Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Hollywood MAL AMIStore App Store A600 Memory

AuthorTopic: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000  (Read 1391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline psxphill

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #105 on: August 15, 2016, 09:55:13 AM »
Quote from: biggun;812567
Here is the AIBB speed comparison of the cards that you can buy TODAY for A600 / A500  / A2000 / A1000

http://www.apollo-core.com/index.htm?page=performance


Where can you buy one today? All I found was a place to pre-order one.
 

Offline Sparky

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #106 on: August 15, 2016, 10:12:20 AM »
Quote from: psxphill;812587
Where can you buy one today? All I found was a place to pre-order one.

It's not a mass produced item, so you get in the queue and as they get made they get dished out.
This is probably the best place for "how to buy" .. has link to where to go :-)
http://www.apollo-accelerators.com

I have one, so the process does work ... though maybe with a little application with the cat o'nine tails they could churn them out faster ;-)
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 10:37:35 AM by Sparky »
 

Offline AJCopland

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #107 on: August 15, 2016, 10:28:15 AM »
Quote from: psxphill;812587
Where can you buy one today? All I found was a place to pre-order one.


http://kipper2k.com/accel600.html

That's who I got mine from, though there is a BIG backlog of orders right now.

Offline kolla

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #108 on: August 15, 2016, 01:54:45 PM »
Quote from: Sparky;812586
Wow ... is nothing good enough anymore ?


Well, the 68080 in its current state is not good enough to replace my 68060 systems, that's for sure.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM460 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline Iggy

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #109 on: August 15, 2016, 02:30:17 PM »
Quote from: Terminills;812548
iirc Jim has a long history of hardware design.

I've read Jim's quotes and whether he has a history or not seems irrelevant as he apparently either has developed biases or...he simply doesn't  know what he is talking about.
CISC vs. RISC - the important factor is IPC (or in most cases cycle per instruction).
The reason CISC seems to do more is that the instructions DO, but in how much time?

It is a question of efficiency.

AMD uses RISC at the core of all recent CISC cores.
CISC instructions are decoded internally into strings of RISC instructions.
If the CISC instructions were more efficient, they simply wouldn't bother?

I built my first computer in the '70's (you know, kind of "here's the bare board, now populate it, debug it, THEN try to get software working on it").
I continue to work with hardware to this day.

If I'd paid attention to all the "Jims" along the way, I would have made some pretty dumb decisions.

Remember, success in the market is NOT always tied solely to specific design issues.
The factors that influence  that are far more complex.
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

Offline kolla

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #110 on: August 15, 2016, 02:34:12 PM »
Quote from: IanP;812579
EC in Motorola 680x0 processor naming stands for Embedded Controller. As such it is cut down is some way(s) compared to the full version of that CPU, be it data bus width, address bus width, FPU, MMU or instruction set. Although targeted at the embedded market they are also suitable for general computer use when cost is an issue.

What the Apollo team choose to call their cores and what they choose to implement in them is up to them. The cores are not 68000, 68020, 68030, 68040 or 68060 clones in either Full or EC configurations, they implement the vast majority of (used by Amiga/Mac etc software) instructions from across the range of MC680x0 CPUs as well as new instructions not found on any MC680x0 CPU. Lack of an MMU doesn't require them to label their cores as EC. Inclusion of an FPU is planned for the future. The Apollo Cores in the Vampire boards are FAST for a 680x0 compatible FPGA core on a low cost FPGA.


That is all well and good, so a comparison with FAST existing 680x0 solutions would be much more preferable than a comparison with the lowest possible clocked 68060.
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM460 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline Iggy

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #111 on: August 15, 2016, 02:34:15 PM »
Quote from: IanP;812579
...The Apollo Cores in the Vampire boards are FAST for a 680x0 compatible FPGA core on a low cost FPGA.

No, not really.
The 680x0 is just really slow compared to even the low-end FPGAs of today.

Its an Apples and Oranges comparison.

The former started out about 30 years ago.
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #112 on: August 15, 2016, 03:00:46 PM »
Quote from: Iggy;812595
AMD uses RISC at the core of all recent CISC cores.
CISC instructions are decoded internally into strings of RISC instructions.
If the CISC instructions were more efficient, they simply wouldn't bother?
So does intel. You seem confused.  

The point why CISC works better these days is because the instructions are shorter, and memory bandwidth and cache capacity matters more than back then.  

Shorter, more powerful instructions -> more instructions fit into the cache, more work is done per instruction.

Once the instruction is in the internal wirings of the CPU, it does not really matter anymore. The CPU can operate at the full clock rate, and *there* it makes sense to split the instructions up into smaller units because you can pipeline the pieces. It's much more convenient for the CPU core.
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #113 on: August 15, 2016, 03:03:55 PM »
Quote from: Iggy;812597
No, not really.
The 680x0 is just really slow compared to even the low-end FPGAs of today.
Huh? How fast an FPGA is depends on what it is programmed to do. Yes, an FPGA will be slower than an ASIC, and that will be slower than raw silicon. But we don't have any.

Yet, technology advanced, and an FPGA can be programmed to be faster than raw silicon back then. That's not surprising.

What might be interesting in how far the FPGA hardware "emulation" performs compared to a software emulation on top of a PPC. I wouldn't hold my breath, but my best guess is that the FPGA is here the better option.
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #114 on: August 15, 2016, 03:05:58 PM »
Quote from: Iggy;812597
No, not really.
The 680x0 is just really slow compared to even the low-end FPGAs of today.

Its an Apples and Oranges comparison.

The former started out about 30 years ago.


not long ago, before igor came around and made his first attempts as what appeared to become 68000 decelerator best case, every regular discussion about possibility of an 68k fpga accelerator led to agreement, that it isnt workable, at least beyond 68000 at the speed equivalent of 68030/25, as tg68k was. tg is probably most advanced, at least when it comes to open source 68k cores, and has not seen any more development for years, afair some bitfield instructions have been added, but thats it.

so maybe it is just overall inability and lack of creativity of amiga fans. but in current comparison vampire cards are fast and cheap. i know that you always make bold statements, as when you promissed to deliver an os4 ppc platform within a year, but you are talking here about a real project and people doing actual development. some respect is due, imho.
 

Offline Acill

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #115 on: August 15, 2016, 03:24:41 PM »
Hey can we get back on topic of this thread please? It would be nice to see a moderator move these last several replies to a new thread about the processors they are talking about and leave the stuff about the vampire in here. I am getting a bit tired of seeing the off topic stuff when I want to read more about the new accelerators.

:furious::rtfm:
Proud Retired Navy Chief!

A4000T - CSPPC - Mediator
Powerbook G4 15", 17"
Powermac G5 2GHZ
AmigaOne X5000
Need Amiga recap or other services in the US? Visit my website at http://www.acill.com and take a look or on facebook at http://facebook.com/acillclassics
 

Offline Iggy

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2016, 05:00:23 PM »
Quote from: Thomas Richter;812598
So does intel. You seem confused.  

The point why CISC works better these days is because the instructions are shorter, and memory bandwidth and cache capacity matters more than back then.  

Shorter, more powerful instructions -> more instructions fit into the cache, more work is done per instruction.

Once the instruction is in the internal wirings of the CPU, it does not really matter anymore. The CPU can operate at the full clock rate, and *there* it makes sense to split the instructions up into smaller units because you can pipeline the pieces. It's much more convenient for the CPU core.

That IS a good point, but confused? Not really.
A little bit it favor of one approach, a little for the other.
Using coarse definitions like CISC or RISC is somewhat deceptive.
How would you class specific processors?
For instance, take Coldfire.
It certainly has some reduction compared to the 68060.
But is it an RISC cpu?
After all, its still an offshoot of the 68K family.
Then there is ARM which grows upward in its higher end cpus, and yet strives to service the lower end with a more compact version of its basic instructions.
RISC? Of course, but one that strives to compete in the higher end (where CISC tends to dominate) and in the low end (where simpler cpus provide performance advantages (doubt me? seen any CISC Intel based cpus in cell phone?).
Then there is Power.
Risc?
Well...that was the original intention anyway.
And it holds true if you compare it to Intel's current lineup.

One or the other?
Not a choice I am making, I use whatever works best)
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

Offline kolla

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2016, 05:09:57 PM »
Aside from x86, what other genuine CISC architectures are still alive?
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC
---
A3000/060CSPPC+CVPPC/128MB + 256MB BigRAM/Deneb USB
A4000/CS060/Mediator4000Di/Voodoo5/128MB
A1200/Blz1260/IndyAGA/192MB
A1200/Blz1260/64MB
A1200/Blz1230III/32MB
A1200/ACA1221
A600/V600v2/Subway USB
A600/Apollo630/32MB
CD32/SX32/32MB/Plipbox
CD32/TF328
A500/V500v2
A500/MTec520
CDTV
MiSTer, MiST, FleaFPGAs and original Minimig
Peg1, SAM460 and Mac minis with MorphOS
 

Offline Iggy

Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #118 on: August 15, 2016, 05:18:53 PM »
Quote from: Thomas Richter;812599
Huh? How fast an FPGA is depends on what it is programmed to do. Yes, an FPGA will be slower than an ASIC, and that will be slower than raw silicon. But we don't have any.

Yet, technology advanced, and an FPGA can be programmed to be faster than raw silicon back then. That's not surprising.

What might be interesting in how far the FPGA hardware "emulation" performs compared to a software emulation on top of a PPC. I wouldn't hold my breath, but my best guess is that the FPGA is here the better option.

OK...now you have managed to confuse me.
Yes, faster, like ALL modern silicon, FPGAs have benefited from a reduction in process.
So, to give you a crude example, I can run a 6809 in a CycloneIII  based system (like my Altera DE-1) at 25 MHz.
Fastest legacy compatible?
The 63C09 which is listed at 3 MHz (although I run those at 3.58, and some have them clocked at 4 MHz or higher).

680x0?
Exactly the same.  Slow in legacy hardware, faster in newer FPGA based designs.

So crediting Gunnar for the speed of the device is completely deceptive.
And we haven't even addressed the ability to do things in in the FPGA re-implementation that weren't done in the legacy design (these are factors you CAN credit Gunnar for some of, and frankly, they are more important).

So...yes, when running older designs via FPGA there will always be improvement.
Newer designs?
Always a performance reduction.

Any other issues, Thomas?

BTW - FPGA emulation versus the use of a higher end cpu?
I want to know about that answer too.
The factors are complex.
The speed of a newer cpu would be uniformly much higher, but as someone who has had a hand in 6809 emulation under the 68000, I can tell you there is a great deal lost in the interpretation and translation.

However...I wouldn't get ready to inflate yourself at this point as we are talking about FPGAs that only run at about 10% of the speed of dedicated silicon.
Would a Vampire based system beat a PPC in the execution of 68K code?
My guess is that it would be closer to a draw.

Then there are the legacy Amiga elements outside the cpu that the FPGA provides for.
That will get really interesting when it come to comparisions.

However, a decent PC running something like UAE would probably have some advantages in a few areas (and the Vampire would in others).
Again, too complex to address in theory, lets benchmark.

Oh, sorry, one last thing.
What would the Apollo core manage in an ASIC?
Now there is an interesting proposal.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2016, 05:32:36 PM by Iggy »
"Not making any hard and fast rules means that the moderators can use their good judgment in moderation, and we think the results speak for themselves." - Amiga.org, terms of service

"You, got to stem the evil tide, and keep it on the the inside" - Rogers Waters

"God was never on your side" - Lemmy

Amiga! "Our appeal has become more selective"
 

guest11527

  • Guest
Re: A2080 i.e. Vampire 500 V2 on an Amiga 2000
« Reply #119 on: August 15, 2016, 06:31:23 PM »
Quote from: Iggy;812605
How would you class specific processors?
By the instruction set. Not by its internal workings.  
Quote from: Iggy;812605
For instance, take Coldfire.
It certainly has some reduction compared to the 68060.
But is it an RISC cpu?
No. Unlike RISC CPUs, it is not a load/store architecture, i.e. it supports instructions such as "add.l d0,-(a0)" which affects memory as a side effect of the instruction. This has a couple of implications on exception handling - and makes it much harder to recover from them.  
Quote from: Iggy;812605
Then there is ARM which grows upward in its higher end cpus, and yet strives to service the lower end with a more compact version of its basic instructions.
RISC? Of course, but one that strives to compete in the higher end (where CISC tends to dominate) and in the low end (where simpler cpus provide performance advantages (doubt me? seen any CISC Intel based cpus in cell phone?).
I do not know ARM well enough to tell, but given the size of the instruction and the number of registers, it is very much on the RISC side. Intel does have low-end CPUs (Atom), but they are not very successful marketing them.  
Quote from: Iggy;812605
Then there is Power.
Risc?
Well...that was the original intention anyway.
And it holds true if you compare it to Intel's current lineup.
POWER is very much on the RISC side.    
Quote from: Iggy;812605
Not a choice I am making, I use whatever works best)

Exactly. And that's precisely the point. My problem is to execute 68K programs. A PPC is not precisely good at it. It requires a software emulation layer, and that makes it comparably slow for the problem I want to solve. I cannot tell you how well it performs. I can only tell you how well my i5 here in the office performs at this problem. With all the emulation layers around it, I'm not very convinced that this is a good solution.