be evil, but evil spelled backwards is LIVE and we all want to do that.
-
Methuselas wrote:
How dare you people use these evil emulators on machines what are affordable when you should support the cause by purchasing rip off hardware from rip off companies what will dominate the world.
:roflmao:
HAHAHAHAHA A bit blunt and extreme, but funny as hell!
Just remember Paul, we may be evil, but evil spelled backwards is LIVE and we all want to do that.
And Evian spelt backwards is Naive. Do you drink it? ;-)
-
What about the efficiency in using the money you have?
You get what you pay for :-D
try against “Pentium M” i.e. Intel’s X86 processor designed solely for light and thin markets.
It'll go against the lowest G5 which uses pretty similar power. The difference is the Pentium M was specifically designed for low power whereas the G5 wasn't.
Note that the Pentium VI was built for clock speed first than IPC second. The Altivec doesn’t rescue PowerMac G4 @1.4Ghz in every cases from being last in graphic extensive applications e.g. modern 3D games.
I never said it did, it'll only pull ahead on Altivec stuff (i.e. audio effects) otherwise the P4 will run faster. Motorola gave up on the desktop market some time ago so these are basically embedded chips designed for low power.
References;
http://www.barefeats.com//p4game.html
Running benchmaks which test the graphics system, does not say much about the CPU. Unfortunately thats exactly what barefeats did and produced useless results as a result.
Any tests I've seen put the G5 in line with the top end P4s, in front sometimes, behind in others.
I've yet so see anything directly comparing the G5 and the Opteron / Athlon64 but I suspect the AMD may have the overall lead.
That said neither the AMD or the G5 have good compilers yet and have anytime soon, it'll be interesting the see the results then.
Quote:
If the CPU has Out of Order execution the smaller number of registers is going to have a big impact on the design of that stage making it considerably more complex.
Register renaming schemes is the way to expand the limited registers of the X86-32 limitations.
Not quite, it's there to boost IPC. It doesn't give you any extra registers the developer can actually see. Everything is still compiled to use the 8 "architectural" registers so the OOO hardware has to map all the rename registers onto them.
A big difference between PPC and x86 is the PPC has to work less to increase the IPC. The Pentium 4 has 128 rename registers, the G5 has less than half (48) yet the G5 at a 50% lower clock rate is performing in line with the P4.