Linux PowerPC Blender benchmark

[cgutjahr]

This is the blender version from my linux distribution (debian unstable). I installed it with "apt-get install blender"

So you were comparing results of two completely different Blender versions (sid has v2.63 while squeeze delivers v2.49)?

Now that should have been mentioned for sure.

Could you please update your initial graph with the proper value from this page (it's test no. 3786)? As pointed out by pavlor on AW, Blender 2.49 takes 325 seconds on a Powerbook matching yours - not the 205 seconds stated in your posting.

[klx300r]

So you were comparing results of two completely different Blender versions (sid has v2.63 while squeeze delivers v2.49)?

Now that should have been mentioned for sure.

Could you please update your initial graph with the proper value from this page (it's test no. 3786)? As pointed out by pavlor on AW, Blender 2.49 takes 325 seconds on a Powerbook matching yours - not the 205 seconds stated in your posting.

:roflmao: Good luck with that
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61493

Everyone knows Piru's true agenda sadly

[cgutjahr]

:roflmao: Good luck with that

Why don't you do me a favour and stop polluting these threads with useless drivel about the profession of Piru's mom? I'm actually interested in this stuff.

Yeah, he didn't mention that the hardinfo benchmarks were single core. Big deal. Why did I not hear you complain about him not mentioning that his Powerbook - which seemed to completely destroy the dual core X1000 in the Blender benchmarks until a few minutes ago - was only using one core aswell?

Everyone knows Piru's true agenda sadly
[...]
***X1000- I BELIEVE ***

There are a hundred virgins waiting for you somewhere. I'm pretty sure they didn't lie about that!

[wawrzon]

Everyone knows Piru's true agenda sadly

as this is actually the case, its time to stop mentioning it every other post..

[klx300r]

Why don't you do me a favour and stop polluting these threads with useless drivel about the profession of Piru's mom? I'm actually interested in this stuff.
 ...

I'm not interested in deceitfulness & trolling and I hope his mom isn't either:razz:

[klx300r]

as this is actually the case, its time to stop mentioning it every other post..

a simple clarification on the first posts of his 'benchmark' threads to tell the truth about them is all it takes. I don't care about which car is faster by .1 milliseconds as long as all the cars in the race are racing by the same rules.

[haywirepc]

You don't like the benchmarks. No one likes knowing their 3,000$ "modern spec" hardware is outperformed by a 50$ ebay buy.

Ghandi said the truth is still the truth, even if people attack you for telling it, its still the truth.

People have the right to know this stuff. Even if people have hidden agendas as some have suggested, it dosn't matter. Its still the truth.

[haywirepc]

A technical point also...

The processor in this x1000 was originally designed to be a mobile or laptop cpu for apple to compete with g4 speeds and abilities.

a 100$ -150$ ebay buy of just about any g5 mac blows it out of the water.

Please morphos, add g5 support. I will register that day...

[Iggy]

A technical point also...

The processor in this x1000 was originally designed to be a mobile or laptop cpu for apple to compete with g4 speeds and abilities.

a 100$ -150$ ebay buy of just about any g5 mac blows it out of the water.

Please morphos, add g5 support. I will register that day...

I'd second that call as I am buying some components from AmigaDave to complete a 2.5 GHz G5 Power mac.

And as far as agendas go, you OS4 fans are the real conspirators in this jihad.
When some one presents a fact that you don't favor, you go low and get personal.
Harry hasn't done anything but present real world data.
If that bugs you, its your problem.

Thank God David still talks to me so I can get a balanced opinion from someone who owns and X1000 and a couple MorphOS systems.

[klx300r]

You don't like the benchmarks....

Who doesn't like the benchmarks??

Compare apples to apples and present facts is all I'm saying.

Don't care if you're comparing PC's or cars !
Don't care about Blue vs Red unlike some people here.

[KimmoK]

According to shown benchmarks of this thread I wonder how anyone could see G5 as a good option for Amigalike OS. If it was true, that G4 performs better than liguid cooled G5, why would anyone want G5 over G4? For house heating purposes?


Some PowePC Results from fastest to slowest:
115s blender 2.43 G5 2.3Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlecore?)
117s blender 2.44 G5 2.3Ghz Dualcore
117s blender 2.44 G5 1.3Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlethread?)
120s blender 2.49 G5 2.3Ghz Dualcore
121s blender 2.49 G5 2Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlecore?)
127s blender 2.49 G5 3Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlecore?)
202s blender 2.5a PowerBook 1667Mhz
205s blender latest PowerBook 1667Mhz (Piru)
206s blender 2.48? x1000 1800Mhz Dualcore
223s blender 2.49 G5 2.3Ghz
234s blender 2.49 G5 2.1Ghz single core
235s blender 2.49 G5 3Ghz SingleCore
256s blender 2.42 PowerBook 1667Mhz
305s blender 2.43 PowerBook 1667Mhz
318s blender 2.44 PMac 1600Mhz
325s blender 2.49 PowerBook 1667Mhz
331s blender 2.49 PowerBook 1667Mhz
368s blender 2.43 MacMini 1420Mhz
420s blender 2.48? x1000 1800Mhz single core
425s blender 2.48a PowerBook 1500Mhz
540s blender 2.48 MacMini 1420Mhz
591s blender 2.48 A1XE 1000Mhz
1180s blender 2.48 SAM440 800Mhz (AOS4)


And when we observe with blender versions...

Then with blender 2.49 or 2.48 & dualcore:
120s blender 2.49 G5 2.3Ghz Dualcore
121s blender 2.49 G5 2Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlecore?)
127s blender 2.49 G5 3Ghz Dualcore (erroneously reported singlecore?)
206s blender 2.48? x1000 1800Mhz Dualcore

Then with blender 2.49 or 2.48 & singlecore:
223s blender 2.49 G5 2.3Ghz single core
234s blender 2.49 G5 2.1Ghz single core
235s blender 2.49 G5 3Ghz SingleCore
325s blender 2.49 PowerBook 1667Mhz
331s blender 2.49 PowerBook 1667Mhz
420s blender 2.48? x1000 1800Mhz Single core
425s blender 2.48a PowerBook 1500Mhz
540s blender 2.48 MacMini 1420Mhz
591s blender 2.48 A1XE 1000Mhz
1180s blender 2.48 SAM440 800Mhz (AOS4)

With same blender version G4 is a slower than G5, but faster than PA6T.

Performance scaling etc.:
G5-2300single vs G4-1667  - 1.3 x Mhz - 1.4 x result - G5 better

G5-2300single vs PA6T-1800single - 1.28 x Mhz - 1.88 x result - G5 better

G4-1667 vs PA6T-1800single - 1.08 x Mhz - 0.77 x result - G4 better
G4-1667 vs PA6T-1800dual - 1.08 x Mhz - 1.6 x result - PA6T is better

The last part shows PA6T advantage, one day, after AOS is updated to use both cores.

[Linde]

According to shown benchmarks of this thread I wonder how anyone could see G5 as a good option for Amigalike OS. If it was true, that G4 performs better than liguid cooled G5, why would anyone want G5 over G4? For house heating purposes?

It has two cores, thus performing much better when rendering is split into two threads (as you can see from the results), just like the new Amiga computer chipset. Then again, some people say that Amiga-like operating systems will only ever run on single cores if they want to retain some level of backwards compatibility. I have no idea if this is true, though.

[KimmoK]

...Then again, some people say that Amiga-like operating systems will only ever run on single cores if they want to retain some level of backwards compatibility. I have no idea if this is true, though.

To my understanding every Amigaflavour has plans to go multicore in the future (with and without sandboxing, etc...).
I hope it happens during my lifetime....

(I vote for compatibility break initially (perhaps nonSMP and SMP versions of kernell available in parallel for a while) while building the sandbox during longer period of time, if the compatibility need remain)

[Iggy]

@KimmoK
I'm not sure I get your point.
From your own quotes, the G5 comes off looking pretty good.

[KimmoK]

@KimmoK
I'm not sure I get your point.
From your own quotes, the G5 comes off looking pretty good.

Yes.
But before that it seemed like G4 is as fast as single core G5. That's what I meant and that's why I collected more results to see more clearly.
More detailed study reveals that G5 actually is not that bad. Better than what I expected.
Also, in Bryce tests that Barefeats once did it seems that with optimizations G5 can be far ahead of G4. (up to 2x faster per core, even per Mhz, IIRC).
Time will tell if that kind of optimizations can be done on 32bit SW on AOS for PA6T.

[commodorejohn]

It has two cores, thus performing much better when rendering is split into two threads (as you can see from the results), just like the new Amiga computer chipset.

There's also the matter of memory speed; the G4s (at least in Macs) only ever had up to a 167MHz non-DDR FSB. Even the slowest G5 machines have much faster front-side buses than that, so anything memory-intensive is going to see a significant boost on the G5.