ADOOM on A600 running 22-35 FPS

[Linde]

The Raspberry Pi is $50 because it is an ASIC and not an fpga.

The Raspberry Pi is cheap because it is based on an existing cheap SoC that could realistically be produced in quantities of millions of units for less esoteric purposes than as a replacement for a legacy CPU.

[ppcamiga1]

In 2009, gunnar von boehn promised  NatAmi with a cpu many times faster than any ppc used in Amiga and with graphics better than PlayStation 3.

That's all for less than 100 euros.

Then every spring NatAmi team promised that this summer Natami will be produced.

Now it is 2015 and there is still nothing.

gunnar where is my NatAmi?

I want one!!!

Today gunnar von boehn only promises fpga cpu only as fast as 060.

After years of lies, broken promises, I do not believe gunnar.

[Rob]

In 2009, gunnar von boehn promised  NatAmi with a cpu many times faster than any ppc used in Amiga and with graphics better than PlayStation 3.

That's all for less than 100 euros.

Then every spring NatAmi team promised that this summer Natami will be produced.

Now it is 2015 and there is still nothing.

gunnar where is my NatAmi?

I want one!!!

Today gunnar von boehn only promises fpga cpu only as fast as 060.

After years of lies, broken promises, I do not believe gunnar.

A price similar to the A1 was what I remember.  Whatever happened to Natami is not relevant here.  The Phoenix core had been demonstrated running faster than an 060 on an A600 via the Vampire board.

[trekiej]

Will any of these accelerators be compatible the Amiga 1000?
Is there a r-pi that will connect to the floppy port of an Amiga?
Well, I did see some use r-pi as a fdd emulator.

[matthey]

Is there something about those [ColdFire] instructions that just totally sucks?

If I would have had those coldfire instructions available to me in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s then I would have used them and had faster code.  But I have put no thought into them at all for around 10 years.

Does Gunnar have a logical reason to murder the coldfire instructions?  Like they were stupid instructions?  Or they were to slow?  Or they bog down his ALU?  Or they consume to many read/write ports?  Or ?

The only thing wrong with the ColdFire instructions is the ColdFire naming conventions which are not friendly, consistent or 68k like. The solution I came up with are 68k names with ColdFire aliases:

Code: [Select]

mvs.b -> sxtb.l (Sign eXtend Byte . Long)
mvs.w -> sxtw.l  (Sign eXtend Word . Long)
mvz.b -> zxtb.l (Zero eXtend Byte . Long)
mvz.w -> zxtw.l  (Zero eXtend Word . Long)

This 68k already has EXTB.L so SXT[B/W].L and ZXT[B/W].L are only a small variation. There is some other minor massaging here and therer. These instructions are quite valuable as they reduce the number of instructions, improve code density, allow for ColdFire compatibility, make x86 emulation easier, allow peephole optimizations in assemblers like vasm and are almost as easy to implement in compiler backends where they already exist for the ColdFire. Gunnar doesn't have anything against them but needed the encoding space and more to encode his non-orthogonal En registers (originally he called them D8-D15 which is even worse having a bunch of non-orthogal registers as data registers; A8 is bad enough).

The A-line extension to NOT clash with ATARI or APPLE or any other old A-line usage.
Matt what you say is just technically not true. You should know this better.

I didn't say you used A-line but rather that was one of your other options which you most certainly were considering (and from your reaction may have used). The 68k MacOS uses A-line for OS function calls as can clearly be seen in MacOS disassemblies:

Code: [Select]

  196: 4268 0004      'Bh..'           CLR     4(A0)
   19A: 4228 0006      'B(..'           CLR.B   6(A0)
   19E: 4228 0007      'B(..'           CLR.B   7(A0)
   1A2: 43FA 036E      1000512          LEA     data2,A1    ; len= 1
   1A6: 45E8 0009      'E...'           LEA     9(A0),A2
   1AA: 4EBA 0392      100053E          JSR     proc2
   1AE: 43FA 03A2      1000552          LEA     data4,A1    ; 'Multi'
   1B2: 4EBA 038A      100053E          JSR     proc2
   1B6: 43FA 03AC      1000564          LEA     data7,A1    ; len= 2
   1BA: 4EBA 0382      100053E          JSR     proc2
   1BE: 4A6E FFEC      200FFEC          TST     vab_2(A6)
   1C2: 6756           100021A          BEQ.S   lab_13
   1C4: 4FEF FFFE      'O...'           LEA     -2(A7),A7
   1C8: 2F2E FFEE      200FFEE          PUSH.L  vab_3(A6)
   1CC: 4EBA 2C88      1002E56          JSR     proc29
   1D0: 301F           '0.'             POP     D0
   1D2: 6646           100021A          BNE.S   lab_13
   1D4: 4FEF FFCE      'O...'           LEA     -50(A7),A7
   1D8: 204F           ' O'             MOVEA.L A7,A0
   1DA: 317C FFF6 0018 '1|....'         MOVE    #$FFF6,ioCRefNum(A0)
   1E0: 216E FFEE 001E 200FFEE          MOVE.L  vab_3(A6),ioSEBlkPtr(A0)
   1E6: 317C 00FC 001A '1|....'         MOVE    #252,CSCode(A0)
   1EC: A004           '..'             _Control ; (A0|IOPB:ParamBlockRec):D0\OSErr
   1EE: 4FEF 0032      'O..2'           LEA     50(A7),A7
   1F2: 206E FFEE      200FFEE          MOVEA.L vab_3(A6),A0
   1F6: A01F           '..'             _DisposPtr ; (A0/p:Ptr)
   1F8: 486D FFFC           -4          PEA     glob1(A5)
   1FC: A86E           '.n'             _InitGraf ; (globalPtr:Ptr)
   1FE: A8FE           '..'             _InitFonts  
   200: A912           '..'             _InitWindows  
   202: A9CC           '..'             _TeInit  
   204: 42A7           'B.'             CLR.L   -(A7)
   206: A97B           '.{'             _InitDialogs ; (resumeProc:ProcPtr)
   208: A850           '.P'             _InitCursor  
   20A: 42B8 0A6C         $A6C          CLR.L   DeskHook
   20E: 487A 0302      1000512          PEA     data2       ; len= 1
   212: 4EBA 3198      10033AC          JSR     PUTREGISTERDLOG
   216: 4EFA 0316      100052E          JMP     com_2
   21A: 4227           'B''    lab_13   CLR.B   -(A7)
   21C: A99B           '..'             _SetResLoad ; (AutoLoad:BOOLEAN)
   21E: 42A7           'B.'             CLR.L   -(A7)
   220: 2F3C 4452 5652 '/   226: 487A 2156      100237E          PEA     data35      ; len= 12
   22A: A9A1           '..'             _GetNamedResource ; (theType:ResType; name:Str255):Handle
   22C: 1F3C 0001      '.<..'           PUSH.B  #1
   230: A99B           '..'             _SetResLoad ; (AutoLoad:BOOLEAN)

The Atari and Sega Genenis may only use TRAP but the x68000 looks like it uses F-line for some OS calls which is not allowed in the 68k ISA documentation as A-line is. I don't know how the Neo-Geo calls functions. Of course ColdFire does not reserve A-line (it is not 68k) and placed MOV3Q in there which is one of the few 68k ColdFire incompatibilities.

Also you did say that the FPGA Vector implementation would prevent an ASIC version of the core.
As the way the Registerfile they way Apollo does it  would not be good fro ASICS.
Again that is technically not true.

Technically it should be possible to make an ASIC with a combined vector and integer unit but nobody is going to make an ASIC out of such a screwed up CPU with such a screwed up ISA. It also may be more difficult to create an ASIC out of a ultra-optimized FPGA core all jumbled together.

Matt, we are very happy to discuss compiler optimizations ideas.
Technical ASIC/FPGA discussions should be done by people understanding them fully.

You are overbearing and dominate the "technical" decision making. I know enough about ISAs to know that you have chosen a radical ISA (see the Natami link above where you called more registers a "major ISA change") for a conservative maket which is all wrong. You had 25% support (including you so less excluding you) for more registers and your "major ISA changes". How are you going to get people to use something the majority doesn't support? Your ISA needs major work in compiler backends but how are are you going to gain support for an FPGA CPU with a few hundred users? Even if you were to overcome these large obstacles then how do you plan to compete against hard processors even with the extra registers? My ASIC plan is more feasible than your radical FPGA ISA. An ASIC isn't that expensive and raising money for what people want and like is a lot easier than trying to sell them what they don't want.

The Raspberry Pi is cheap because it is based on an existing cheap SoC that could realistically be produced in quantities of millions of units for less esoteric purposes than as a replacement for a legacy CPU.

An Amiga Cherry Pi (I like cherry better) would have to be a SoC ASIC to be close to as cheap as the Raspberry Pi. It would be difficult to compete with the Raspberry Pi in price and energy efficiency. I would rather target a DVD (optionally Blu-ray DVD) player box kind of like the old PS2 (which is way better than a cheap CD32) but with a removable DVD drive and more expandable (usb, ethernet, wifi, etc,). I think an ASIC enchanced 68k could play HD movies no problem. I would include an FPGA like a Cyclone V which could be used for emulation, acceleration of some tasks, and for embedded uses. It would eventually be able to emulate whatever gaming CD is placed in the drive up to a PS2. Keep everything open so people can use an internet browser (which still can't be done on the PS3). Using the AmigaOS or AROS 68k, 1GB of memory should be plenty. I would aim for a price of $100-200. We would probably need to sell 40k units. I wonder if there were that many people on the Natami forum in it's prime when it generated 300,000+ hits in one thread.

In 2009, gunnar von boehn promised  NatAmi with a cpu many times faster than any ppc used in Amiga and with graphics better than PlayStation 3.

I recall a target of PS2 level performance and faster than a 68060. I believe Gunnar has delivered on the latter and had limited control of the former (I don't believe Gunnar can take all the blame for the hibernation of Natami).

That's all for less than 100 euros.

I didn't ever see anything close to this price although it's possible that someone was wishing for this price.

Then every spring NatAmi team promised that this summer Natami will be produced.

I don't recall any promises like this but there were a lot of expectations like this.

Now it is 2015 and there is still nothing.

gunnar where is my NatAmi?

I want my Natami too. Gunnar has the FPGA core that was needed to lower the cost of Natami mostly working and with good performance. Thomas Hirsch knows about it. Some people have different ideas about what team work and cooperation are though.

[Linde]

My ASIC plan is more feasible than your radical FPGA ISA. An ASIC isn't that expensive and raising money for what people want and like is a lot easier than trying to sell them what they don't want.

One of these "plans" is an already implemented and working solution that seems to give its users the fastest 68k alternative available. No need to consider feasibility at that stage.

An Amiga Cherry Pi (I like cherry better) would have to be a SoC ASIC to be close to as cheap as the Raspberry Pi. It would be difficult to compete with the Raspberry Pi in price and energy efficiency. I would rather target a DVD (optionally Blu-ray DVD) player box kind of like the old PS2 (which is way better than a cheap CD32) but with a removable DVD drive and more expandable (usb, ethernet, wifi, etc,). I think an ASIC enchanced 68k could play HD movies no problem. I would include an FPGA like a Cyclone V which could be used for emulation, acceleration of some tasks, and for embedded uses. It would eventually be able to emulate whatever gaming CD is placed in the drive up to a PS2. Keep everything open so people can use an internet browser (which still can't be done on the PS3). Using the AmigaOS or AROS 68k, 1GB of memory should be plenty. I would aim for a price of $100-200. We would probably need to sell 40k units. I wonder if there were that many people on the Natami forum in it's prime when it generated 300,000+ hits in one thread.

Cool. Wake me up from my cryo-sleep when you have a prototype ready! I'm sure people would have been interested in that DVD drive 15 years ago.

[matthey]

One of these "plans" is an already implemented and working solution that seems to give its users the fastest 68k alternative available. No need to consider feasibility at that stage.

I'm sure people would have been interested in a processor as fast as a 20 year old Pentium and with a 30 year old ISA 15 years ago .

Cool. Wake me up from my cryo-sleep when you have a prototype ready! I'm sure people would have been interested in that DVD drive 15 years ago.

It's important to keep the price down for the masses and provide more freedom with a replaceable drive. Some people would rather have a DVD-R than a Blu-ray read only drive for example. A DVD drive may be a good enough base standard but it depends on how cheap Blu-ray drives could be bought. Consoles, DVD/Blu-ray players and TV service boxes are too limiting and not open enough. It's really frustrating to have so much power sitting there and only being able to do what they will let you.

[ferrellsl]

@MattHey
Here's an idea.  If your processor design is so much better than Gunnar's then why don't you develop it and stop pestering the crap out of Gunnar!?  Go off and develop your own!

[wawrzon]

i hope no bad blood develops here, just a discussion, because none can actually force the people doing work into something, but they might be convinced if the arguments are right.
meanwhile:
http://www.apollo-core.com/knowledge.php?b=1¬e=2679&z=qHDEuq
68020 support, i hope its full.

[biggun]

Technically it should be possible to make an ASIC .

An ASIC always sounds nice.
But I think that using FPGA has lots of advantages too.

In an FPGA you can test and evolve the design over and over again.
The Vampire 600 FPGA is not big, and when we started the port
of Apollo to it, I was not sure that we could fit much of Apollo in it.

The FPGA allowed to tweak, tune, and optimise the design.
and now we have 68020 software support and still not to bad performance and all this in this small FPGA.

This shows the big advantage that FPGA give you for development.
You can tune and tweak and develop 100 evolutions of a design.
Producing 100 ASIC evolutions would have cost a fortune....

Low end FPGA are not costly.
So the ASIC has not even  price advantage to very low end FPGAs.

The only real advantage on an ASIC would be speed.
Sure with an ASIC we could dream of reaching a gigaherz ...

But we are not there yet - we need a lot more time to develop our ideas.
To test the SAGA chipset etc.
And for this FPGAs are really great.

[wawrzon]

@gunnar
couldnt agree more.

[Lord Aga]

Yup, FPGAs are ideal for what we need at the moment. Quite possibly the savior of Amiga tech. No-one would have enough money to bake multiple ASIC revisions for testing purposes.

[kolla]

I agree, FPGA is cheap enough and fast enough for m68k AmigaOS. Matthey, I understand your concerns, and I'm sure your points will materialize themselves when/if no compilers supports the changes/improvements that Gunnar has done. In the meantime, I dont think anyone/anything prevents someone else, for example you, from doing a more "conservative" m68k core for the Vampire boards.

But yeah, a m68k cherry pi would be awesome, I would guaranteed buy a few, especially if the m68k has MMU and can run Linux, I want real hardware for my Linux/m68k again

My suggestion is to ignore what Gunnar is doing and join forces with other more likeminded people and "do it right", the best solution will win, right?

[OlafS3]

I'm sure people would have been interested in a processor as fast as a 20 year old Pentium and with a 30 year old ISA 15 years ago .



It's important to keep the price down for the masses and provide more freedom with a replaceable drive. Some people would rather have a DVD-R than a Blu-ray read only drive for example. A DVD drive may be a good enough base standard but it depends on how cheap Blu-ray drives could be bought. Consoles, DVD/Blu-ray players and TV service boxes are too limiting and not open enough. It's really frustrating to have so much power sitting there and only being able to do what they will let you.

I am sure that you are honest with what you are writing and really mean it but for now Gunnar offers the best 68k solution ever available and a payable also. That is what we need, a major hardware upgrade including 68k (at least 68020 compatible) and better graphics and sounds. I do not know whom you know or not but I do not believe at people investing millions of dollars in the market, not before products are there and the need is obvious. When you can show a working system and proof your concept by sales then you can go to a investor, not the other way round. Investors are cold calculators, they look how big is risk, what have I to invest and what do I earn and they expect a business plan. So first step is a working FPGA based system that can already be used with software being adapted to. I think we should gunnar simply let do his job. I see (from videos) more and more software running at a very high speed (and there is no improved chipset/RTG yet) that counts for me (and most others) and not abstract discussions about ISA details.

[kolla]

I take it for granted that people here are aware of FPGA Arcade and MiST? There seem to be many m68k softcores around, I suspect they are based on TG68.

[ppcamiga1]

I recall a target of PS2 level performance and faster than a 68060.

I recall a target of PS3 level performance, gunnar von boehn later changed his promises to PS2 level performance. gunnar always promised that the cpu will be faster than g4.

gunnar where is my Natami ?