ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)

[Iggy]

Very good arguments, takemehomegrandma.
I don't really disagree that ARM is an attractive option.
I'd just like to see MorphOS on a G5 before the transition to ARM or X86 begins.

Moving to another ISA will take a considerable amount of time and effort.

A G5 port would be much easier/quicker and would give us some more powerful equipment (available at a low cost).

Oh, and the DMIPS figures are from Andreas Wolf.

[Iggy]

What graphics should go with it?

If I'm right, just about anything (but the MOS team would probably prefer an ATI solution - me too).

BTW - Thank you all for the support on retaining PPCs (for the time being).
I can get a G5 mac cheap. They're fast and still fairly up to date.

AND, they'll run my current software without recompilation or emulation.

ARM or X86 eventually?

Why not?

But, for the time being, why not continue follow the course which has brought a lot of new users to MorphOS?

[Iggy]

...In a word:  Cost!

Which is exactly why I've argued for support of more PPC Mac models (like the G5).
They are extremely inexpensive and still offer competitive performance (doubt me? go look at the X1000 benches again).

And now that I think about it, the Natami is going to be rather expensive (not to mention not that great a performer - FPGAs have there limits).
The 68K had its day and that day is gone.

[Iggy]

Your problem is that this question is simply wrong.  
PowerPC is a technology that we Amiga users use in our Amiga 15 years.
15 years of history, 15 years of memories.  
PowerPC is a technology that we know, technology that we love.  
For many of us, Amiga users only Amiga with PowerPC is a true Amiga.  
68k is (was)  ridiculously slow.  
And a PC with x86 will never be Amiga.  
You should think for themselves.  
We Amiga users will not resign from 15 years of history for peanuts.

I'm not sure I agree about the 68K as I have a lot of fond memories from the '80s and '90s (when Motorola processors were so much better then Intel's offerings it was painful).
But RISC was and is still a better solution then CISC (like the X86).
I hope all of you that are advocating ARM realize that ARM and PPC have far more in common then either does with X86.
And PPCs are still more advanced then most ARM processor (although ARM is catching up quickly).

Personally, I'd just like to see Amiga (and Amiga like OS') stay away from X86. RISC was and is the way to go.

MorphOS>G5>ARM

[Iggy]

...Single board computers

Yes, that would do nicely.

But, I'd still prefer the Freescale T5040.
Only four cores, but up to 2.5 GHz.
Not as many PCIe lanes as the PA6T though.

Yeah, PPC must be dead.
Freescale and Applied Micro keep introducing new ones and IBM is even introducing PPCs like the one they just designed for Nintendo that use features from the Power8 family.

Frankly, I just wish Microsoft had allowed third parties to use the Xenon.

[Iggy]

Arm already dominates the mobile phone/tablet markets, it's coming to servers and the desktop next.  Freescale's iMX series is ARM successor to 68k, why not?

Some people won't call it Amiga.  I don't care what it's called, I just want a reasonable performance desktop PC that doesn't have all that crappy Intel x86 legacy inside it.

ARM makes sense.  x86's days are numbered.  PPC is as good as dead already.

Power PC is SO dead that IBM has designed all-new, Power-based microprocessor for the Wii U around it incorporating features found in IBM Power 7 server processors.
I'd love to have that in a personal computer.
I already have PPC and ARM based systems. I like ARM and will continue to use it for Linux (and eventually for Windows .
But right now, I'm sticking with PPC.

BTW - While I have quoted them in the past, DMIPS figures are not that great a measure of a processors power.

[Iggy]

Amiga was never about having the fastest CPU.  Amiga was a media PC and it had the advantage because of its custom chipset.  The Blitter was a proto-GPU.  Xbox 360 gets by on a 3-core PPC chip (I wonder if AROS could be made to run on it?) and is perfectly affordable.

Performance-wise I'd like an Amiga that could play media and browse the internet without sweating, maybe play some games, maybe a bit of graphic design and compose some music... it was a computer you could use to do anything, let your creativity out.  It was never a workhorse.  I still occasionally use my A1200 for these sorts of things even today.

If you want a blazing fast CPU, get a PC, they've already got that market covered.  Amiga needs to fill a niche to succeed.  The niche exists.  There were people installing Linux on Playstation 3 until Sony stopped them, for some reason.

The niche is not tablets, either.  The Amiga niche is a computer that goes under your TV and doesn't need to boot the full OS to play a DVD.

At least, that's the way I see it.

Thank you very much for that sentiment. Personally, I just want DIFFERENT hardware. I already have an X86. And if I was using an ARM I'd be running Linux.

BTW - Samuraicrow, you must keep us informed on that idea. It sounds fascinating.

BTW - I wasn't interested in the 8610, I was interested in the MPC8640/8641 (and now the T5040).

[Iggy]

I think those were MIPS per core.
So, i7 has about  8.8DMIPS per core?

Latest PPC designs have 6DMIPS per core and 12 cores (24 virtual cores). That's  130,000MIPS at 1.8Ghz for embedded use (2.5Ghz is the maximum clock rate -> 180,000MIPS or so with desktop caliber cooling?)

So, for performance, we "only" need SMP. :-(

The "problem" just seems to be that custom board are more expensive than mainstream boards.

No John,
That's zing!

>we "only" need SMP

There's always Linux