ARM for the future?

[fishy_fiz]

ARM is better suited as a destination for ports of 68K based OS' and software than X86. Yes, there are no ARM processor that match X86 in computing power, but ARM is considerably more powerful than 68K and has closed the gap in performance it had with PPCs.
ARM can be configured to run with the same endian  structure as the 68K (as can most PPCs). X86 can not and suffers at least a 20% performance penalty because of that. The only reason this is not significant, is that X86 processors are already more powerful than needed to run this software.
Which brings up another point. How much CPU power do we need to run our software?
Both AOS4 and MorphOS can run on CPUs that operate below 400Mhz. Right now cheap ARM boards exist (at under $200) that run at 1Ghz. Clearly there is enough CPU power.

"I probably shouldnt be surprised to see this kind of garbage on an Amiga site though."

Why are you here if you don't think much of our opinions? This discussion was prompted by announcements made by Nvidia that they intended to compete with X86s in the desktop and server market with a new ARM design. I don't think Nvidia's ideas are foolish AND if they think they can create an ARM CPU that is powerful enough to compete in this market, well then we are going to see ARM processors that are
MORE powerful than we need (for our purposes).

Im not arguing that ARM is the wrong choice of targets. As I said already, it makes sense as a migration path for a 68k or ppc based system.
Nor am I sying ARM is bad. As I said already in this thread there's some interesting thing happening in the ARM world. All Im saying is that it gets tiring hearing the same old anti x86 garbage that's based on how x86 used to be.

[Iggy]

Im not arguing that ARM is the wrong choice of targets. As I said already, it makes sense as a migration path for a 68k or ppc based system.
Nor am I sying ARM is bad. As I said already in this thread there's some interesting thing happening in the ARM world. All Im saying is that it gets tiring hearing the same old anti x86 garbage that's based on how x86 used to be.

Yes I absolutely agree with you. X86 has evolved. Personally, I had no use for the original PC processors, but by the time the '386 came along their evolution was progressing nicely. Todays X86-64 processors are a completely different animal when compared to older products. X86 is cheap, powerful, and unarguably the best product currently available for most computer users.

[TheBilgeRat]

Yes I absolutely agree with you. X86 has evolved. Personally, I had no use for the original PC processors, but by the time the '386 came along their evolution was progressing nicely. Todays X86-64 processors are a completely different animal when compared to older products. X86 is cheap, powerful, and unarguably the best product currently available for most computer users.

It is the only choice for most computer users.  That does not mean it is the best.

Interesting from TFA (even if its shmoo):

Denver frees PCs, workstations and servers from the hegemony and  inefficiency of the x86 architecture.  For several years, makers of  high-end computing platforms have had no choice about instruction-set  architecture.  The only option was the x86 instruction set with  variable-length instructions, a small register set, and other features  that interfered with modern compiler optimizations, required a larger  area for instruction decoding, and substantially reduced energy  efficiency.
 Denver provides a choice.   System builders can now choose a  high-performance processor based on a RISC instruction set with modern  features such as fixed-width instructions, predication, and a large  general register file.   These features enable advanced compiler  techniques and simplify implementation, ultimately leading to higher  performance and a more energy-efficient processor.


I remember when RISC was going to be the next big thing before the Pentiums came out.  It is funny to see that it has taken another 15 some odd years to come back to this.  x86 is good because that is what has been crammed down our throats by a business model bent on dictating to us what we need.

[nicholas]

It is the only choice for most computer users.  That does not mean it is the best.

Interesting from TFA (even if its shmoo):

Denver frees PCs, workstations and servers from the hegemony and  inefficiency of the x86 architecture.  For several years, makers of  high-end computing platforms have had no choice about instruction-set  architecture.  The only option was the x86 instruction set with  variable-length instructions, a small register set, and other features  that interfered with modern compiler optimizations, required a larger  area for instruction decoding, and substantially reduced energy  efficiency.
 Denver provides a choice.   System builders can now choose a  high-performance processor based on a RISC instruction set with modern  features such as fixed-width instructions, predication, and a large  general register file.   These features enable advanced compiler  techniques and simplify implementation, ultimately leading to higher  performance and a more energy-efficient processor.


I remember when RISC was going to be the next big thing before the Pentiums came out.  It is funny to see that it has taken another 15 some odd years to come back to this.  x86 is good because that is what has been crammed down our throats by a business model bent on dictating to us what we need.

Bring back the Alpha!

[Iggy]

Bring back the Alpha!

Now that's funny!
RISC was supposed to be big. PPCs,, I64, Alpha, SPARC, all tried to push this forward.
Will ARM succeed where others failed? Who knows. But no one forced X86s on the market. Apple could have continued to solder on without the switch.
This situation has occurred thanks to continued development that has allowed the X86 to have a performance edge while maintaining a low cost.
The phenomenon is purely market economics in action. No great corporate conspiracies are involved here.

[nicholas]

Now that's funny!
RISC was supposed to be big. PPCs,, I64, Alpha, SPARC, all tried to push this forward.
Will ARM succeed where others failed? Who knows. But no one forced X86s on the market. Apple could have continued to solder on without the switch.
This situation has occurred thanks to continued development that has allowed the X86 to have a performance edge while maintaining a low cost.
The phenomenon is purely market economics in action. No great corporate conspiracies are involved here.

IIRC one of the Draco models had a slot for an Alpha CPU.

[WolfToTheMoon]

Now that's funny!
RISC was supposed to be big. PPCs,, I64, Alpha, SPARC, all tried to push this forward.
Will ARM succeed where others failed? Who knows. But no one forced X86s on the market. Apple could have continued to solder on without the switch.
This situation has occurred thanks to continued development that has allowed the X86 to have a performance edge while maintaining a low cost.
The phenomenon is purely market economics in action. No great corporate conspiracies are involved here.

x86 benefited greatly by having AMD and Intel trying to outdo each other on the PC market. On the other side(PPC), there was no market to engage in that kind of competition.
ARM might just be able to outdo PPC there. Windows on ARM might be just what it needs. But it remains to be seen what kind of performance those ARM chips will provide and what kind of animal WinARM will be

[Iggy]

x86 benefited greatly by having AMD and Intel trying to outdo each other on the PC market. On the other side(PPC), there was no market to engage in that kind of competition.
ARM might just be able to outdo PPC there. Windows on ARM might be just what it needs. But it remains to be seen what kind of performance those ARM chips will provide and what kind of animal WinARM will be

Yes, you point out one of the concepts in economics I agree with. Competition benefits the consumer. X86 processor haven't succeeded totally due to market domination, if AMD hadn't kept Intel on its toes we'd still see Netburst based processors on the market.

[persia]

Wouldn't it have been great if they would have spent the the time and money that they are sinking into the X1000 on a port to ARM instead?

[Iggy]

Wouldn't it have been great if they would have spent the the time and money that they are sinking into the X1000 on a port to ARM instead?

Ask that again later when MorphOS is available for G5 Macs and the X1000 still isn't available for purchase.
Besides, if NG OS' move to ARM, AOS4 is likely the last one to make the transition.

[WolfToTheMoon]

Wouldn't it have been great if they would have spent the the time and money that they are sinking into the X1000 on a port to ARM instead?

For a hobby system it would make a lot, lot more sense. Imagine paying 500, or even 1000 $ instead od 2500 or 3000 $ for your next AOS4 machine.

In fact, I can honestly say even I, a known anti OS4/MOS/AROS/OS 3.1 person:), would consider buying such a machine because I could justify the expense.

[nicholas]

For a hobby system it would make a lot, lot more sense. Imagine paying 500, or even 1000 $ instead od 2500 or 3000 $ for your next AOS4 machine.

In fact, I can honestly say even I, a known anti OS4/MOS/AROS/OS 3.1 person:), would consider buying such a machine because I could justify the expense.

If you are anti everything that is considered by the community as "Amiga", then why in September of 2010 did you join this Amiga community forum?

You are not "known" to us at all.

[Iggy]

For a hobby system it would make a lot, lot more sense. Imagine paying 500, or even 1000 $ instead od 2500 or 3000 $ for your next AOS4 machine.

In fact, I can honestly say even I, a known anti OS4/MOS/AROS/OS 3.1 person:), would consider buying such a machine because I could justify the expense.

Yes, well with G4 Powermacs at give away prices I still have trouble convincing people to try MorphOS. The funny thing is, once people do compare it, they usually rate it better than AROS or AOS4.
Then again, the 111 Euro license fee is a little steep.

[TheBilgeRat]

Then again, the 111 Euro license fee is a little steep.

You win one understatement :lol:

[WolfToTheMoon]

If you are anti everything that is considered by the community as "Amiga", then why in September of 2010 did you join this Amiga community forum?

You are not "known" to us at all.

Well, let's just say I'm a amigan but of different breed to the current amiga community over here.

[commodorejohn]

In fact, I can honestly say even I, a known anti OS4/MOS/AROS/OS 3.1 person:), would consider buying such a machine because I could justify the expense.

So, uh, what Amiga operating system do you prefer? Amix? Minimalist demoscene bootloaders?