Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)  (Read 26369 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mrs Beanbag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 455
    • Show all replies
Re: ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)
« on: February 16, 2012, 04:54:45 PM »
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.
Signature intentionally left blank
 

Offline Mrs Beanbag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 455
    • Show all replies
Re: ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)
« Reply #1 on: February 16, 2012, 07:04:05 PM »
Quote from: mongo;680710
Unless you're writing an OS, or programming in assembler, you'll never have to see "all that crappy Intel x86 legacy inside it".

I saw it when I put it in the socket.  I KNOW it's there, that's frustrating enough.

Quote
ARM makes sense in situations where power saving is more important than performance. x86 will be around for a long, long time still. IBM, Freescale, and AppliedMicro would disagree with you about PPC.

In other words it makes sense in my PC.  I build this system with quietness in mind first and foremost.  45W still seems like quite a lot though.
Signature intentionally left blank
 

Offline Mrs Beanbag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 455
    • Show all replies
Re: ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)
« Reply #2 on: February 17, 2012, 08:34:02 PM »
Quote from: asymetrix;680794
When I want a new Amiga system, I dont care what CPU it has, I want it CHEAP and FAST!

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.
Signature intentionally left blank
 

Offline Mrs Beanbag

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Sep 2011
  • Posts: 455
    • Show all replies
Re: ARM vs. PPC (why continue the PPC path?)
« Reply #3 on: February 18, 2012, 10:37:43 AM »
Quote from: mongo;680822
They already have something like that. It's called a DVD player.
Very good.  But it would be better to say that it's called an Xbox.  The difference is an Xbox doesn't come with a "productivity" OS and a keyboard.

Quote from: Hammer;680854
Most of Xbox 360's heavy compute work is done on AMD Xenos GpGPU i.e. 48 SIMD math processor array.

Exactly!  That's its "blitter".
Signature intentionally left blank