MorphOS : PowerMac G5 Port Update

[haywirepc]

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.

[Iggy]

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!

[haywirepc]

Yes but that is a funny couch... Doesn't look too comfortable though...

[Akiko]

Is a date set for the G5 release?

[Tenacious]

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?

[Rob]

Is a date set for the G5 release?

The promise is that it will be available 3 months after Bigfoot received the PowerMac G5.

[ElPolloDiabl]

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?

[rzookol]

Is it possible to optimize software for a fast MorphOS machine?

You could use Altivec.

[takemehomegrandma]

If you compare the ghz instead of the the fastest G5, the Amiga One is only 4 seconds slower.

What do you mean?

:confused:

[cha05e90]

Thats so funny... Unless you bought an x1000 I guess.

Really?

[ElPolloDiabl]

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.

[Duce]

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.

[takemehomegrandma]

@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

Higher performance = better.
Lower price = better.
Those two combined = the best.

(And this without even touching the benefits of MorphOS in favor of OS4)

[BlackMonk]

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.

[Duce]

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.

[takemehomegrandma]

@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.