PPC is bad bad bad

[DethKnight]

From what I've read...I seem to understand that amiga will be *hardware-independent"

So the whole "what CPU do you run" thing will be a moot discussion.

[_Steve_]

and as for the G3 somehow magically bieng faster because it says motorola on it..thats a crock...if any of you went to specbench.org or theregister.co.uk you could see the truth about that G3..... G3=inferior to G4=inferior the P4/Athlon........simple math.......

And no doubt you'll be comparing a 700Mhz G4 to a 2.4GHz P4 yes, like its some kind of amazing comparison. If the G4 @ 700Mhz can take on a P4 at around double its clock speed (say a 1.4GHz P4) and keep a pretty close performance record, then that would indicate that the G4 is overall a better build design/quality per clock cycle. If you want to start comparing clock speeds, why not slap a 700MHz P3 (since you cant get a P4 that slow) against a 700MHz G3 and then see how much "better" your beloved x86 is.

Just because the Intel/AMD cpu runs at 3 times the clock speed, does not make it 3 times faster. In fact its probably less than two times as fast for most things. I have seen benchamrks of a G4/700 against a P4/2GHz, and the difference wasn't so great in favour of the P4. Ramp up the clock speed of the PPC (like Intel etc seem so keen on doing with their chips) and the PPC would outperform the x86.

The G3 will be inferior to the G4, just as the P3 is to the P4, they are newer generations of a design, and as such you would expect them to perform better. However, you cannot say a PPC is inferior to a P4 when your argument bases around clock speeds. Thats like comparing a 600Mhz AMD to a 1.6GHz P4 and saying "look how crap this AMD is".

[Kronos]

I will have my new PPC Amiga ~May 17 2002.

Here we go again  :-D  :-D  :-D

No you won't have a PPC-Amiga in two !! If the A1 is delieverd by then
you will have a rather slow Linux-box and UAE (without JIT) to run
68k-SW at even slower speeds.

This thing may turn into a PPC-Amiga during this summer, but
than it wouln't be new anymore


 :-P

[Kronos]

why not slap a 700MHz P3 (since you cant get a P4 that slow) against a 700MHz G3 and then see how much "better" your beloved x86 is.

Well the c't (germanys leading IT-magazine) did just that !
Actually they took a P3 and G4 at 1ghz and ran some benches
on them. Both sides were compiled with GCC and they P3
showed slighly better results (~ 10-20%).
A AthlonXP would be even faster a 1ghz (real clock).

You may put some blame on the gcc, but then its the only option
for COS4-SW (atleast if you don't want to start on ASM again).
Altivec may also have added  to a better result, but that would
need heavy work on the sources and some SW simply can't
make use off it no matter what you do.

Almost forgot: The A1 doesn't have Altivec  :-o

PPC is good when you need:
Low power-consumption.
Low heating.
Long life in hard envoirements

If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option.

Will this change with G5 vs AMD-64 ?
Don't know but i have some serious doubts on it.

[ksk]

This year will be very interesting in PPC camp.

There should appear interesting new things from Motorolla and from IBM.

Also I would not be too surpriced if some big motherboard manufacturer desides to start to manufacture motherboard that works both with PPC CPU and with x86 CPU.

Also it would not bee too big surprice to see GFX chip with integrated northbridge & both x86 and PPC compatibility...

So far I'm very happy with the short term PPC decision. IMHO: it was the most safe bet for now.
(some SW base already, less competition, etc..)

[ Edited by ksk on 2002/5/3 18:12:49 ]

[Ivan]

>The comments in here are starting to borderline on insults. Let's keep it clean. Difference in opinions are welcome, just stear clear of insults please.

I heard that. But then even this post started out admitedly as a flame or very near to one. Even so, it's no excuse.

BUT, (i love that word) i like to read these sorts of posts. I think it's funny how they use some benchmark but forget to tell you that altivec wasent used on the PPC and how many other options were disabled on the other systems tested. OR, (another favorite word) the OS's used in these tests were dogs and probably did more to interfere with performance than anything else. Yet it's all plain as day for them. They arent useing 'my favorite hardware' so it has to be a dead end and 'the world needs to wake up and listen to me because i know better'. Sorry but you dont.

PPC is our choice and if you don't like it, go back to your 70's based proprietary x86 archetecture, we wont be stopping you. I've heard that Amiga is dead or dieing for years now. Time to give it up, nobody cares if it's dead or dieing or rotted to dust in the grave, we still like useing it because its a great OS and will continue developing. Just because it wont run on your Windows machine doesn't mean its dead or a bad OS or that the PPC hardware it's running on is useless. Fact of the matter is, PPC is slower with realeases but makes bigger leaps and x86 steals the ideas. If you knew anything about Amiga's plans you wouldnt even have mentioned an x86 version which shows how informed you are on the Amiga scene to begin with. You seem to have the same low view of MACS as well. I love your reasoning, only 3% of the market? Well they must be crap then. I wonder if you think Linux is a bad OS too because it doesnt hold the market majority? Indeed i wonder if you can think of anything but a Wintel box as the top of the line in tech. Please take your Amiga bashing elsewhere, because thats all your post was, we dont want it here.

Ivan

[lorddef]

As it stands right now! PPC G4's at 1ghz are much much slower then the AMD/Intel offerings wich are also CHEAPER/More generic/Have more apps(thus possible ports)

Er? I think your wrong there,  the processors are totally different architectures the Mhz means bump all!

LD :roll:

[Insanity]

If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option

And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).

Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

But if that is true, won't the AmigaOS lose lots of power if you port it to an x86 based system? The basic argument for using Amiga in the beginning of the 1990:ies was that the Multitasking of the Amiga was 1 000 000 times better than that of the PC(PC has made up for this lack by increasing the processor speed to rediculus levels).

Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.

Another thing, Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard? why even bother using the $#@!ty IDE system (yes IDE is getting faster, but SCSI is Better and will aways be)
If everybody bought SCSI then it would be a lot cheaper since it contains the same components as IDE, but nooo. Damnit.
I say integrate a Adapted u160 card and lets RoX.

Oh and one last thing Hi my Name is Insanity and I had an amiga 500 back in the day. been using PC since, but the p4 and xp are $#@!ty processors/systems, so I'm stuck at 667mhz p3. (with a asus p3v4x, the best pc mobo EVER.)

[Tomas]

redrumloa wrote:

Tomas wrote:
i can bet you think: 68k is good good good

Yes I do think the 68k series is good, it just hasn't had new development in 10 years. If production of the 68k series continued, IMO it would be better than current X86. You trying to say the 68k series was always crap? :-?

I never said that...... but now its totally outdated, wouldnt make sence to use a 68k cpu on the next generation amiga, only thing that made sence was to use PPC, which they did.

Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

Multitasking *IS NOT* done in hardware !! damn it !!!!!
Its all to do with the OSes scheduler , Thats the part of the os that controls which task gets cpu time and decides time slices etc .. . *ITS SOFTWARE*

It just happens that amigaOS is very good at multitasking , nothing to do with hardware.

[Tomas]

Insanity wrote:

If you want number-crunching-power x86 is the only option

And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).


Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

But if that is true, won't the AmigaOS lose lots of power if you port it to an x86 based system? The basic argument for using Amiga in the beginning of the 1990:ies was that the Multitasking of the Amiga was 1 000 000 times better than that of the PC(PC has made up for this lack by increasing the processor speed to rediculus levels).

Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.

Another thing, Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard? why even bother using the $#@!ty IDE system (yes IDE is getting faster, but SCSI is Better and will aways be)
If everybody bought SCSI then it would be a lot cheaper since it contains the same components as IDE, but nooo. Damnit.
I say integrate a Adapted u160 card and lets RoX.

Oh and one last thing Hi my Name is Insanity and I had an amiga 500 back in the day. been using PC since, but the p4 and xp are $#@!ty processors/systems, so I'm stuck at 667mhz p3. (with a asus p3v4x, the best pc mobo EVER.)

i agree, Aone should have used SCSI instead of that lousy IDE crap, which also decrease the overall perfomance....  :-x

[Kronos]

And here I though that Intel just abandoned the x86 architecture with its Itanium(which of course is left looooooooooong behind, in the wake of the Sun ultrasparc III).

With x86 i also meant the upcoming 64bit-CPUs by Intel and AMD.

Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking

Depends on what you mean.
The copper can be viewed as some type of "HW-multitasking",
but you could say the same about the 3D-GFX-chips on AGP-cards.
Exec-multitasking is only be done by the CPU and as long as it has
some basic features this could be done on any modern CPU.

Rambus is a good attempt to increase one of the lacking speeds in The PC system. the next lack is the bus speed.

Shawn
Rambus is good (for every system) but far to expensive.

Why doesn't the AmigaOne utilize SCSI as a standard ?

1.The A1 wasn't developed for the Amiga-market and Eyetech
had (more or less) to take whats available.

2.UDMA100 will max out any existing HD (even SCSI-ones) and
(fast)SCSI-HDs are extremly expensive.
3.SCSI in desktop-systems will be replaced by FireWire
(or maybe USB2).

Hi my Name is Insanity

Seems to fit  :-P  :-P  :-P
(just kidding)

Well the c't (germanys leading IT-magazine) did just that !

Check out some dual g4 500mhz vs dual P3 1ghz photoshop benchmarks .... the G4 trashes the p3.
I know that photoshop is ppc optimized , but thats what matters to designers etc and not that its the underdogs chip.

The only way to get serious benchmarks for ppc vs x86 is if you run them on exactly the same platform , hardware and software . We all know this isn`t possible so please just shut it. Go back to benchmarking GFX cards, Personally i like my V5 5500 medium speed and v high quality gfx , i bet u like the gforce , cuz its dirty fast , cost $#@! all to make and costs a bomb .

[Insanity]

Sorry about the cursing folkes. I am used to bbses in The norhern part of Europe, where we dont censur or think much of people cursing.

Anyway, how did the h/w layout of the amiga 500 (for ex) look (basically)?

Seems to fit

It does, trust me it does.

[ Edited by Insanity on 2002/5/3 18:02:30 ]

[Tomas]

68040 wrote:

Anyway, didn't the Original Amiga have a processor for multitasking. (help me out here folkes I don't know much about the h/w layout of Amiga).

Multitasking *IS NOT* done in hardware !! damn it !!!!!
Its all to do with the OSes scheduler , Thats the part of the os that controls which task gets cpu time and decides time slices etc .. . *ITS SOFTWARE*

It just happens that amigaOS is very good at multitasking , nothing to do with hardware.

I think it has a little to do with the cpus too..... But mostly its the OS thought.

[Kronos]

Check out some dual g4 500mhz vs dual P3 1ghz photoshop benchmarks .... the G4 trashes the p3.

Photoshop-MAC uses Altivec while Photoshop-Win doesn't
use MMX or 3dNOW! so thats not fair.
Photoshop is the only positive benchmark for the G4.

Now what will we get for the Amiga ?

No Altivec and definitly no Photoshop !

The only way to get serious benchmarks for ppc vs x86 is if you run them on exactly the same platform ,

Well then run some linux-benches on the AOne and 600mhz/P3.

X86 is faster than PPC (now), but that doesn't mean it must be
the right choice for AOS.
The only thing that should be clear is that simply closing our
eyes to this realitiy won't help us when we try to convince
new users.

This could be done by this:" Want a new computer thats easy
to use,silent boots in less thab 30 seconds and can be turned
off immedialty ?"