MiniMig + PowerPC = OS4 Hardware for all

[downix]

Hans_ wrote:

AFAIK, PowerPC is licenseable as well. IBM and Freescale own it (I think that IBM may have more say), AMCC and PASemi are licensed to use it, as is Xilinx, for their Virtex-4 FPGAs. I have no idea what the licensing costs are.

In the end, the actual CPU won't matter too much. The old OS will be sandboxed either way. So long as we make the jump to 64-bit, it's all good. However, a 64-bit PowerPC CPU would make the transition easier as there's no emulator to write. Forget buying PowerPC chips from Freescale; there are other vendors with better implementations.

Hans

And still no northbridges nor ones with integrated modern northbridges.  I looked into licensing the PowerPC, with no luck.  I also looked at Coldfire licensing, no go.  You can make a clone, as some folk have done, but if you're doing that, might as well clone the 68k directly.

At this time, SPARC remains the best choice, in my opinion, for a next-generation platform.

[HenryCase]

AJCopland wrote:
Does anyone remember the Alpha 21164 CPU which the Siamese team were trying to build a machine around? :-D

I don't remember this, sounds interesting. Got a link?

Hans_ wrote:
However, a 64-bit PowerPC CPU would make the transition easier as there's no emulator to write.

Can you please explain what you mean when you say there is no emulator to write? Is it because OS4 already runs off PPC, or are you talking about running 68K native code on the chip? Not trying to be rude, just looking for a bit more information.

downix wrote:
I don't see a future for our platform until we stop trying to do something just because Apple does it, which remains the only reason we went to PowerPC in the first place.

 

Back in the day, going to PPC rather than another architecture probably was in part decided because it was an easier sell, due to the fact that people looking for a new Amiga could easily imagine the speed increase given by Mac-like architecture. The fact the chips were mass produced in large quantities probably helped too (from a price point of view).

Without trying to be too much of a purist, Amiga to me, hardware wise, is always going to be linked to the custom chips. That is what was special about the system architecture the first time around. Even if we used x86 architecture for the main CPU we could expand on its capabilities with more chips. That isn't to say that the CPU choice isn't important though, we should be looking for the most elegant h/w solution possible.

downix wrote:
SPARC, ARM or SuperH would be my recommendation (in that order)

Reading your other posts downix, I do like the sound of SPARC. I know it's not the correct measurement of speed, but what's the fastest SPARC CPU out there clock cycles wise? This looks awesome...http://www.sparc.org/news/07aug7.01.html

SuperH sounds pretty good too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH). What would be the advantages/disadvantages of this architecture compared with the other ones examined in this thread?

[freqmax]

@downix:
motorola/x86/etc.. whichever way I think the point is to take the best
technology below the price bar for most people and apply it in a clever way.
That's what commodore did. Any m68k/PPC is plain nostalgia or for embedded
development not cutting edge.
Even if you don't like non-free cpus they may work as a temporary solution
in the meantime to let one concentrate on other issues.

@Skyraker:
What kind of PPC/Amiga software was made?, is it up to par with currently
available software packages today?
What hardware requirements are needed?, just a PPC cpu or more?

@Kronos:
I think you point to a serious issue. Original pcb designs use through hole
and non-RoHS. And thus any component that will match right off is likely to be
expensive in production and not legal to sell in EU nor will supply likely to
be available. So.. 3.3V and FPGA

@AJCopland/HenryCase:
You point in an interesting direction. Alpha 21164 etc.. why not make our own
cpu design that is optimized for speedy FPGA implementation. Let's not stare us
blind on current cpu architectures (sparc,m68k,ppc,etc..) but make our own
rules. And any ASIC solution later on will for sure be able to handle any
FPGA quirks.
   
@HenryCase:
Don't wake the patent bear :-)
Amiga was not only the custom chips, but also how things were wired together
on a system level. And software to go with it that was efficient.

[downix]

HenryCase wrote:

downix wrote:
SPARC, ARM or SuperH would be my recommendation (in that order)

Reading your other posts downix, I do like the sound of SPARC. I know it's not the correct measurement of speed, but what's the fastest SPARC CPU out there clock cycles wise? This looks awesome...http://www.sparc.org/news/07aug7.01.html

SuperH sounds pretty good too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SuperH). What would be the advantages/disadvantages of this architecture compared with the other ones examined in this thread?

The T2 is technically the fastest SPARC but it does it through massive parallellism.  16 ALU's is a lot of horsepower, blowing away even the best Xeon or Opteron on the market.  However, core-wise, the Fuji SPARC64 IV is actually the fastest.  However, the SPARC64 IV does not allow for the parallellism that the T2 does, so it comes down to how parallell your operations are.  Massively threaded, the T2 is the fastest.  Single operations, the SPARC64 IV is.  Also, unlike the x86, SPARC is designed around the concept of load-balancing co-processors, able to remove tasks from the system bus, not overloading the CPU with dumb tasks which will bog it down.  Can't avoid that in x86 architecture easily, I've tried.

SuperH is a very good mix of technology, coming in dead between the MIPS and ARM for performance/scalability.  I still have not gotten good information about licensing, but it seems approachable.  

[downix]

freqmax wrote:
@downix:
motorola/x86/etc.. whichever way I think the point is to take the best
technology below the price bar for most people and apply it in a clever way.
That's what commodore did. Any m68k/PPC is plain nostalgia or for embedded
development not cutting edge.
Even if you don't like non-free cpus they may work as a temporary solution
in the meantime to let one concentrate on other issues.

Even for price/performance, m68k, coldfire and PPC are below the curve.  You'd still do better with a MIPS or ARM CPU anyday.

But you have to start on the hardware first, else you don't have a leg to stand on.  The best software is worthless without a machine to run it on.

[freqmax]

@downix:
"remove tasks from the system bus, not overloading the CPU with dumb tasks which will bog it down. Can't avoid that in x86 architecture easily, I've tried."

Could you explain in more detail ..?

As for hardware my point was that one can build hardware and use a off the shelf cpu. And build software for that solution. Later on one can replace the cpu, because most code is high level and not assembler. Thus the only needed replacement is the compiler.
Allowing people to iron out other issues in the meantime. Parallel development would be enabled this way.

[downix]

freqmax wrote:
@downix:
"remove tasks from the system bus, not overloading the CPU with dumb tasks which will bog it down. Can't avoid that in x86 architecture easily, I've tried."

Could you explain in more detail ..?

As for hardware my point was that one can build hardware and use a off the shelf cpu. And build software for that solution. Later on one can replace the cpu, because most code is high level and not assembler. Thus the only needed replacement is the compiler.

Well, basically it comes down to how a system handles OPS.  In the m68k's case, it only utilized the memory bus in such a way that a) you could add registers to the setup without having to remap the whole bloody thing, and b) you could have a parallel set of instructions being fed to another processor.  In the Amiga's case, the Copper was being fed those instructions.  In the old Sun 680x0-based machines, it utilized a series of I/O co-processors which handled networking, disk tasks, and other low-level tasks.  Sun, when they decided on making their own CPU's, kept this capability, allowing for their new SPARC CPU to "drop-in" hardware-wise with their older m68k's.  PowerPC however is based on a CPU-centric design, the IBM POWER, whereby all register maps, OPS, etc have to be handled by the central processor, same as Intel's 8086, the ancient ancestor of modern day PC's.  It makes sense for a mainframe, which does not have heavy IO tasks beyond the disk access.  Other companies that also used the m68k, such as HP and SGI, wound up with similar solutions to the SPARC, the PA-RISC and MIPS respectfully, and also are designed to allow for co-processing with a minimal amount of glue logic and OS overhead.

Think on it for a minute.  Every time you make a call to that GPU within your desktop, the instruction first has to go to the Intel or AMD CPU, which then goes "a ha, this isn't mine, it goes to device 0, just a moment."  Adds a lot of overhead to the design.  And yes, this is overly simplistic, but the general concept is the same.

Incidentally, SPARC's do allow for off-the-shelf CPU's.  Sun and Fujitsu both supply SPARC CPU's to 3rd party vendors, ranging anywhere from the 650Mhz UltraSPARC IIi to the SPARC64 IV.

[Hans_]

HenryCase wrote:

Hans_ wrote:
However, a 64-bit PowerPC CPU would make the transition easier as there's no emulator to write.

Can you please explain what you mean when you say there is no emulator to write? Is it because OS4 already runs off PPC, or are you talking about running 68K native code on the chip? Not trying to be rude, just looking for a bit more information.

Amiga OS 4.0 is PowerPC (32-bit), so running it in a sandbox on a 64-bit PowerPC means that you don't need to write an emulator for Amiga OS 4.0 programs to run in. Switch to a different CPU, and you need to write an emulator on top of writing the sandbox.

Hans

[little]

I think a custom CPU core or an efficient but little know CPU are a dead end in itself. Either you are a trailblazer or a follower, you cannot be both. If the people in this project are so sure to make something so good they will set a trend, attract programmers and have long lasting weight in the market then go ahead. If the idea is to use what at this moment seems cutting edge from other companies remember it becomes old tech in six month old. Like in the example downmix gives, MIPS was the best choice at the time and Sony used it and made a trend because the PSX was a trailblazer. Nowadays MIPS is barely a memory and for quite some time sony has not used that architecture in anything new.

[downix]

little wrote:
I think a custom CPU core or an efficient but little know CPU are a dead end in itself. Either you are a trailblazer or a follower, you cannot be both. If the people in this project are so sure to make something so good they will set a trend, attract programmers and have long lasting weight in the market then go ahead. If the idea is to use what at this moment seems cutting edge from other companies remember it becomes old tech in six month old. Like in the example downix gives, MIPS was the best choice at the time and Sony used it and made a trend because the PSX was a trailblazer. Nowadays MIPS is barely a memory and for quite some time sony has not used that architecture in anything new.

That eliminates Coldfire and m68k right there.  Right now, SPARC, ARM and a case could even be made for PowerPC as the have-to-have CPU's.  And as of right now, SPARC remains the best for the budget, and now offers the fastest CPU on the market for parallel tasks, the new UltraSPARC T2.  Incidentally, Sony still uses the MIPS CPU in their PSP handheld.

[HenryCase]

freqmax wrote:
@HenryCase:
Don't wake the patent bear
Amiga was not only the custom chips, but also how things were wired together
on a system level. And software to go with it that was efficient.

The patent bear has already been woken, I e-mailed DCE earlier tonight. I'm only asking for information at the moment. In any case, Yogi is my lawyer, and he's smarter than the average bear.  :roll: :-D

I agree that the whole system needs to be well thought through, but thought I'd mention the custom chip thing just in case we forgot that was an important part of the identity of Amiga hardware. Maybe we should think about DSP options too, like the final Commodore Amiga h/w designs (i.e. the ones that never made it).

downix wrote:
*Lots about SPARC*

Downix, the more you say about SPARC, the more I can see it as the absolute best solution we have for moving the Amiga platform forward. If a version of AmigaOS or AROS could be made for it (even without support for the multithreading at first), then it would be a brilliant step in the right direction. The parallel processing part would take a long time to implement, but would be worth it in the end. Are SPARC CPUs expensive?

downix wrote:
SuperH is a very good mix of technology, coming in dead between the MIPS and ARM for performance/scalability. I still have not gotten good information about licensing, but it seems approachable.

I see. Well, certainly a good alternative to SPARC, but I prefer the sound of SPARC.

freqmax wrote:
As for hardware my point was that one can build hardware and use a off the shelf cpu. And build software for that solution. Later on one can replace the cpu, because most code is high level and not assembler. Thus the only needed replacement is the compiler.
Allowing people to iron out other issues in the meantime. Parallel development would be enabled this way.

Freqmax, you make the changing of CPU architecture seem a little trivial here. Even if all newly written programs are run through the OS rather than directly from the h/w (so you would only need to recompile them), you would still need to rewrite the OS if you moved to a new processor architecture. If the Amiga does change processor architecture, it should be made as a long term decision.

Hans_ wrote:
Amiga OS 4.0 is PowerPC (32-bit), so running it in a sandbox on a 64-bit PowerPC means that you don't need to write an emulator for Amiga OS 4.0 programs to run in. Switch to a different CPU, and you need to write an emulator on top of writing the sandbox.

Thanks for answering my question Hans, I did suspect that is what you meant but I'd rather ask a dumb question than stay ignorant.

[downix]

HenryCase wrote:

freqmax wrote:
@HenryCase:
Don't wake the patent bear
Amiga was not only the custom chips, but also how things were wired together
on a system level. And software to go with it that was efficient.

The patent bear has already been woken, I e-mailed DCE earlier tonight. I'm only asking for information at the moment. In any case, Yogi is my lawyer, and he's smarter than the average bear.  :roll: :-D

I agree that the whole system needs to be well thought through, but thought I'd mention the custom chip thing just in case we forgot that was an important part of the identity of Amiga hardware. Maybe we should think about DSP options too, like the final Commodore Amiga h/w designs (i.e. the ones that never made it).

downix wrote:
*Lots about SPARC*

Downix, the more you say about SPARC, the more I can see it as the absolute best solution we have for moving the Amiga platform forward. If a version of AmigaOS or AROS could be made for it (even without support for the multithreading at first), then it would be a brilliant step in the right direction. The parallel processing part would take a long time to implement, but would be worth it in the end. Are SPARC CPUs expensive?

A basic entry-level can be had for less than $20, a server-grade unit for over $1000.  I picked up my UltraSPARC IIi system for $50 used, and while it lacks the multithreading support of the T1, it is a good development platform.

[nBit7]

With regards to the Amiga Inc classic hardware legal issue.

I thought that Amiga Inc never acquired the rights to classic Amiga 'hardware' from gateway.

If this is the case than Amiga Inc can't go after anyone making classic clones of the hardware.  So long as the name AMIGA that they do have rights to is not used.  And also the ROM code.

[HenryCase]

downix wrote:
A basic entry-level can be had for less than $20, a server-grade unit for over $1000.  I picked up my UltraSPARC IIi system for $50 used, and while it lacks the multithreading support of the T1, it is a good development platform.

 :-o

That. Is. Unbelievable.

Seriously, if making the switch was an easy process, this would be the architecture I'd pick. I'm sure there are other equally impressive CPU architectures out there, but SPARC has the right price, power, availability and suitability for next-gen Amigas.

However, in reality I would rather Amiga Inc didn't touch it, simply because they can't seem to get anything out to sell us. Let them finish that ACK design and get it out to us, then we should be in discussion with them about the future. Unless AROS could be made to run on SPARC architecture, then we'd really be in business.  :-D

[downix]

HenryCase wrote:

downix wrote:
A basic entry-level can be had for less than $20, a server-grade unit for over $1000.  I picked up my UltraSPARC IIi system for $50 used, and while it lacks the multithreading support of the T1, it is a good development platform.

 :-o

That. Is. Unbelievable.

Seriously, if making the switch was an easy process, this would be the architecture I'd pick. I'm sure there are other equally impressive CPU architectures out there, but SPARC has the right price, power, availability and suitability for next-gen Amigas.

However, in reality I would rather Amiga Inc didn't touch it, simply because they can't seem to get anything out to sell us. Let them finish that ACK design and get it out to us, then we should be in discussion with them about the future. Unless AROS could be made to run on SPARC architecture, then we'd really be in business.  :-D

It already runs hosted.  Getting it native should not be too difficult now that AROS handles 64-bit.

But yes, forget AInc, let us focus on a corporate-legacy free future.  

*edit*
here's an example of the machine I just bought:
Here's one
They're not highly prized as far as Sun's go, due to the CPU-driven IDE bus which does hurt system performance, but for a development machine, it's a solid 64-bit SPARC.  Incidentally, it's CPU is a IIi, not a III.
Another collection
And another one...
Not bad for 5 minutes on ebay.  I just type in Sun Ultra and here they are.

[AJCopland]

little wrote:
Nowadays MIPS is barely a memory and for quite some time sony has not used that architecture in anything new.

...except for the PSP which is MIPS32 based with matrix/vector co-processing hardware. Oh and the PS2. Mips is quite a nice architecture to work with actually. Not the best but nice and simple to get used to I found.

Andy

EDIT: darned typos...