Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th Jan 2010 13:44 UTC
Amiga & AROS After days of wild speculation and ridiculously fast-growing threads on AmigaWorld.net, we finally know most of what we need to know about the new Amiga. This is not just a random PowerPC evaluation board that you can stuff in a generic case - no, this is an all-new system with a custom motherboard, and some very, very interesting innovations - like a fully customisable co-processor. Twenty-five years after the introduction of the first Amiga, this is one heck of a machine.
Thread beginning with comment 402578
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Interesting
by 7valleys on Tue 5th Jan 2010 15:24 UTC
7valleys
Member since:
2008-09-22

The specs are only slightly better than a netbook, but I wonder if the pluggable processors could provide some interesting opportunities? I had one of the first A1000s back in the day, but I think I'll give this a pass for now. I've got so much time and money invested in OS X and iPhone, that this is too little too late for me.....

Reply Score: 2

RE: Interesting
by Laurence on Tue 5th Jan 2010 15:49 in reply to "Interesting"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The specs are only slightly better than a netbook


In terms of GHz, you're right, but these days clock speeds are a poor indicator for a chips performance.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: Interesting
by KugelKurt on Tue 5th Jan 2010 19:25 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

In terms of GHz, you're right, but these days clock speeds are a poor indicator for a chips performance.


"Capable of eight concurrent real-time threads with shared memory space, at up to 400 MIPS"

400 MIPS? A Pentium Pro from 1996 does 541 MIPS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Million_instructions_per_second#Timeli...


"Reference boards have been made with up to 256 cores, offering a theoretical 102400 MIPS."

A single Intel Core i7 965EE CPU does 76383 MIPS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Interesting
by Raffaele on Tue 5th Jan 2010 15:59 in reply to "Interesting"
Raffaele Member since:
2005-11-12

The specs are only slightly better than a netbook, but I wonder if the pluggable processors could provide some interesting opportunities?


AHAHAHAH... Are you joking?

Define please a netbook hosting dualcore PPC powered at almost 1.5, or 1.75 GHz as AmigaOne X1000 (rumors from one of the developers).

A Dual Core PPC architecture with enough clock speed around 1.5 GHZ or 1.75 It is sure capable to outperform any Intel DualCore upto 2.0 GHz and to compete with Intel DualCore clocked at 2.2 2.4 GHz per core.

And mainly it will outperform direct opponents if it will be capable to run AmigaOS 4.x.
Infacts AmigaOS is truly sooo lower resource consuming that leaves almost the processor free of number-crunching.

And also this PowerPC fortunatley has not to deal with MacOS-X that contains fat-binary code (executables mixing PPC code with IntelX86 code) that in MacOS was really an iron ball tied to the legs of pooor innocent PowerPC processor.

If Apple had had leaved out IntelX86 code from MacOS-X fat-binaries and had made two different versions of its Mac-OS X, one optimized for intel, and the other for PowerPCs, then sure PPCs had doubled their performance, and had had being still usable nowadays with a PPC native Snow Leopard version.

I wonder why this anomalous fat-binary solution.

It seems to me that Apple made all in its possibilities to let Macintosh users to believe that PowerPCs were slow in performance by keeping deliberately them slow with fat-binary solution.

Edited 2010-01-05 16:19 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Interesting
by bloodline on Tue 5th Jan 2010 16:30 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
bloodline Member since:
2008-07-28



AHAHAHAH... Are you joking?

Define please a netbook hosting dualcore PPC powered at almost 1.5, or 1.75 GHz as AmigaOne X1000 (rumors from one of the developers).

A Dual Core PPC architecture with enough clock speed around 1.5 GHZ or 1.75 It is sure capable to outperform any Intel DualCore upto 2.0 GHz and to compete with Intel DualCore clocked at 2.2 2.4 GHz per core.


The PPC offers few architectural advantages over a modern Intel x86-64 chip an certainly any company producing this new PPC won't have the technology to implement their chip so that I could outperform intel on any level.

A dual core 1.5Ghz PPC is going to perform no better than the cheapest budget CPU from intel.

Running Logic Pro on my 1.5Ghz G4 and 2Ghz Athlon64 showed that the G4 was half as powerful as the Athlon64.

And mainly it will outperform direct opponents if it will be capable to run AmigaOS 4.x.
Infacts AmigaOS is truly sooo lower resource consuming that leaves almost the processor free of number-crunching.

And also this PowerPC fortunatley has not to deal with MacOS-X that contains fat-binary code (executables mixing PPC code with IntelX86 code) that in MacOS was really an iron ball tied to the legs of pooor innocent PowerPC processor.

If Apple had had leaved out IntelX86 code from MacOS-X fat-binaries and had made two different versions of its Mac-OS X, one optimized for intel, and the other for PowerPCs, then sure PPCs had doubled their performance, and had had being still usable nowadays with a PPC native Snow Leopard version.

I wonder why thuis anomlaous fat-binary solution.

The OSX fat binary solution requires more HD space, but only one chunk is loaded into memory... The chunk with the correct instruction set... The PPC version of OSX only loads the code relavant to it, it has no effect on speed of execution...

It seems to me that Apple made all in its possibilities to let Macintosh users to believe that PowerPCs were slow in performance by keeping deliberately them slow with fat-binary solution.


The PPC couldn't get enough money behind it to keep development equal to Intel and AMD, the CPU architecture offers few advantages over the x86-64 and has not had the same level of implementation development work done it... No PPC solution got offer the same price/performance ratio as x86-64... Apple were wise to get off that platform!

Edited 2010-01-05 16:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Interesting
by KugelKurt on Tue 5th Jan 2010 18:29 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

If Apple had had leaved out IntelX86 code from MacOS-X fat-binaries and had made two different versions of its Mac-OS X, one optimized for intel, and the other for PowerPCs, then sure PPCs had doubled their performance

Mac OS X never got slower on PPC after Universal Binaries were introduced.
In fact x86 and PPC code is entirely seperate, just glued together afterwards by GCC. It's easily possible to delete x86 code using either Monolingual or TrimTheFat. The only gain is saved disk space, not performance.
You can easily check by compiling some open source app as single-arch app and Universal app. There is no performance difference.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by 7valleys on Tue 5th Jan 2010 19:15 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
7valleys Member since:
2008-09-22

Ha, all the Apple half truths about PPC being so much better than intel bit them in the behind when they switched the Mac's processor and the intel machines at the same clock speed ran much, much, much faster....

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Interesting
by bert64 on Tue 5th Jan 2010 22:12 in reply to "RE: Interesting"
bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

MacOS 10.4 initially launched without fat binaries on PPC...
Later versions shipped with fat binaries for x86...
10.5, which was the first full fat binary version actually runs faster than 10.4 on PPC, having fat binaries did not halve performance from the previous versions of MacOS which were PPC only.

Also, you can strip the unwanted sections from fat binaries. Doing so saves you some disk space, but doesn't improve performance.

It's not fat binaries that slow down PPC, its the fact that the PPC chips being used by Apple were far slower than x86 chips... The only PPC chips with any level of performance these days are either extremely expensive (POWER) or very specialised (Cell).

A PPC native snow leopard would be perfectly usable, but why would Apple spend so much effort on an architecture which they have fully migrated away from?

Claiming that a 1.75GHz PPC will compete with a 2.4GHz x86 doesn't mean much, modern x86 chips are available at considerably higher speeds than that, quad and even 6 core are widely available too.

Reply Parent Score: 2