A-EON Technology CVBA and Varisys Ltd Announce Partnership

[Karlos]

Didn't I point this out to you a few weeks ago? I have no idea what I was searching for though to bring it up :confused:

Yeah, maybe. I can't imagine I stumbled on that by accident :lol:

[Karlos]

FFS guys, just do something else for a bit, would you?

[Karlos]

It is he who is continuing his agenda against hyperion/a-eon.
I am sick and tired of people like him who constantly post in any OS4 related thread just to spread shit.

You could try this...

[Karlos]

It isn't really worth it and by now we need this thread locked, i understand I may not be a mod, but with all this bullshit between users intentionally causing trouble, the mods seem to be absentee as long as they can.

That's not the case, myself and Red very much still here. As a rule, we have a fairly relaxed moderation policy and expect users to be mature enough for the most part to not engage in this sort of petty bickering.

However, you'd be most unwise to take that as an open invitation to take the mickey. As the rules state, warnings are almost always given, but never twice to the same person.

[Karlos]

@Bernd_afa

Most of the info on the PA6T is repeated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient

Also see: http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc18/2_Mon/HC18.S2/HC18.S2T1.pdf

-edit-

Your linked coremark benchmark page puts a 1.7GHz PA6T in the same range as the Core 2 Duo ~1.6GHz:

CPU: P.A. Semi PA6T-1682M 1.7GHz
Compiler/OS: GCC 4.3.2 (Debian 4.3.2-1.1)
Coremark/MHz: 3.234
Coremark: 5497.80
Threads: 2 pthreads
Benchmarked: 06/17/09

CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 1596MHz
Compiler/OS: GCC4.3.0 20080428 (Red Hat 4.3.0-8)
Coremark/MHz: 3.421
Coremark: 5459.87
Threads: 2 pthreads
Benchmarked: 06/09/09

Of course, there are many more powerful intel processors than that, but compared to existing PPC processors found in OS4 boxes, that should be a big step up. Alas when comparing to freescale CPU's you can't find any G4 processors on that benchmark site. Or at least I didn't see any.

Usual benchmark caveats apply but the conditions used don't seem too different.

[Karlos]

but look on this page there is another 1,6 GHZ Core 2 Duo and other that reach 5000 or 6000 Coremark  /MHZ.the value of 3400 this core 2 duo get you post is too low.maybe the test run only single thread

It's possible, though the test I quoted the results for stated 2 pthreads were used.

http://www.eembc.org/benchmark/reports/benchreport.php

From the above, I get this:

SQL ERROR ON QUERY:You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near ') ORDER BY B.hardware, B.benchmark_cert_date DESC' at line 1
SQL=SELECT B.benchmark_seq, B.suite, B.platform, B.hardware, B.software,display_company_user_flag, B.benchmark_notes, B.certification_status, B.score_url, B.certified_by_lab, B.benchmark_cert_date, B.power_energy_flag, B.mark1, B.mark2, B.mark3, B.mark4, B.mark5, B.mark6, B.mark7, B.mark8, B.mark9, B.mark10, B.mark11, B.power_mark1, B.power_mark2, B.power_mark3, B.power_mark4, B.power_mark5, B.power_mark6, B.power_mark7, B.power_mark8, B.power_mark9, B.power_mark10, B.power_mark11, U.first_name, U.last_name, U.company, CT.description as certification_type_desc, BT.description as benchmark_type_desc, ST.mark_tm, ST.mark_tm2, ST.mark_tm3, ST.mark_tm4, ST.mark_tm5, ST.mark_tm6, ST.mark_tm7, ST.mark_tm8, ST.mark_tm9, ST.mark_tm10, ST.mark_tm11, ST.power_mark_tm, ST.power_mark_tm2, ST.power_mark_tm3, ST.power_mark_tm4, ST.power_mark_tm5, ST.power_mark_tm6, ST.power_mark_tm7, ST.power_mark_tm8, ST.power_mark_tm9, ST.power_mark_tm10, ST.power_mark_tm11, ST.score_col1_flag, ST.score_col1_pro_desc, ST.score_col1_sim_desc, ST.score_col2_pro_desc, ST.score_col2_sim_desc, ST.score_col5_pro_desc, ST.score_col5_sim_desc, ST.score_col6_pro_desc, ST.score_col6_sim_desc FROM Benchmark B INNER JOIN BenchmarkType BT ON BT.benchmark_type = B.benchmark_type INNER JOIN CertificationType CT ON CT.Certification_type = B.certification_type INNER JOIN Suite ST ON ST.suite = B.suite LEFT JOIN User U ON U.user_seq=B.user_seq WHERE B.benchmark_seq IN () ORDER BY B.hardware, B.benchmark_cert_date DESC

:roflmao:

Edit:

I look on the link you post and search for TDP, but i do not find this word.

when you search in google pa6t tdp you find the 25 Watt often.
here is also a link

http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/News/Apple-acquires-Linuxfriendly-chip-vendor/

so because of the small heatsink of the X1000, it can be possible that there is no pa6t in.but what CPU is it then

maybe amcc design a new CPU with altivec and 64 bit.....
but thats really strange too, because normaly they announce such things years before series production start, so Hardware /Software developers have enough time to bring OS to this CPU.

also new design CPU use always DDR 3 i think

The 7W figure is on the wikipedia page. However, looking at it again, I notice that it doesn't actually say what this figure is for, just "7W @ 2GHz". When I saw it, I must have automatically assumed TDP.

[Karlos]

You also have to consider that if two very similarly clocked intel Core 2 duo processors show what could be an error in the benchmarking process (ie only one core rather than two), it's just as possible the same applies to the PA6T benchmark. As there's only one such benchmark for that, you've simply no way of knowing for sure.

There's another reference to 7W here, the average power dissipated when running SPEC benchmarks: http://www2.electronicproducts.com/High-performance_dual-core_processor_needs_just_14_W-article-poyjh02-jan2008-html.aspx

At 2 GHz, each core achieves a SPECint2000 score of 1,000 and a SPECfp2000 score of 1,500. Running SPEC benchmarks, each core dissipates around 7 W max; a SPECint/W of 142.8, about four times more power efficient than a Core 2 Duo processor. The chip has a coherent, ordered crossbar interconnect, 2 Mbytes of L2 cache, two DDR2 memory controllers, and multichannel DMA and hardware acceleration engines for TCP/IP, iSCSI, cryptography-IPSEC and SSL, and RAID functions.

-edit-

Assuming those figures are for real, that's not too shabby when compared to stated G4 SPECint2000/SPECfp2000 scores. Have a look here: http://www.macintouch.com/ppcperf.html