sa110
16/9/03 7:26PM |
Good news for Castle for future developments then.
--
Bletchley, Milton Keynes |
Spriteman
16/9/03 7:35PM |
Looks like 800MHz Iyonix might be available for the machine's first birthday. Depends on how quickly CTL can get their order processed.
--
Spriteman. |
Smiler (+2.0)
16/9/03 7:41PM |
Dare I say it: Could Castle use a processor bus so you can install any XScale processor that's code compatible in the slot? I know this is remarkabley like the RPC. I'm sure Castle could avoid bottle necks and would possibly make any furture Iyonix machines easily upgradable to a 1GHz+ processor, if it ever becomes available.
--
Smiler - 
Alex Melhuish |
AMS
16/9/03 7:48PM |
Very good news indeed.
The code compatibility is important, although that does not imply the design is pin compatible (so some re-arrangements on the Motherboard might be required).
Hang on it's got freaking 333MHz or 400MHz DDR Ram support (gulp), and DUAL ported at that.
Well spotted Steffen (and nicely written Chris).
Yes it does seem to give Castle options for future developments alright...
--
Annraoi McShane, |
The Doctor
16/9/03 10:20PM |
I really do wish that Castle had adopted some sort of Slot like CPU (like the RPC) in the Iyonix.
That would have easily allowed upgrades (CPU upgrades) to the machine regardless of the pin-out of the chip.
I wonder how long it will take this development to filter down to actual machines? |
mrchocky (-1.0)
16/9/03 10:26PM |
And would have added considerably to the price and the time to market.
--
Peter, drobe.co.uk |
simo
16/9/03 10:53PM |
I wouldn't have thought this could be made as an upgrade (unless they use some sort of pin adaptor a la 586 upgrades) but possibly a new machine or mobo swap-out?
Doesn't the Omega have faster RAM than the Iyonix or something? I guess this could bridge that gap.....
--
C'mon, mod me down, PUNK! |
hubersn (+4.5)
16/9/03 11:24PM |
The Omega uses slower RAM than the Iyonix (133 MHz SDRAM compared to 200 MHz DDR-RAM), and it already has problems with its Unified Memory Architecture (processor and video battle for the bandwidth).
I made a SparkFS compression benchmark where the Omega in 1600x1200 (TrueColour) was 15% slower than in 640x400 (16 colours). And this is with a comparatively bandwidth saving StrongARM, which can only consume 66 MB/s (from around 800 MB/s real world bandwith on the Omega). Now consider a bandwidth hungry modern ARM processor inside the Omega.
Full Iyonix vs. Omega details along with real world benchmarks on my website soon.
Steffen |
hubersn (+3.0)
16/9/03 11:32PM |
Talk about a possible "CPU slot" is really not sensible if you look at the facts.
The new IOP331 has a PCI bridge on chip, which means the PCI bridge of the Iyonix could be omitted. IOP331 does not only support DDR400 RAM, it needs it (at least the 800 MHz variant if I read the docs correctly) - Iyonix-used RAM would be no longer compatible.
The local bus which IIRC is used for the podule slots in the Iyonix has changed considerably.
The pinout is totally different. The necessary surroundings including the bootstrapping from the OS would need to be different.
All in all, in the fast moving world of non-pin compatible ARM variants, it is no longer sensible to produce something like an "open processor bus". Designing a new motherboard is a lot easier than figuring out a scalable, processor independant bus protocol. You would need to abstract so much that it would take an infinite amount of time to get it right.
Anyway, it is interesting to see that the 80200 (which was planned to be used in the Omega) seems to be a dead end, and Intel concentrates on highly integrated devices for their IO processor stuff.
Steffen |
The Doctor
17/9/03 9:20AM |
Thanks for that information Steffen, I see your points.
Looking forward to seeing the bench tests of both machines as well.
Cheers! |
Loris
17/9/03 9:23AM |
This is very interesting.
But look at the power consumption:
"Typical power consumption of 7.5 watts (500 MHz)"
thats massive!
The StrongARM draws 0.9W at 200Mhz. Clearly Intel is doing what it likes to do and ramping up the power drain.
Actually thats a little unfair, apparently the SA only takes 0.3W at 160Mhz, so clearly there is not a linear relationship.
Maybe in a few years we'll have ARMs drawing hundreds of Watts, like the nascent pentiums.
I'm also a bit confused by this:
Local Bus Width:
Intel® IOP331 I/O Processor Chipset: 8/16 Bits (66 MHz)
Intel® IOP321 I/O Processor Chipset: 32 Bits (up to 100 MHz)
What is this local bus? Whatever it is, it seems to be slower and narrower than the current Iyonix |
hubersn (+3.0)
17/9/03 10:21AM |
The IOP's local bus is an additional method to connect things to the processor. In contrast to PCI, this is a "generic" bus, which has advantages if you want to connect non-PCI stuff. I am not sure why Intel have changed the specification for that local bus so dramatically, but 16bits/66 MHz still provides more than enough bandwidth to cater for podules.
As I said before, IIRC that local bus is used in the Iyonix for the podule slots. I could be wrong however, my TRM has not been delivered yet.
Considering the power consumption: keep in mind that the IOP331 does a lot more than a StrongARM. It contains a complete PCI bridge, a DDR RAM controller, caches and buffers for PCI interaction...it is a complete "system on a chip", while the StrongARM was comparably simple and contains only the processor.
Steffen |
hubersn (+3.0)
17/9/03 10:31AM |
My comment about the maximum RAM bandwidth used by the StrongARM is obviously wrong. The StrongARM (at least the 110 variant used in RiscPCs and the Omega) has an external bus of 66 MHz and 32bit, leading to a maximum bandwidth consumption of 264 MB/s. The XScale 80200 processor (planned to use for the Omega) has an external bus of 100 MHz and 64bit, i.e. max. 800 MB/s.
Steffen |
em2ac
17/9/03 1:50PM |
I think that everyone seems to have forgotten that Castle stated that the processor would be on the MB, because by the time another Processor would be out, most of the board would need replacing to use all of the features, this would also mean that RISC OS would not suffer from the 10 year wait from the lauch of the RiscPC to get a newer better architechture |
harmsy
17/9/03 4:45PM |
So will this make it into the Omega as well?
--
Andrew Harmsworth, Cambridge.
www.gcse.com owner and author |
Spriteman
17/9/03 5:37PM |
As always with the Omega - anything is possible.
Whether anything happens ... well that's another matter.
--
Spriteman. |
AMS
17/9/03 6:48PM |
In reply to Spriteman:
It burns fibble's eyes
To be fair I don't know how MD could be expected to allow for something like IOP331. Their xScale expansion slot will no doubt have allowed for an ARM style processor and its range of data/address and control signals. IOP331 goes beyond that in that it provides a PCI bridge, DDR RAM controller, 8/16bit local bus and so on.
Then there's the software aspect, if the Omega is using the 331's memory controller and PCI bridge then (inevitably) RISC OS 4.XX (which is not hardware abstracted) would need to be sizeably altered (remember the MD systems intent is to make it's hardware look like a RPC to RISC OS so that RISC OS can work with it).
So I'd say the existing Omega motherboard wouldn't support it and would need to be replaced (FPGA's can't work around the abscence of 331 required pads or tracks on the motherboard !!!!). And then there's RISC OS 4.XX/Select which won't hack it either.
--
Annraoi |
Spriteman
17/9/03 7:06PM |
In reply to AMS:
TBH I don't know what I'm talking about here, but that hasn't stopped anyone else. So, here goes:
I doubt the Omega /needs/ any of the extra functions the IOP331 or similar provide. After all, it is currently using a plain, old StrongARM processor rather than any system-a-chip doohicky. I suspect it would be possible to use the IOP chip without using these extra functions. What effects this would have on processor card design or anything else - I don't know.
--
Spriteman. |
AMS (+2.5)
17/9/03 7:17PM |
But it needs DDR RAM to work, that is supported by the IOP331's memory controller - but not by anything on the Omega motherboard.
Having a machine with working memory is cool I find 
--
Annraoi McShane, |
dgs (+3.0)
17/9/03 7:36PM |
em2ac said "Castle stated that the [Iyonix] processor would be on the motherboard, because by the time another processor would be out, most of the board would need replacing to use all of the features"
Quite right. Given what's been written about IOP331 supporting 333MHz or 400MHz RAM (as against 200MHz on the current Iyonix, 133MHz on the current Omega where available, "16MHz" on all non-Kinetic RiscPCs), it would be well worth Castle's while redesigning the motherboard to support this. That's even if a different pinout doesn't require it anyway!
And if they go that far, they might as well update a fair proportion of the other facilities as well. A total redesign of this nature takes a long time (just look at the time gaps between equivalent Acorn systems).
So an Iyonix 2 isn't anywhere in the visible future, I'm afraid.
But these chip developments certainly give encouraging signs that Castle/Tematic's choice of chip for the Iyonix is very far indeed from a dead end.
dgs |
Spriteman
18/9/03 11:57AM |
Intel only announced the IOP321 in February 2002 and we had the Iyonix Q4 that same year. Do you really think CTL are going to take years to tweak the motherboard?
--
Spriteman. |
imj
18/9/03 2:06PM |
Do you really think developers had no visibility of processors before they're announced?  <FX: taps his 733Mhz XScale box here> |
arawnsley (+2.5)
18/9/03 2:11PM |
In reply to Spriteman:
this is not entirely a question of whether they "can" as whether it is yet financially viable to do so. In other words, has the existing machine generated enough income to make a successor a viable proposition? And would a new varient with a "bit" faster processor and RAM result in new sales that would not happen otherwise? Of course, other markets may open up with improved specs, so that may well drive things forward, but one suspects that each such project would need to be financially viable, as well as technically so... |
AMS
19/9/03 11:27AM |
In reply to imj:
Ok, I'll go for the bait. So what 733MHz XScale box would that be then
--
Annraoi |
NeilWB (-1.0)
19/9/03 12:15PM |
In reply to AMS:
I'm sure he means an X-Box!
Neil |
john
19/9/03 12:43PM |
I'm vaguely interested in an iyonix, a small increase isn't going to sway me, but, say, a 2GHz one would likely do so. Select on iyonix would also be likely to sway me. Bascially I'm not paying 1300 /and/ lose Select, for such a small (3x) IMHO increase. 10x or 20x would be significant for me though. Select compatibility is more important to me than speed, therefore I still have a RPC |
Spriteman
19/9/03 12:55PM |
In reply to arawnsley:
Yes, you are completely correct. This is undoubtably why Acorn usually had such a time gap between models. However, one thing worth considering is that the upgrade would be more similar to the RiscPC600 > RiscPC700 upgrade than the A4x0/1 > A5000. (Yes, I understand it's not a simple processor card swap).
In reply to imj:
Yes, of course developers get access to the goodies in advance. But perhaps that means CTL have had the specs for months now and have a motherboard design done </not really serious>
--
Spriteman. |
mrtd (+2.5)
19/9/03 1:15PM |
As Andrew says, I have doubts that developing a new iyonix MoBoard makes sense in terms of return on investment. I doubt that Castle could produce a replacement package that would of interest to most existing Iyonix owners at a sensible price. For my money, the machine is fast enough as it is for what I do.
But there is another possible reason Castle might do it, and that is obscelescence. Intel presumably see the 331 as a replacement for the 321, so perhaps the 321 will become obsolete, forcing Castle to move on if they want to continue to sell Iyonixes.
Martin
--
Martin Dixon, LEICESTER |
AMS
19/9/03 3:29PM |
The documentation on the IOP331 indicates the steppings are "engineering samples" and the documents are dated in September, so it's highly unlikely anyone in Castle (or most other places outside Intel) have seen 'em yet, let alone designed a motherboard to take them.
It'll probably happen in time, just not quite yet.....
--
Annraoi |
mrtd
19/9/03 8:19PM |
Actually, if the new 331 based Iyonix was a laptop, it would probably do rather well!
Martin
--
Martin Dixon, LEICESTER |
| Use the forum for more comments on this article |
The 