Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Topic started by: SysAdmin on December 26, 2012, 07:40:51 PM
-
News from ASiegel (MorphZone)
Harry "Piru" Sintonen provided information regarding the status of the MorphOS port for Apple's PowerMac G5:
Everything is progressing nicely. Bigfoot also did some preliminary benchmarking using the same LAME (13 seconds) and MPlayer (49 seconds) benchmarks as used here. (This is with the 2.0 GHz G5.)
Screenshot: http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/another-g5-monitorshot.jpeg
Merry XMAS everyone.
-
Good new, I hope it will ready soon.
P.s.
Looking at that screenshot, most usefull information Computer turned on: YES .... lol
-
I have a Dual 2.5 Ghz G5 PowerMac I bought in September 2004 and was wondering if I can use it with MorphOS in the future? It needs repair and I was just going to get rid of it but if MorphOS will support it maybe I'll get it fixed.
-
This is great news. I miss Piru posting here... Guess he's busy with coding.
G5 G5 G5
I can't wait... Quad core g5's are pretty cheap... Though I know morphOS will only support one core I figure I can triple boot linux, macosx AND morphOS, so I 'd still prefer a quad core, because I'd like to be able to use final cut on macosx.
Pyromania, It should work with MorphOS, but only one core will be supported.
-
Does anyone know what the last (best/most powerful) Power Mac G5 was that did NOT have liquid cooling? I would like to start shopping prices and I prefer an Air Cooled unit I think. Cool News on MorphOS for g5! Thanks for any advice.
-
Does anyone know what the last (best/most powerful) Power Mac G5 was that did NOT have liquid cooling? I would like to start shopping prices and I prefer an Air Cooled unit I think. Cool News on MorphOS for g5! Thanks for any advice.
Your right to want the Air Cooled one, I think the liquid cooling killed my PowerMac G5.
:(
-
Now this is interesting news, might have to keep an eye out for a dual g5. Always liked the look of them :-)
-
Already bought a 2.7ghz Liquid Cooled G5 mac, and swapped the LCS system for some passive heatsinks. Conversion worked great. :) Just pick up some passive heatsinks from a 2.0ghz G5 mac.
-
The only one with Liquid Cooling is the Early 2005 Dual 2.7 GHz. All the other ones are Large Heat Sync with Fan Arrays.
I love the design of the G5, it's some of the Jony Ive's best work. I have a Dual 1.8 Ghz collecting dust (waiting for Morhos), and a Quad 2.5 GHz running Kubuntu 12.04.
-
Makes me sorry I got rid of mine...well, not quite, that thing was damn loud. My PDP-11 has it beat for decibels, but it's at least nice large low-frequency fans, as compared to the G5 Quad's jet engines... :/
-
The dual CPU 2.5 and 2.7 are liquid-cooled and so are all PCIe/dual-core G5 (the Quad has 2 dual-core G5 and is a wet as it gets).
The fastest air-cooled is the dual CPU 2.3 GHz (not to be mistaken with the dual-core at 2.3GHz).
Putting an air-cooler into an unit designed for LCS might work ..... for a moment .... (aka really stupid idea),
I'd say anything with an AGP-Slot does have a realistic chance for MorphOS, those with PCIe not in the forseeable future.
But as allways, wait till offcial announcement before buying HW ;)
-
Putting an air-cooler into an unit designed for LCS might work ..... for a moment .... (aka really stupid idea),
Well guess my G5 is gonna get steam rolled since I replaced the failing LCS with some passive heatsinks. So far its been a few weeks and working great... Wonder how long its gonna take before she gives up.
-
I will have to wait till my 2nd 2.7ghz G5 comes in, do some testing/temps on the LCS, then drop in some 2.0CPUs to see if the logic board will take them.
Thing was that the LCS and the Passives were reading around the same temps, but i think this was because the board thinks the LCS is still used, though the Passives are in it now... Readouts on temps were slightly lower on the Passive, but maybe because the LCS in it was failing? Either way, stay tuned as I blow up this G5 for experiment! :)
-
The only one with Liquid Cooling is the Early 2005 Dual 2.7 GHz. All the other ones are Large Heat Sync with Fan Arrays.
I love the design of the G5, it's some of the Jony Ive's best work. I have a Dual 1.8 Ghz collecting dust (waiting for Morhos), and a Quad 2.5 GHz running Kubuntu 12.04.
Nope, mine also has Liquid Cooling and it's a 2004 2.5 Ghz Dual G5. Jony Ive is a great designer, very true. What is Morhos?
:)
-
Given that the cooling in the G5s isn't completly dumb, there is also the possibilty that your 2.7GHz CPUs get throttled due to inefficient cooling...
/me ist just gonna stick to his 2x2.3GHz.
-
It's nice to finally have it on the G5 CPU, but good luck finding a PowerMac G5 with an ATI graphics card.
-
It's nice to finally have it on the G5 CPU, but good luck finding a PowerMac G5 with an ATI graphics card.
What is so hard about it?
-
Every single one I see has a geforce card.
-
Every single one I see has a geforce card.
I think it has PCI Express, so can just swap them over.
-
I believe it has to be flashed for Mac usage too, doesn't it?
-
Guys, A ! G ! P G5 Macs with Radeon GFX are easily found on EBay or elsewhere.... so why don't you just pick up one of those ?
-
I know you can flash some of the nvidia cards, but I am unsure on the ATI cards. The best ATI card released for the PCIe G5 is the X1900. Something like this:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Mac-Edition-G5-PCIe-ATI-Radeon-x1900-256MB-Video-Card-/270620079478
I believe the best nvidia officially released was the OEM 6600 but I have seen 6800 and 7800 ones, perhaps those are flashed firmware as I have seen some mentions of that. Some links that may be of use to you all:
http://www.lowendmac.com/deals/best-power-mac-g5-prices.html
http://www.macintouch.com/reliability/pmg5.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/index-powermac-g5.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/faq/powermac-g5-adc-ports-dvi-ports-resolutions-supported.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powermac_g5/faq/powermac-g5-number-type-speed-pci-pci-x-pcie-slots.html
At least with the PCI-X based G5s you can probably use some regular AGP and PCI Mac video cards.
I have a quad G5 with a 6600, might upgrade to an X1900 one day but I'm on the fence about that.
-
Ohlordletitrainbrain
-
Awesome!
-
Great news about the MOS progress for the G5 Poweracs.
About the LCS issues...
I own a G5 Quad. The LCS on it is still running fine, with no leaks, or issues.
AFAIK, the latter produced LCS G5 Powermacs have an improved LCS system over the kind that was originally released and is/was prone to more frequent leaking and issues.
I did however see in general even the G5 Quad (which falls under the latter produced G5 systems category) mentioned over the internet as causing issues and leaks, so I guess no LCS G5 Powermac is completely immune to risks of LCS issues.
Does anyone have any feedback about their LCS system on a G5 Quad?
-
Great news about the MOS progress for the G5 Poweracs.
About the LCS issues...
I own a G5 Quad. The LCS on it is still running fine, with no leaks, or issues.
AFAIK, the latter produced LCS G5 Powermacs have an improved LCS system over the kind that was originally released and is/was prone to more frequent leaking and issues.
I did however see in general even the G5 Quad (which falls under the latter produced G5 systems category) mentioned over the internet as causing issues and leaks, so I guess no LCS G5 Powermac is completely immune to risks of LCS issues.
Does anyone have any feedback about their LCS system on a G5 Quad?
I will rebuild one of the LCS blocks on my spare G5 2.7 dual tower. I think the Delphi ones were known to leak. After overlooking the tutorial it seems its feasible to easily rebuild them. Gonna be a hard ass and use 90% distilled water and 10% automotive antifreeze. Replacing all tubing and installing a separate tube to fill up the radiator with.Gonna flush/clean the whole system and rip apart the pump and clean it the best I can with a toothbrush/rubbing alcohol.
-
Mine is a Dual 2.7 with the LCS, not an issue to date. Sleeps during the day and runs the BOINC client over night - heats the room nicely! Waiting for MorphOS...
-
There is an update (http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8934&forum=3&start=27) from Piru regarding the benchmarks, including numbers from a 2.5GHz G5 system!
:)
Benchmarks were updated again. After some tweaking 2.0GHz G5 lame is now 2secs faster (using the latest lame version with altivec patch and built for G5 specifically).
Also, the graphs now include 2.5GHz G5 results from my Power Mac G5. 9 seconds for lame, 39.9 seconds for mplayer.
http://sintonen.fi/pics/lame_benchmark.png
http://sintonen.fi/pics/mplayer_benchmark.png
Wow, the 2.5GHz G5 is TWICE(!) as fast as the X1000 in the lame test, and ~75% faster in decoding the H.264 full HD movie! :banana:
And it's not even the fastest G5 either... :D
It has been said before, but should be said again — The MorphOS Team for sure made the right decision when going for those cheap, widely available second hand Mac machines.
That was clearly the winning move!
:D
-
Some info on coolant leaks and repairing/rehauling:
leaks: http://xlr8yourmac.com/systems/G5_coolant_leaks.html
repairs: http://xlr8yourmac.com/systems/G5_CoolantLeak_Repair/G5_CoolantLeak_Repair_p1.html
other g5 articles: http://xlr8yourmac.com/systems.html#g5
Lotta blah blah blah on the leaks page but it at least has some pictures so you know what to look for. The Panasonic units were used later on and seem more reliable than the Delphi ones.
Any coolant system can break down, seals leaking, pump dying, etc. It's probably just a matter of time. My G5 quad is used pretty rarely and I don't know how used it was before I acquired it. No signs of leaking so far, at least.
-
And it's not even the fastest G5 either... :D
The only faster one for single-processor use is the 2.7, which isn't that much difference. Still, not too shabby at all ;)
-
The only faster one for single-processor use is the 2.7, which isn't that much difference. Still, not too shabby at all ;)
Since only one core is used it could be interesting to overclock it to 3.0 Ghz :-)
-
How would you overclock it?
-
Since only one core is used it could be interesting to overclock it to 3.0 Ghz :-)
As far as I am aware that's not possible on the G5 power macs?
-
The only faster one for single-processor use is the 2.7, which isn't that much difference.
That 8% extra in clock frequency could push the lame benchmark not too far off of 8s though (with a little creative rounding)... :p ;)
But more seriously: It is the fastest PPC desktop system ever built AFAIK. The champion of the class. It represents the peak of the PPC desktop era, how far the PPC platform ever reached in a desktop context. I hope MorphOS will run on it, as some kind of statement if for no other reason (like putting a flag on the moon or something).
(And soon it's about to be beaten by ARM ;))
:)
-
As far as I am aware that's not possible on the G5 power macs?
That is my understanding as well. There's some resistor blocks that might help but the firmware or environmental control module detects when the CPU is running at a different speed than the motherboard is expecting and puts the whole thing into failsafe mode, fans blast at full speed and the CPU underclocks (say running a 1.8 GHz in a 1.6 GHz motherboard, underclocks to 1.3 GHz and blasts fans).
The only attempt I've seen is the one I just mentioned but it was using a stock 1.8 GHz G5 in a stock 1.6 GHz motherboard. No overclocking involved. The fans didn't freak out under LinuxPPC but the speed was only 1.6 GHz or 1.3 GHz regardless.
So if the bloke knows how to overclock a G5, I'm curious on a technical level. If it's just wishful assumptions, well, I feel ya, buddy.
-
Sick of Mac talk.. Macs are only good for the following
http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/1007/04/mac2_couch.jpg
-
2 bad my NVidia based Macs are not supported. If multicore support is ever implemented in Amiga world things would start to be interesting.
-
That is my understanding as well. There's some resistor blocks that might help but the firmware or environmental control module detects when the CPU is running at a different speed than the motherboard is expecting and puts the whole thing into failsafe mode, fans blast at full speed and the CPU underclocks (say running a 1.8 GHz in a 1.6 GHz motherboard, underclocks to 1.3 GHz and blasts fans).
The only attempt I've seen is the one I just mentioned but it was using a stock 1.8 GHz G5 in a stock 1.6 GHz motherboard. No overclocking involved. The fans didn't freak out under LinuxPPC but the speed was only 1.6 GHz or 1.3 GHz regardless.
So if the bloke knows how to overclock a G5, I'm curious on a technical level. If it's just wishful assumptions, well, I feel ya, buddy.
Exactly, so as you said I would also be interested from a technical view to know if someone has done it (which I pretty much doubt).
-
Sick of Mac talk.. Macs are only good for the following
http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/1007/04/mac2_couch.jpg
Too bad for you then, since the PPC Mac HW is the cheapest and most powerful PPC mainstream hardware suitable for OS's tied to the PPC platform, like MorphOS and OS4 both are, and it comes in all kinds of shapes and forms; tiny footprint by the Mac Mini, big box by the Power Mac, true laptop by the PowerBook (and soon iBook as well). They are the only viable options, they are simply the best. But again - this is only relevant to anyone interested in OS's tied to PPC of course...
:)
-
2 bad my NVidia based Macs are not supported.
If the model per se is supported and it only comes down to some unsupported nVidia graphic card, then it can easily be replaced with a supported card. Cheap, and not particularly troublesome by any means.
If multicore support is ever implemented in Amiga world things would start to be interesting.
Multicore is irrelevant to anything Amiga, true SMP simply can't be achieved without breaking the Amiga compatibility. And if that's what you want to do — break the "Amiga" to introduce new, modern features like SMP, true memory protection, 64-bit etc, etc — then why bother with PPC at all? Wouldn't it be better to go x86 or ARM then, migrating to some platform that still has a pulse?
:confused:
-
There are various macs with nvidia video that cannot be replaced. As an example:
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac_700_fp.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/imac/specs/imac_g5_1.6_17.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_1.33_12.html
http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/specs/powerbook_g4_1.0_17.html
Though I suppose it's only an issue if MorphOS is ported to those platforms.
Multicore wouldn't really help the LAME benchmarks, but it would be useful in video encoding/transcoding and 3D rendering (i.e. fancy raytraced amiga balls).
I'd like to point out, too, that classic MacOS supported multiple CPUs in that it allowed specific applications to take advantage of them. Some of the old dual and quad PPC 603 systems had photoshop plugins that allowed photoshop to use multiple CPUs. The OS itself wasn't MP-aware and didn't do squat with the extra CPUs. Here's an example:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=1028
I'm just thinking, wouldn't it be nice to have Blender or Lightwave or whatever take advantage of multiple CPUs? Leave the rest of the OS and games and applications as they are. And classic MacOS did that without true memory protection, without 64-bit, and even without being a stable OS! :)
I'm not saying it's a must-have ability in MorphOS or AmigaOS 4.x or anything like that, but I think there are solutions that won't break existing things and there are benefits for multiple CPUs on a computing platform that's supposed to have a multimedia focus.
-
There are various macs with nvidia video that cannot be replaced.
...and those are obviously macs that per se isn't supported! ;)
Multicore wouldn't really help the LAME benchmarks, but it would be useful in video encoding/transcoding and 3D rendering (i.e. fancy raytraced amiga balls).
I'd like to point out, too, that classic MacOS supported multiple CPUs in that it allowed specific applications to take advantage of them. Some of the old dual and quad PPC 603 systems had photoshop plugins that allowed photoshop to use multiple CPUs. The OS itself wasn't MP-aware and didn't do squat with the extra CPUs. Here's an example:
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=1028
I'm just thinking, wouldn't it be nice to have Blender or Lightwave or whatever take advantage of multiple CPUs? Leave the rest of the OS and games and applications as they are. And classic MacOS did that without true memory protection, without 64-bit, and even without being a stable OS! :)
I'm not saying it's a must-have ability in MorphOS or AmigaOS 4.x or anything like that, but I think there are solutions that won't break existing things and there are benefits for multiple CPUs on a computing platform that's supposed to have a multimedia focus.
PowerUP all over again. Amiga did that in 1997 already, and this is very far from being as useful as SMP. Over at AW.net (http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35140&forum=33&start=80&viewmode=flat&order=0#694049) some are dreaming (they are always dreaming there, aren't they, always *waiting* for something) of telecom/network infrastructure CPU's like T4240, 1.8GHz with 12(!) dual threaded cores, which would of course be terribly unsuitable and an awful waste of resources with a aingle core OS doing it the PowerUP way. And if you are to break the Amiga compatibility anyway (hence starting over with a clean slate) in order to achieve modern features in the OS, like the true SMP that would be required to make real use of multiple cores, then why on earth would you use these kind of PPC CPU's instead of using proper mainstream desktop CPU's...?
:confused:
-
Wow, the 2.5GHz G5 is TWICE(!) as fast as the X1000 in the lame test
Correction: Make that THREE TIMES (http://www.morphzone.org/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?topic_id=8934&forum=3&start=32) as fast!
Holy Crap Batman! :crazy:
:D
-
PowerUP all over again. Amiga did that in 1997 already, and this is very far from being as useful as SMP.
Actually, for once, no. The PowerUp model is not remotely close to finding some nasty cooperative-style hack* to use the second core in, for example a dual core processor. Firstly, you aren't dealing with two different types of processor and secondly such processors implement hardware cache coherency between the cores. They have to - it would be utterly absurd in any SMP model where a task is moved onto a different core as part of regular task scheduling only to discover the L1 looked totally different than when it last ran. Usually, the only contention in multicore processors is when two cores need to access the same cacheline (and if they are both just reading it, that's not necessarily a problem) and there are well established hardware protocols for that too. I think the PA6T uses the MOESI strategy or something very similar.
*Of course, this is not SMP, or even AMP.
-
uote:
Originally Posted by takemehomegrandma
Wow, the 2.5GHz G5 is TWICE(!) as fast as the X1000 in the lame test
Correction: Make that THREE TIMES as fast!
Holy Crap Batman!
Really? 3x as fast? Even if its twice as fast thats funny. 3,000$ custom designed "amigaone" beaten in processor speed by double or triple by a 200-300$ ebay mac g5? Thats so funny... Unless you bought an x1000 I guess.
AOS really needs good cheap hardware.... I really hope Hyperion take their heads out of their asses someday.
-
Sick of Mac talk.. Macs are only good for the following
http://www.newlaunches.com/entry_images/1007/04/mac2_couch.jpg
Really couldn't care less about your opinion of Macs, as they now rule the NG Amiga world.
Ha, Ha!
-
Yes but that is a funny couch... Doesn't look too comfortable though...
-
Is a date set for the G5 release?
-
A g5 has been my daily driver for a couple years now, sinse I lost my A3000 hard drives. I have no experience yet with MorphOS, but, I think I will give it a try when it will run on G5 hardware.
I will keep OS10.4 around on the G4s. OSX is descent but always seems to be forcing me to do it Apple's way. MorphOS might be a nice change in this regard.
So, what's the ETA?
-
Is a date set for the G5 release?
The promise is that it will be available 3 months after Bigfoot received the PowerMac G5.
-
If you compare the ghz instead of the the fastest G5, the Amiga One is only 4 seconds slower.
I don't like the Amiga One at all personally. Too many people justified the high price. A handful of them who want an Amiga as there main system complain in slience.
Having a 2.5hgz system might encourage someone to do some nice app or game.
Is it possible to optimize software for a fast MorphOS machine?
-
Is it possible to optimize software for a fast MorphOS machine?
You could use Altivec.
-
If you compare the ghz instead of the the fastest G5, the Amiga One is only 4 seconds slower.
What do you mean?
:confused:
-
Thats so funny... Unless you bought an x1000 I guess.
Really? :D
-
The benchmarks show that the X1000 lags behind the faster 2Ghz G5.
On second thoughts there is quite a speed difference between the G5 and X1000.
The G4 is comparable in speed to the X1000, but slower still.
The X1000 is embarrassing itself, I wouldn't want one even as a collectors piece.
Plenty of people are excited about retro collecting and using their original Amigas. Not many people are that excited about running a PowerPC Amiga.
In other news: Both intel and AMD are selling less chips, because less people want a desktop computer or laptop.
-
This place is so god damned predictable, lol. News breaks, 5 pages of "hey, that's cool!" before things turn red and blue.
Hey, Red and Blue. Let me remind you of something, and I do so as a member of both camps.
Your benchmarks and fancy numbers mean nothing. Your dual core specs, fancy tacked on special chips, mean nothing. No one is rendering on these machines. No one is encoding audio on them. People doing benchmarks on any of them to show superiority over the "enemy" are doing so because they have small pee pees, lol. Same guys are using their daily driver Mac's and Wintel boxes for anything that requires a bit of grunt, not 10 year old PPC tech. Use what you like, whether it be a Legacy machine you've sunk $4000 into, one of the various emulation solutions, or one of the NG PPC machines. Whether it be OS4, MOS, AROS or plain old C= WB/KS - we use it cause we get a kick out of it. Not cause it'll do "blah blah faster in such and such benchmark that no one ever uses on the machines anyways".
There will be no rebirth of the Amiga in the mainstream. The days of the Toaster are gone. These machines need to be kludged to do things a 5 year old smartphone can do in regards to real world usage. Sorry. It's a hobby now. Enjoy it. I do.
I can find an Intel commodity PC in the trash with Windows on it that will run circles around any of these NG platforms. I can find a PPC Mac in the same trash bin and leave OSX on it and it will be infinitely more functional than MOS would be on it for 99.99% of people in this world. I can fire up Blender on a 3 year old netbook and run circles around an X1000 running Blender.
Dickie measuring contests are great fun, until everyone shows up at the ruler packing a one inch package, you know?
Enjoy them for what they are. A real fun alternative.
-
@Duce
What's really funny is how some (always the same it seems) people so predictably gets upset as soon as something like this is being compared, and can't restrain themselves from moaning about it. Comparisons are good things, not bad, it helps shedding light about different options, it brings enlightenment, even with isolated and "synthetic" benchmarks it helps bringing a picture about how different options relates to each other in a bang for buck context:
- IIRC, a X1000 system did cost $3,000+
- A second hand PowerMac G5 2.5 GHz costs 1/10th of that (or much less even) and shows THREE TIMES the performance in the lame test.
Updated graph (http://sintonen.fi/pics/lame_benchmark.png)
Higher performance = better.
Lower price = better.
Those two combined = the best.
(And this without even touching the benefits of MorphOS in favor of OS4) ;)
:)
-
I will keep OS10.4 around on the G4s. OSX is decent but always seems to be forcing me to do it Apple's way. MorphOS might be a nice change in this regard.
NetBSD? Yellow Dog Linux? http://penguinppc.org/ ?
I'm on 10.5 for all my G4's and G5. 10.3 for the G3's. I know that some people think 10.5 is slower than 10.4, but 10.4 never really did it for me and I never cared about running Classic--I've got real 68k Macs if I need to do that. Then again the G4's I have are all above 1 GHz and 1 GB of RAM so maybe that's why I don't notice it being horribly slow.
-
I'm fine with comparisons. But I'm also happier to put them into real world perspective - no one in their right mind is going out to buy 150 used PPC Mac's or X1000 machines to set up a render farm. It's money in the toilet, an exercise in inefficiency. A $300 commodity wintel box could outrun a whole cluster (I use the term cluster loosely, unless you know of a form of networked load balancing/load sharing that would make said cluster on NG systems actually work) of any of the NG Amiga's.
I appreciate the numbers. I do find them interesting, but not real world meaningful in the least. And I'll use the same real world comparison I always have:
I own a '32 Ford and a 2000's GMC SUV. I live in Canada, it's 30 below here right now, so much snow I need to shovel myself out every morning to go to work. The '32 Ford is a kickass car, I did every lick of work on the thing myself, it runs high 11's on the quarter. I love it to death, the car is a complete blast. The SUV, well, that's a Soccer Mom truck. Impresses no one. Very little fun to drive compared to the hotrod.
However, common sense prevails. When I need to run to the beer store or to the market for a gallon of milk in the middle of winter, guess which car I take?
The SUV. The proverbial commodity PC of vehicles. It doesn't matter if the hotrod is cooler, more fun, and way more unique - it's a matter of best bang for the buck and ease of use. I've tried using my MOS and OS4 pc's as a daily driver - it simply isn't doable. I'd starve to death trying to do my job using one of these systems as a sole machine. I could not even get my daily jobs list via the cloud services I use - both OS4 and MOS browsers barf all over the place even though the browsers on each have come a long ways in a quick fashion.
All the benchmarks in the world don't matter when 1% of 1% of the people they really pertain to are actually using the machines solely for the things the benchmarks refer to.
However, I'd love to be proven wrong - anyone using a NG Amiga system as their sole machine for things like transcoding, rendering, etc, speak up.
I've been wanting to hear out of these people for 5 years and haven't thus far :)
The benchmarks numbers don't matter in the least to the majority of people, simply because people aren't buying these machines en masse to do the things the benchmarks are supposedly proving.
-
@Duce
no one in their right mind is going out to buy 150 used PPC Mac's or X1000 machines to set up a render farm.
Which, of course, nobody claimed either! :confused:
But as long as PPC is the common denominator it is interesting to compare the available options (though "availability" regarding the X1000 was always a matter of "creative definition", even before it was "discontinued"), and computing power is interesting in more contexts than render farms, like for instance normal every-day use when browsing heavy web pages or watching modern x.264 video streams. Ask a Sam (440/460) user how fun it is browsing the web using their precious "Timberwolf" (based on the bloatware Firefox). They would say it's not even usable. A X1000 user would perhaps say usable, but would probably still prefer Odyssey nevertheless. A Sam 440 with OS4 can't play normal DVD resolution MPEG-2 streams AFAIK (at least not the lower end ones), A Sam 460 might, at least with a graphics card that supports proper overlay. A fast Mac G4 with MorphOS can play 720p x.264 HD streams, and a G5 will play 1080p streams.
We aren't talking about render farms here, but simply CPU resources needed to achieve the normal, everyday computing use of today. These comparison charts is directly relevant for this, and when you also factor in the price tags (and availability) of the various options, the picture becomes clear.
:)
-
@Duce
I agree with what you say. If you need fast rendering times, don't use any of the PPC lot.
If you're going to compare a MOS G5 machine with an AOS 4 X1000 (which runs a different platform on a different hardware spec using a different version of the program) you should also compare it with AROS machines, which are just as much NG Amiga as MorphOS.
It's great that the G5 is finally getting supported for MOS, but I don't understand the need to belittle the AOS 4 machines.
The G5 is the fastest MOS machine. The X1000 is the fastest AOS 4 machine. An x86 machine is the fastest AROS machine.
That's all that matters to me.
-
Sorry but X1000 is not buyable anymore. So these benchmarks cannot influence buy decisions (what are they typical for). It can only proof (at best) what "fools" are those who bought X1000 and this only leads to emotional discussions. It would have been better to compare it to other MorphOS machines, these cross-camp comparations only lead to bashing. Even if it proofs that a G5 MorphOS system is faster than the X1000 with AmigaOS, the AmigaOS-User will not drop their choice. And new users cannot buy X1000. So I am not sure why this comparation.
-
olaf, why not compare discontinued machines? they both can be bought second hand.. at least theoretically.
-
I'm fine with comparisons. But I'm also happier to put them into real world perspective - no one in their right mind is going out to buy 150 used PPC Mac's or X1000 machines to set up a render farm. It's money in the toilet, an exercise in inefficiency. A $300 commodity wintel box could outrun a whole cluster (I use the term cluster loosely, unless you know of a form of networked load balancing/load sharing that would make said cluster on NG systems actually work) of any of the NG Amiga's.
Well, Beowulf clustering has been around for OVER a decade, that would probably work on any NG Amiga that ran Linux: http://www.mcsr.olemiss.edu/bookshelf/articles/how_to_build_a_cluster.html
Some hippies made a cluster from iMacs so I assume that G4 mac minis running OS X would work, too.
I do like the car-computer analogy, a thread about hardware isn't really good until one of those come up. The engine is like a CPU!
But honestly, your comparison of a sporty car versus a utility vehicle is more akin to a high-performance workstation versus a redundant server ala HP Integrity Nonstop or some of the IBM POWER servers. You know, machines that you can hot-swap CPUs and RAM in? Machines that keep going through any conditions? Versus something just going for high performance under ideal conditions?
Or maybe the SUV is like a regular PC and the hot rod is like a netbook or tablet? The regular PC can slog through stuff that the netbook or tablet would have trouble with? I mean, it can't be just the SUV is cheap like a commodity PC and the hot rod is expensive. While that hot rod is worth something like $20k to $35k USD, SUVs tend to start at $25k and go up past $50k USD. They are now more expensive and luxury than full size or large sedans! And depending on where you live, and I bet Canadia is in this list, SUVs hold their value better than sedans as well, especially if they are 4WD or AWD.
Maybe shift the focus over to workloads, then? The SUV might handle multiple concurrent transactions, maybe something based on the Sun SPARC T3 (8 cores, 16 threads per core, 128 threads total) and the hot rod would be more like a DEC Alpha of the olden days, just out and out straight IPC and performance?
Or maybe your analogy stinks.
What I don't get is why you, a self-proclaimed Amiga enthusiast, popped into the thread to just whine about how people shouldn't talk about hardware platforms that aren't the old, dead 68k machines that are of no use to anyone anymore. You souped up your '32 V8 flathead roadster, I'm guessing, so shouldn't you intimately understand the desire to take something old, keep it running, and improve it with newer things like a CyberStormPPC or other peripherals?
Why is throwing money away on limited-use old things ok when it's your car hobby but stupid when it's our computer hobby? I'd venture that most of the people here use Amigas as secondary systems because they aren't as stupid as you're making them out to be. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong and most here use their Amiga 1200's as daily machines and wonder why they can't stream 1080p video from Netflix to their 1084.
Either way, I think your posts are in poor taste, offering nothing constructive to the thread for either MorphOS or information on PowerMac G5s.
-
If you're going to compare a MOS G5 machine with an AOS 4 X1000 you should also compare it with AROS
Why? The PPC is clearly the common denominator here, and what is being the topic of the thread, everyone knows that x86 (and ARM as well for that matter) is better off than PPC, but how does that matter for MorphOS and OS4? It's a comparison between what's available for MorphOS and OS4, about the PPC options these teams has chosen (besides, AROS already runs on the Sam 460, so so in a way AROS is included in the discussion (and in a way raising the question why AROS only runs on the slowest/least usable option)).
-
@Duce. Stop feeding the trolls! You know it can only end one way. It will keep going on until someone gets a ban. Ask Iggy :whack:
Can you put up some photos of your '32 hotrod? If it is anything like the yellow Deuce Coupe from American graffeti you are my hero :)
G5 or G4 it does not change the fact it is still Apple hardware. I have been using Mos for about 15 months and still can't figure out what it is supposed to be - an Apple or an Amiga. My theory is Mos developers are secretly mac lovers and are desperately seeking the approval of Apple. I think i will stick with my G4 macmini. It's much easier to hide than one of those powermacs :)
-
G5 or G4 it does not change the fact it is still Apple hardware. I have been using Mos for about 15 months and still can't figure out what it is supposed to be - an Apple or an Amiga. My theory is Mos developers are secretly mac lovers and are desperately seeking the approval of Apple. I think i will stick with my G4 macmini. It's much easier to hide than one of those powermacs :)
Look at it this way: with Apple's attitude towards legacy support, PowerPC Macs are just as much cast-off orphans as any classic Amiga ;P
-
I have been using Mos for about 15 months and still can't figure out what it is supposed to be - an Apple or an Amiga.
There's nothing of Apple (i.e. OS X) within MorphOS. MorphOS runs on Apple hardwrae, but that's all about the realation of Apple and MorphOS. It's the same as Ubuntu doesn't magically become Appleish if run on Aple gear.
You know - hardware, software (might have heard of it, but am not sure after reading your posts).
-
Sorry but X1000 is not buyable anymore. So these benchmarks cannot influence buy decisions (what are they typical for). It can only proof (at best) what "fools" are those who bought X1000 and this only leads to emotional discussions. It would have been better to compare it to other MorphOS machines, these cross-camp comparations only lead to bashing. Even if it proofs that a G5 MorphOS system is faster than the X1000 with AmigaOS, the AmigaOS-User will not drop their choice. And new users cannot buy X1000. So I am not sure why this comparation.
I am intersted in ppc processors and hence appreaiate all benchmarks I can get hold of. Especially to learn more about the PA6T for which public information is pretty rare. But once upon a time it was rumoured it would e the überPPC and if it hd arrived b4 Apple's switch, they would never had switched.
Given the now public benchmarks of the X1000 I pretty much doubt these rumours as it shows Apple would not have gained too much with the PA6T over the e600 based chips i.e. 744x and 86xx(D).
-
They would not have gained anything. The PA6T is a castrated chip.
It was designed to be low heat, low power consumption for laptops. I don't think it was ever intended to be used in a desktop pc.
G5 blows it away. Apple needed to solve the heat problems with g5 and keep going with it.... X86 was just the easier (cheaper) way to go...
I like the power pc design but Intel and AMD just win on pure processing power, and when your manufacturing computers,thats what its all about, the cheaper faster cpu will always win.
As far as amiga os and smp, its got to be done eventually. Some companies
are now selling 12 core (or more even) machines. No one will want to be stuck with a one core machine/os. (Not unless amiga moves to a 36ghz single core processor. :razz:
Besides this, smp is just a beautiful thing. Stupid to ignore that tech and all that power just to preserve compatibility for an api from 1985.
-
There's nothing of Apple (i.e. OS X) within MorphOS. MorphOS runs on Apple hardwrae, but that's all about the realation of Apple and MorphOS. It's the same as Ubuntu doesn't magically become Appleish if run on Aple gear.
You know - hardware, software (might have heard of it, but am not sure after reading your posts).
Coming from someone who can't spell Apple :/