Amiga vs PC

[stefcep2]

It is actually transistor count that is suppose to double.

Maybe, but I've heard the general expression "computing power" being used, whatever that means.

"David House, an Intel colleague,[18] had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months.[19]"-Wiki

[stefcep2]

Motorola 68040 ~ 27.5 MIPS at 25 MHz
Intel Core i7 Extreme Edition i980EE ~ 147,600 MIPS at 3.3 GHz

That's 5367 times the power of an A4000.

benchmarks don't reveal true performance.  I wonder if you could render a Lightwave animation in 1/4096th of the time?

[stefcep2]

I take it you haven't seen some of the recent developments in lightwave 10? It has a realtime "Viewport Preview Render" mode. For some examples, see here.

I have a copy of Lightwave 9, and have done a few renders with it, don't use it much though, on an AMD x2 5000 ( I know).  Its render speed is dog slow, certainly compared Cinema 4D.  Not sure how well this V10 real time render works-or the hardware you need-but unless they've worked a minor miracle, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the glossy brochure.

How long do you think it would take an A4000 based toaster to render this?

i don't know but the wall, ceiling, and floor are simple, with repeating tile maps/bump maps so not that long.  And the tubing is simple relflective color map, not even texture. The car's reflective paint  would take more time though.  But if I could screamernet 4096 A4000's...

Of course, there probably wouldn't be a lightwave 10 without the Amiga trailblazing the earliest versions

[stefcep2]

In short, if you have 64-bit hardware, which let's face it, every new desktop/server PC in the last 5 years (at least) has, using a 32-bit OS is pretty pointless. Even without more than 4GB total memory installed, 64-bit optimised code is usually a better fit for the hardware.

"some some questions that were asked over time regarding 64-bit, which I have included below.

1) Does more bits mean better performance?

Answer: Depends. What is the machine used for. How was the program in question coded. The one thing that is said most often (Do not expect some of your applications to run any faster than they do on your 32-bit systems.) Examples: your web browser will still be limited by your Internet connection speed, and your word processing program speed will still be tied to how fast you can type, etc.

2) Should I upgrade now, or sit on the fence?

Answer: Again, it depends. In some cases users are advised not to, if their systems are working as they need, however. The end user will always have to decide for themselves based on current, and possible future needs.

3) My workstation is used primarily for office productivity software, e-mail, etc?

Answer: You will probably not need the scalability of 64-bit any time soon, however. If your system has 4-8 GB of ram or more you might want to look into installing a 64-bit OS so you can make use of that memory. Even having 4-8 GB might still not necessitate a move to 64-bit, as you can also make use of a PAE enable Kernel on a 32-bit install, if you want the ability to address more ram.

Some other possible reasons to research a move to 64-bit.

1) All your hardware, and software needs are supported.

2) You need to run memory-intensive applications such as graphics, CAD, video editing, or other programs that will benefit from the larger memory allocation offered by 64-bit systems.

Some possible reasons for not moving to 64-bit.

1) Everything you use under 32-bit works without issue, and you find having to put a bit more work into making some items function is not a path you want to travel.

2) You have programs that you use that are outside of the Ubuntu repositories, that are available as 32-bit only, and you do not feel like compiling them, or just cannot seem to make work under 64-bit.

3) You have hardware / peripherals that are not yet supported for some odd reason under 64-bit.

Side Note: To make full use of 64-bit you will need native 64-bit applications, and this is where the problem starts for some users. Some programs a user might make use of may not provide native 64-bit applications (Note there is now a 64-bit version of flash, Java, and there appears to be a 64-bit version of Skype.)

After reading through the above. you find making the move worth a try, please proceed to the below sections.
---------------------------------------------
Beginning the move testing, and research to see if 64-bit is the path for you. The tactic suggested is running a dual-boot configuration of 32-bit, and 64-bit. As this will allow you to research, and test your hardware, and software configuration, While maintaining a fall back if 64-bit is not for you, it is also suggested that testing is done for thirty or more days to find out if running 64-bit fits your needs."

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=765428

i think thats a more sensible and balanced view of where 64-bit sits in the Linux world anyway.

I did try encoding and decoding video in Ubuntu 64 bit about 12 months ago (?) on my AMD X2-5000 and the speed difference was negligible ( using 32 bit and 64 bit versions of the codecs).  I have no intention in moving to 64 bit as I see no advantage for me, but there always looms the spectre of incompatibility.

Anyway when home users start saying things like they need 8 cores and 16 GB ram, the PC industry upgrade con is complete.

[stefcep2]

This is so true.

I guess it's easier to say "we don't need it" than "you're right, it would be great, but we don't have it now, that's too bad". Seems like some people still live in 1989, thinking the Amiga is still cutting edge in a lot of areas... Problem is it's 2010, and it's lagging in pretty much every areas instead.

Yes and no.

No-one thinks the Amiga is cutting edge any more.  BUT:

A GUI-driven OS and multitasking, graphics and sound co-processors capable of functioning with more or less zero CPU dependence are things that an A500 had and did, and a DOS box did not. These things provided fundamental improvements in the usability of the home computer.   So much so that todays computers have them as well, and even must have them.  It really WAS a revolution in the home computing paradigm, whereas what todays machines do is merely evolution, they still use a GUI, they multitask, they have GPU's that can function more or less independently of the CPU: they just do it faster, with more pixels and colors and more sound channels at higher sample rates.

One could easily argue that you can't do without a GUI-driven OS, multitasking and co-processors/GPU's.  Becasue most people really would NOT be able to use or want to use a  two color single tasking beeping cli-only OS, without investing an inordinate amount of time in learning text commands and actually getting something done.   But many, many people can(and contrary to what users on computer forums like this who like think that everyone runs 8 cores and 16 gig ram), quite happily run with smaller resolutions, less colors, and a few minutes longer to rip and encode the odd DVD or CD, and maybe play the odd PC game since an XBOX/PS3/Wii sits in front of their 50 inch plasma.  But take away their GUI, the multi-tasking and the co-processors and the PC becomes a boat anchor.  They NEED all that.

When people went form  Win 95 to Win 98 to Win 2000 to XP, Vista, and Win7 no-one went WOW!  This is f'en AMAZING. Because each step was just an incremental improvement on what was there before.  

The Amiga was a revolution, it was 10 years ahead of the game: the PC has merely evolved