Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Piru on May 01, 2012, 11:34:01 PM
-
1st graph where lower bar means better result:
(http://sintonen.fi/pics/debian_hardinfo_benchmark.png)
2nd graph where higher bar means better result:
(http://sintonen.fi/pics/debian_hardinfo_benchmark2.png)
sources:
Sam440ep-Flex 800MHz and AmigaONE X1000 1.8GHz: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35671&forum=34&22
PowerBook G4 1.67GHz: my own test run
-
Nice to know how slow x1000 is. So much for "Modern hardware specs".
-
This is the peak performance OS4 system, sold as new in 2012, being beaten by a 2005 level Mac *laptop*. It seems the A1X1K can't play 1080p video (http://amigaworld.net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6338#85587) without GPU acceleration (that's not even there anyway), which a 2005 level PowerMac can do with no problem. Well at least it's cheap. Oh wait, $3,000...
Pegasos 2's, Amigaone's, Apple HW etc from 2004 are still being used today (although *this is* running them on overtime). If this life span is applied to the Amigaone X1000, sold as new in 2012 with sub-2005 level performance, it means that this is what many OS4 users will be using in 2020. If there still is a OS4 by then, which I'm not entirely certain about, given the chosen path they are travelling.
Madness. But it's not like they weren't warned...
-
With linux will be more interesting benchmark with LAme, Blender and Mplayer.
Hardinfo seems give strange results.
FPU in fpu-fft on X1000 is faster than Powerbook, but it's slower in raytracing..
and X1000 in cpu is slower than Powerbook but with n-queens is faster..
-
1) I am very dubious about the results and how a single core can beat up two cores' cpu. Was the software used for benchmarking designed to take advantage of PA6T's both cores?
2) The fastest OS4.x was Pegasos II. A1X1k should be faster than a G4 ~1.1Ghz (I believe). Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it, as a primary targeted OS (develop, used for simple task everyday tasks etc).
3) I think that PA6T was already on the market (meaning, shipped to various developers) by 2007. That's already 5 years ago. So no one could characterize it as "modern" by any means.
-
The fastest OS4.x was Pegasos II. A1X1k should be faster than a G4 ~1.1Ghz (I believe).
The Pegasos 2 G4 was 1.0GHz (although easily overclocked).
Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it
I think this Linux benchmarking is a response to some people dismissing *the previous* set of benchmarks made on OS4 (and MorphOS) as "pointless", since those benchmarks didn't test the *HW* in an identical way (the differencies in OS's would impact results too much) and OS4 in its current state couldn't make full use of the A1X1K hardware, etc, etc. Hence the Linux tests! ;)
So no one could characterize it as "modern" by any means.
Of course it's not "modern", it's being stomped by 2005 level Mac's! :rant: ;)
But this is what they market as the peak performance Amigaone, today, in 2012.
-
Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it
Why? This is a pure CPU benchmark and is extremely unlikely to perform significantly different on any other OS. Unless that OS is seriously broken or you f.e. change cache settings, CPU results are going to stay mostly the same. This gives a good overview of what the PA6T is capable of - in OS4 as well as Linux.
-
My opinnion of AOS4 HWs state
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35140&forum=33#661434
In short:
Amiga HW technology gap (against wintel):
1986: ahead of all others
1993: 2 years behind? (ok (only) for instrumentation, video and games)
A1 2002: 5,8 years behind (ok CPU performance, otherwise...)
SAM440 2008: 8,6 years behind
SAM460 2010: 6 years behind
A1x1000 2011: 2,6 years behind (CPU is only in netbook level, otherwise ok)
So, current top of the line AOS4 HW is priced similarly to cheapest expandable Mac (PowerMac), it has y2006 caliber CPU, otherwise it has modern specs & expandability (when compared to mainstream shops).
What is not modern is the SW support, and untill that is fixed, it's not point to compare the modernity...
******
btw... Anyone tried partition to partition copy speeds with observation on system responsiveness?
(I'm surpriced how much better SAM667Mhz is when compared to 3800+ AMD system with linux. I'm eager to see how x1000 handles the situation (initially I've read about 70MB/s copy speeds, 4x faster than my best x86 from y2008.).)
-
What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.
If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.
-
What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.
If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.
As far as I can see it is just a similar thread to this one: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35671
But I guess that thread is just a troll thread telling us why x86 PC is superior to OS4 systems? I bet the SAM and X1000 owners posting their results really wanted to hurt and upset people by showing simple hardware facts about their systems. Right?
-
surprisingly slow
are these benchmarks available for android? would like to see how my mobile compares to these(dual core qualcomm s3 at 1,5 GHz)
-
As far as I can see it is just a similar thread to this one: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35671
But I guess that thread is just a troll thread telling us why x86 PC is superior to OS4 systems? I bet the SAM and X1000 owners posting their results really wanted to hurt and upset people by showing simple hardware facts about their systems. Right?
Your link is a bit too vague so maybe you could be more specific?
Anyway you must be daft if you really think Piru isn't using those silly graphs without having an agenda. He did it before when it first came out and now he is doing it again. In fact this is almost free advertising in favour of MOS and you and i both know who develops MOS.
You guys can use all the polls you like to try and prove that the x1000 is inferior and overpriced but it doesn't change anything. If i could afford it i would happily hand over the money for the obviously (according to Piru) outdated/overpriced x1000 if it means i don't have to use my $150 G4 Apple MacMini piece of **** anymore.
BTW, now i have your attention what is going on with the NatAmi? I'm getting worried... ;)
-
You guys can use all the polls you like
You know, it's tradition to actual read and (at least try to) understand a thread before contributing to it. There are no polls here, just a few facts.
Anyway you must be daft if you really think Piru isn't using those silly graphs without having an agenda.
Like most MorphOS core developers, Piru suffers from the "me too!" syndrome. Imagine you've got the (allegedly) better OS, the better and cheaper hardware, you're on the market two years before your competitor - and absolutely nobody cares. That must be hard indeed, so let's be nice and cut Piru some slack.
But Piru just quoted some numbers here, most of which were actually posted by OS4 people. I don't see why his "agenda" would be relevant to those of us wanting to discuss these numbers?
Or, to give you some of your own advice: You don't like this thread? Don't read it.
-
What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.
If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.
That would be nice if that was followed in other threads as well, but trolls will be trolls.
-
surprisingly slow
are these benchmarks available for android? would like to see how my mobile compares to these(dual core qualcomm s3 at 1,5 GHz)
This should be the month we find out.
-
@Forcie
As far as I can see it is just a similar thread to this one: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35671
But I guess that thread is just a troll thread telling us why x86 PC is superior to OS4 systems? I bet the SAM and X1000 owners posting their results really wanted to hurt and upset people by showing simple hardware facts about their systems. Right?
Never mind Kesa. Sometimes it's difficult to know whether he's "trolling or just stupid" ;) but obviously he's kind of confused here. :lol:
- Doing benchmarks isn't something bad.
- Posting benchmarks online isn't something bad.
- Discussing these benchmarks isn't something bad either.
Of course not! :)
Trying to inflict some kind of selective taboo on civil discussions and measurable, enlightening test data (like Kesa just did above) is bad, however. And so is trying to sell a product by trying to hide information about its performance (http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand/216319). Where were Kesa with his lectures about "agenda's" when some people threw stones at the MorphOS team for going the Mac route, mocking MorphOS's lack of "new" hardware? Well, it turned out that this "crappy old Mac HW" is just as good -or indeed even better- than the big Messiah computer those people put forward as the right way to go (at 1/20 of the cost), and *then* Kesa gets all upset! Which is kind of funny, since the whole benchmark initiative, as well as all the numbers (except the PowerMac), comes from the OS4 community, by *their* initiative! "Agenda?" :lol:
* Past MorphOS HW (Pegasos1/April, Pegasos2) was always better than OS4 HW (AmigaOne), and much cheaper.
* Current MorphOS HW (a whole flora of mainstream Mac machines in various shapes and forms) is better than current OS4 HW (Sam and A1X1K), and much cheaper.
* Future MorphOS HW (x86 or ARM, that's the question, maybe both?) will definitely be better than anything the OS4 people can put forward in batches of 30 units based on PPC, and much cheaper.
Once again, it turned out that the MorphOS team had the winning strategy. While still being tied to the PPC platform, they looked around themselves and noticed how the market was full of cheap mainstream HW that were more powerful than anything else on the PPC market, and they said to themselves: "Why don't we use that?", and so they did! The A1X1K is a horror-example of what you get when going in the opposite direction. But the thing is, so was the Sam460. And so was the Sam440 before that. Time and time again, it becomes evident that some people never learn! And no wonder, when all they seem wanting to do, is to put their head in the sand and forbid any kind of discussions on these subjects, and then push ahead with one crazy project after another! This is killing the OS4 platform (not that I really care, IMHO the OS4 project was completely redundant from Day 1, and the Amiga community would have been much better off without it)...
-
That would be nice if that was followed in other threads as well, but trolls will be trolls.
+1
Couldn't agree more! :)
-
+1
Couldn't agree more! :)
You might remember that before hijacking another OS4 related thread.
-
@Kesa
This thread is good news to Hyperion. There is nothing wrong in OS4 regarding raw CPU performance.
-
@ Piru
can you please adjust the nice graphs you made to take into account the 2'nd core of the X1000 ;)
i'll let you guys get back to trolling & thanks for starting your own thread this time.
-
What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.
If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.
__________________
I don't think posting benchmarks is trolling. The truth is the truth. If you don't like it, its still the truth. The fact that a 7 year old mac pc from ebay beats the 3,000$ top of the line "modern spec" AOS4 hardware is something people should know when making a decision on what to buy.
They should have a right to know what they are buying (except hype)
I'm not sure if he had the second core enabled,prob not, but in OS4 the second core is useless, so I think testing just one core is more relative to knowing what kind of speed and performance you can expect from the 3 computers running aos or morphos. Will people really boot to linux just to fire up the second core?
I'd love to see this benchmark on my droid comparing these computers. If my cellphone beats the x1000 in raw cpu horsepower, that would be kinda funny.
-
I'm not sure if he had the second core enabled,prob not, but in OS4 the second core is useless.
"he" (piru) only made the PowerBook tests and the PowerBook only has one core to use, even when running linux. :)
The other systems results were made by OS4 users, with their linux and their hardware.
The test is not about MorphOS or AmigaOS. It is just about comparing "outdated" with "up to date" hardware.
In the result the X1000 gets nearly beaten by a ten times cheaper hardware, which most people dumped years ago.
It seems it is easier to call the presentation of facts trolling, just because one does not like the results.
Geit
-
..
It seems it is easier to call the presentation of facts trolling, just because one does not like the results.
Geit
you must not visit this site regularly.
The facts are that the graphs should state that the X1000 results are based on only once core of the X1000's cpu. For a real world example run a Blender demo on only one cpu and then run it with all the cpu's cores and then you will see real 'facts'
-
Sorry i meant graphs not polls.
-
"he" (piru) only made the PowerBook tests and the PowerBook only has one core to use, even when running linux. :)
The other systems results were made by OS4 users, with their linux and their hardware.
The test is not about MorphOS or AmigaOS. It is just about comparing "outdated" with "up to date" hardware.
In the result the X1000 gets nearly beaten by a ten times cheaper hardware, which most people dumped years ago.
It seems it is easier to call the presentation of facts trolling, just because one does not like the results.
Geit
Nah, they are just using the graphs as ammo in promoting Morphos by discrediting the x1000.
-
you must not visit this site regularly.
The facts are that the graphs should state that the X1000 results are based on only once core of the X1000's cpu. For a real world example run a Blender demo on only one cpu and then run it with all the cpu's cores and then you will see real 'facts'
All the machines in the graph are running on one core.
-
You guys can use all the polls you like to try and prove that the x1000 is inferior and overpriced but it doesn't change anything.
You are absolutely right, the "polls" lie... benchmarks too... my Amiga 1200/060 is much faster than any of those systems including Piru's overrated G4 Powerbook (which that may or may not even exist). Who cares if x1000 overpriced as we are no longer on the gold standard and money is not real anyway...
Jack Tramiel is still alive and he is going to take over Apple. Jay Miner is going to do the chipset.
-
Jack Tramiel is still alive and he is going to take over Apple. Jay Miner is going to do the chipset.
Imiga ST ?
-
As my 1.42 GHz Power mac has two CPUs, I'd have no problem running benchmarks that utilize two cores.
And my 7455 processors should perform pretty close to the 1.67 GHz 7447 in the Powerbook Piru has posted test for.
So Apple hardware would probably still be competitive (or even possibly best) the X1000 is dual core Linux tests.
-
@Forcie
Never mind Kesa. Sometimes it's difficult to know whether he's "trolling or just stupid" ;) but obviously he's kind of confused here. :lol:
- Doing benchmarks isn't something bad.
- Posting benchmarks online isn't something bad.
- Discussing these benchmarks isn't something bad either.
Of course not! :)
Trying to inflict some kind of selective taboo on civil discussions and measurable, enlightening test data (like Kesa just did above) is bad, however. And so is trying to sell a product by trying to hide information about its performance (http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/amiga/expand/216319). Where were Kesa with his lectures about "agenda's" when some people threw stones at the MorphOS team for going the Mac route, mocking MorphOS's lack of "new" hardware? Well, it turned out that this "crappy old Mac HW" is just as good -or indeed even better- than the big Messiah computer those people put forward as the right way to go (at 1/20 of the cost), and *then* Kesa gets all upset! Which is kind of funny, since the whole benchmark initiative, as well as all the numbers (except the PowerMac), comes from the OS4 community, by *their* initiative! "Agenda?" :lol:
* Past MorphOS HW (Pegasos1/April, Pegasos2) was always better than OS4 HW (AmigaOne), and much cheaper.
* Current MorphOS HW (a whole flora of mainstream Mac machines in various shapes and forms) is better than current OS4 HW (Sam and A1X1K), and much cheaper.
* Future MorphOS HW (x86 or ARM, that's the question, maybe both?) will definitely be better than anything the OS4 people can put forward in batches of 30 units based on PPC, and much cheaper.
Once again, it turned out that the MorphOS team had the winning strategy. While still being tied to the PPC platform, they looked around themselves and noticed how the market was full of cheap mainstream HW that were more powerful than anything else on the PPC market, and they said to themselves: "Why don't we use that?", and so they did! The A1X1K is a horror-example of what you get when going in the opposite direction. But the thing is, so was the Sam460. And so was the Sam440 before that. Time and time again, it becomes evident that some people never learn! And no wonder, when all they seem wanting to do, is to put their head in the sand and forbid any kind of discussions on these subjects, and then push ahead with one crazy project after another! This is killing the OS4 platform (not that I really care, IMHO the OS4 project was completely redundant from Day 1, and the Amiga community would have been much better off without it)...
Where have you been lately? I sorta noticed you made a convienient comeback when there is an opportunity for a MOS spam fest :razz:
Anyway, my problem isn't the benchmarks. Numbers don't lie after all. My problem is the motive behind them.
I don't think the people who bought X1000's were concerned too much about benchmarks. That's why I dismiss them as I don't think they are relevant. So why is Piru so interested? He did them just so he can say "the X1000 is overpriced crap and here is the proof".
-
So why is Piru so interested? He did them just so he can say "the X1000 is overpriced crap and here is the proof".
Because this is the truth, so people may know it.
-
Where have you been lately? I sorta noticed you made a convienient comeback when there is an opportunity for a MOS spam fest :razz:
Anyway, my problem isn't the benchmarks. Numbers don't lie after all. My problem is the motive behind them.
I don't think the people who bought X1000's were concerned too much about benchmarks. That's why I dismiss them as I don't think they are relevant. So why is Piru so interested? He did them just so he can say "the X1000 is overpriced crap and here is the proof".
I don't necessarily get that message from these graphs.
In most, the X1000 comes quite close to the Powerbook (beating it in one area).
Its the SAM that comes off looking bad.
Yes the X1000 isn't better then the Mac AND there is a significant price difference, but those are just facts.
The X10000's performance is pretty good and would only improve if both cores were utilized. Plus, its new with PCIe expandability that no MorphOS machine has.
What I take away from this is that AOS and MorphOS have approximate hardware parity (on their higher end machines).
-
Because this is the truth, so people may know it.
the truth would be nice eh..see post 20.
@ Piru
I know you don't want to troll this way dude so tell 'the truth' on this thread and change those graphs to refelct that the X1000 is only operating on one core.
-
He did them just so he can say "the X1000 is overpriced crap and here is the proof".
Please stop spreading lies because he didnt say so. This "X1000 is overpriced crap" is purely your own invention. X1000 is roughly equal with Apple G4 so what is your problem? G4 is not slow.
It is just you who keep saying X1000 is crap.
@klx300r
You can always start your own PA6T benchmark thread. In fact it could be good idea since you are spamming this forum now.
-
My opinnion of AOS4 HWs state
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35140&forum=33#661434
In short:
Amiga HW technology gap (against wintel):
1986: ahead of all others
1993: 2 years behind? (ok (only) for instrumentation, video and games)
A1 2002: 5,8 years behind (ok CPU performance, otherwise...)
SAM440 2008: 8,6 years behind
SAM460 2010: 6 years behind
A1x1000 2011: 2,6 years behind (CPU is only in netbook level, otherwise ok)
So, current top of the line AOS4 HW is priced similarly to cheapest expandable Mac (PowerMac), it has y2006 caliber CPU, otherwise it has modern specs & expandability (when compared to mainstream shops).
What is not modern is the SW support, and untill that is fixed, it's not point to compare the modernity...
******
btw... Anyone tried partition to partition copy speeds with observation on system responsiveness?
(I'm surpriced how much better SAM667Mhz is when compared to 3800+ AMD system with linux. I'm eager to see how x1000 handles the situation (initially I've read about 70MB/s copy speeds, 4x faster than my best x86 from y2008.).)
Im curious as to how you come up with these highly amusing results. 70MBps 4x best from 2008? I was getting those sorts of speeds close to a decade ago using an ide drive. (edit: just noticed you write "your" best pc. Let me guess, it's either ide, or sata1 vs a sata2/3 in the x1000 you speak of, in which case the machine being used isnt far from irrelevant.
X1000 only 2.6 years below x86? Again, its closer to a decade. Even my oldest, most budget core2duo from about 5 years ago will demolish it.
I can only imagine youve compared a best case scenario for os4 h/w vs worst case you found for x86.
Dont get me wrong, if people are happy with their amiga hardware Im happy for them, but when a person writes this sort of,.. umm,.. let's say "biased", or "unbalanced" comments on a public forum they have to be prepared to be corrected.
Feel free to offer benchmarks and I'll give my results from both an 8 years old athlon64 and a 4.5ish year old budget core2duo.
-
@fishy_fiz
>Im curious as to how you come up with these highly amusing results. 70MBps 4x best from 2008?
Tested on freshly formatted 7200RPM Seagate Barracuda SATA + ext4 + ubuntu 11.x on a 2Ghz dualcore Athlon: 17MB/sec with total loss of system responsiveness.
(my core2Duo laptop at work is even much much worse)
(I bet with some tricks things can be improved on both SAM & x86.)
> I was getting those sorts of speeds close to a decade ago using an ide drive. (edit: just noticed you write "your" best pc.
It's a partition to partition copy (with bigger amount of data than cache can hold).
Not any simple read/write speed test.
> Let me guess, it's either ide, or sata1 vs a sata2/3 in the x1000 you speak of, in which case the machine being used isnt far from irrelevant.
I think it's SATA2 on both machines.
>X1000 only 2.6 years below x86? Again, its closer to a decade. Even my oldest, most budget core2duo from about 5 years ago will demolish it.
As I described on the other thread (I had it linked). 2.6 years comes from various things.
x1000 vs mainstream that is commonly available:
- CPU is 10 years behind x86 Mhz.
- CPU FSB speed is only 2 years behind x86 mainstream
- expansionbus (PCIe) is only 1 year behind
- USB is on the level of mainstream (or maximum 1 year behind)
- x1000 can have the same GPUs (HW wise) that the mainstream uses
After I sum it up, it seems x1000 is/was about 2.6 years behind the mainstream, while the previous HW was even more behind of the mainstream of it's time.
Clear now?
UPDATE/
In my timeline, x1000 caliber technologies:
-CPUs went beyond 2Ghz in 2000-2001
-FSB/memory access of 4GB/s happened around 2007 (but DDR2 1067 is recommended even today)
-PCIe got v2.0 in 2006, but about all modern cards work well on PCIe x16 v1.0
-Serial bus: USB2.0 came in y 2000, but it's still in mainstream + compatible also with USB3.0 of y2008/2009. (+PCIe enables USB3 cards)
-GPU: r700 is from year 2008, but PCIex16 enables the use of latest GPUs & SP accelerations. Modern PA6T bandwidths will not stand in the way (much).
And that's on the higher end, as far as I see it.
/UPDATE
>I can only imagine youve compared a best case scenario for os4 h/w vs worst case you found for x86.
I compared the best available AOS4 HW vs mainstream (not the low end of mainstream, neither highest)
(Even today, mainstream computers are sold with 1...1.4 etc x86 Chips as it's low end, I did not compare to those)
>Dont get me wrong, if people are happy with their amiga hardware Im happy for them, but when a person writes this sort of,.. umm,.. let's say "biased", or "unbalanced" comments on a public forum they have to be prepared to be corrected.
I think I was not (too) biased. What others think?
(I have AmigaMulticoloured glassess, as other fans do as well, but anyway)
>Feel free to offer benchmarks and I'll give my results from both an 8 years old athlon64 and a 4.5ish year old budget core2duo.
All data should be available on the net already.
UPDATE:
To sum my opinnion up:
- PA6T, G4, P1022 and e6500 based CPUs are good enough for 95% of user needs.
- USB2.0 is today still good enough
- PCIex16 is still good enough
- etc…
- There is no-one building simplified PPC motherboards, that’s why they remain too expensive to be sane outside (existing) AOS4 crowd
- We need drivers + SW anyway, before we can be fully modern. Untill then, the rest is futile.
-
I want to see my droid cellphone bench marked against these.
Its obviously faster than the sam boards, but I'd be very interested in seeing how it matches against the mac and x1000.
-
I guess it comes down to what a person defines as "behind", but given the x1000's pricepoint it seems fairer to compare against high end machines 1/2 the price of the x1000 than to compare it to machines 1/10th of the price. X1000 is a premium product therefore deserves to be compared to other premium products. In these situations it is decimated. Compared to budget systems 10% of the price its probably not too much of a stretch to say its only 2-3 years behind. Mind you, these elcheapo systems are weaker than what existed close to a decade ago as well.
-
I want to see my droid cellphone bench marked against these.
Its obviously faster than the sam boards, but I'd be very interested in seeing how it matches against the mac and x1000.
This can give some info:
http://www.roylongbottom.org.uk/linpack%20results.htm
ARM 1.5Ghz -> 170MFlops
Atom 1.6Ghz -> 183MFlops when optimized, 89 MFlops without optimizations
etc...
Latest mobile ARM chips perform like notebook x86 chips. Roughly said.
(PA6T is in same gategory in some parts, x86 top of the range seem to get 2GFlops, 2.2Ghz 970(MP I assume) seems to have achieved 1,6GFlops, Power6 did 5GFlops(IIRC), e6500 should not be far behind the top of x86)
-
1). Youve compared an outdated x86 netbook cpu vs the strongest arm cpu
2). X1000 is a desktop machine. X86 desktop cpus are orders of magnitude faster than thier piddly little netbook cousins
3). You GFlops number are off by a factor of about 50-70. An i7-2700k for example has a rating of roughly 130-150 GFlops.
-
e6500 should not be far behind the top of x86
:lol:
-
@fishy_fiz
>1). Youve compared an outdated x86 netbook cpu vs the strongest arm cpu
wtf?
I just took the GFlops values from the list of results.
(that outdated x86 chip is being sold with most of the below 500eur netbooks)
>2). X1000 is a desktop machine. X86 desktop cpus are orders of magnitude faster than thier piddly little netbook cousins
So?
Did I say otherwise?
I have said PA6T is netbook caliber chip (with better I/O).
>3). You GFlops number are off by a factor of about 50-70. An i7-2700k for example has a rating of roughly 130-150 GFlops.
See the list of results. It depends on if you look at the peak values, optimized results, etc.
@takemehomegrandma
Care to elaborate?
To me it seem you have not looked at e6500 specs?
(not far behind is same as a lot less than decade behind, higher performing than low end x86 dekstop today)
UPDATE/
FYI: some e6500 bits
- instructions per second per MHz is almost on the level of i7 core (6 vs 8).
- Flops ... not sure, but unless Altivec has dropped behind the mainstream, it should be compareable
- e6500 chips can have a lot of hyperthreading cores @ 1.8Ghz or only a few @ 2+Ghz
- it can have 2.3Ghz DDR3 on three 64bit memory bus (memory controller is built in)
- can support PCIex16 v3.0 (IIRC)
/UPDATE
-
When comparing things you need to look at the entire picture/spectrum. Not just hand pick bits and pieces. This whole comparitive things started with you suggesting X1000 is 2.6 years behind. If a person wants to compare an x1000 vs an x86 pc its inaccurate to just compare it to x86 gear thats in a similar ballpark. Just because that's as far as the X1000 goes doesnt mean a person should disregard pretty much all modern x86 hardware (the original atoms are weaker than gear from a decade ago for example).
Comparing a $3000 modern pc to an X1000 is like comparing a commodore64 to an a4k+top of the line csppc :) Completely different league.
Not that it means much at the end of the day, its all down to what a person enjoys, but you keep trying to mould these things to your liking near as I can tell, and that really doesnt give an accurate overview. Your stance appears to be something along the lines of, "It's almost as good as the bottom of the barrell x86 stuff (which in itself is completely destroyed by mid-high end x86 gear), therefore its only a few years behind". This is pretty inaccurate when considering the overall picture.
-
In mainstream they sell this kind of low end for Home use (cheapest available on local shop):
-Smart TV 121eur
-Acer Aspire X1430/AMD Dual Core E-300/2 GB/320 380eur
-HP Compaq CQ2710EO Celeron G530T/4 GB/500 GB 400eur
etc
Apple HW:
- MacMini 2.3Ghz dualcore for 599eur
etc..
@fishy_fiz
>This whole comparitive things started with you suggesting X1000 is 2.6 years behind.
IMHO it still is. HW wise it's even up to date in some aspects.
> If a person wants to compare an x1000 vs an x86 pc its inaccurate to just compare it to x86 gear thats in a similar ballpark.
I compared to what is commonly available at the mainstream (more like high end than low end).
> Just because that's as far as the X1000 goes doesnt mean a person should disregard pretty much all modern x86 hardware (the original atoms are weaker than gear from a decade ago for example).
x86 is not AOS4 compatible. So, all this is very futile.
For grazy people theres also 300eur PC sold with 3000eur "sticker" from C USA, go & buy it, but it does not even give you AOS4 fun.
I have SAM for now. I do not plan to buy x1000 for it's current price, even though it would be ok HW. I planned to get 3Ghz i3 system for 300eur, but I think I donate it to AOS4 SW projects instead. etc... Money where my mouth is, etc.
>Comparing a $3000 modern pc to an X1000 is like comparing a commodore64 to an a4k+top of the line csppc :) Completely different league.
That's why I do not do it. Neither should you.
Comparing x1000 to non AOS4 HW is also pretty silly.
Comparing x1000 to AROS HW (when single core in use) might be a little bit more sane.
Other than that:
x1000 vs 1000eur x86: 1/10 CPU, 1:1 RAM speed, 1:1 expansions (about), 1:1 USB, SATA2 vs SATA3, etc.
x1000 vs 3000eur x86: 1/10 CPU, 1:2 RAM speed, expandability about one year behind, USB about one year behind, SATA2 vs SATA3, etc. etc.
G4 Mac/AmigaOne vs 1000eur x86: 1/10 CPU, 1/10 RAm speed, PCI/AGP vs PCIe, USB1 or USB2, PATA100 vs SATA3, etc. ((10 years+ 10 years+15 years+10 years +10 years ... almost 10 years behind in HW??))
my SAM440 vs 1000eur x86: 1/30 CPU, 1/10 RAM speed, PCI vs PCIe,....
>Not that it means much at the end of the day, its all down to what a person enjoys, but you keep trying to mould these things to your liking near as I can tell, and that really doesnt give an accurat overview.
I've done my study. I can be wrong, again. But I recommend people do some reality checking as well. x1000 is big leap forward in technology for AOS4 fans. Even though it's CPU is very far behind the mainstream (good thing is that you can do a lot with netbook/notebook caliber CPU, anyway).
For a AOS hobbyist I find it fun (and funny) that my SAM440 can do some things nicer than my y2008 x86 linux system, like the filecopy.
-
I don't understand these threads that say how great PowerMacs are compared to the X-1000.
Fact is if speed was the only factor, then we'd all be using x86. The fact that we continue to use our AmigaOS and MOS compatible machines shows that it isn't.
A PowerMac can't run AOS. An x86 can't run AOS. An X1000 can. Therefore it is the best option for AOS; the PowerMac is as irrelevant as an x86 box.
We could do the same for PowerMacs - stick benchmarks of a PowerMac up against an x86 box and act all smug when the x86 wipes the floor with it. It'd be just as relevant: an x86 can't run MOS. A PowerMac can. Therefore a PowerMac is the best option for MOS. An x86 is as relevant to a MOS user as a PowerMac is to an AOS user.
X1000 = best for AOS.
PowerMac = best for MOS.
But if you just care about speed, get an x86.
Threads like this just give MorphOS a bad name.
-
RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.
Also, where's the Ivy Bridge netbooks in any of your comparisons? Even things like elc heapo i3-2130's are omitted. Heck youve even omitted newer generation Atoms (the ones with pvr intergrated gfx). These are all mainstream products. All of the "mainstream" products youve mentioned are pretty much bottom of the barrell.
Your above comparisons are pretty off the mark. Its more akin to:
1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.
3000euro x86 pc = quad channel ddr3@2133 (or higher) = 10:1, dual socket hex core cpu = about 20:1, etc., etc.
Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2), 3.86ghz cpu (about 4:1 (core2duo is significantly faster than x1000 per clock). Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.
Despite its age Id happily put it, using one core up vs the x1000 when/if it ever uses 2 cores, and it'd still come out on top (it's running aros btw).As things stand its even faster than x1000 when running amithlon (ie. and emulated 68k cpu). What youve been doing is akin to me saying, the dragon (assuming it wasnt vapor) is close to ppc because it uses ddr and agp. Completely disregarding what the latter is capable of just because if you strip it down to bottom of the barrell there's similarites.
I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware (although no closer than the original a1's where vs pcs at the time), and if you re-read what Ive written you'll see I even alluded to the fact that it all comes down to what a person enjoys (ie. x86 doesnt allow a person to run OS4.x). The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.
Anyway, I dont really want to argue. If people are happy then Im happy for them. If youre happy convincing yourself that youre not shaping things so they fit what you want to be true then Im also happy for you :P
-
RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.
Also, where's the Ivy Bridge netbooks in any of your comparisons? Even things like elc heapo i3-2130's are omitted. Heck youve even omitted newer generation Atoms (the ones with pvr intergrated gfx). These are all mainstream products. All of the "mainstream" products youve mentioned are pretty much bottom of the barrell.
Your above comparisons are pretty off the mark. Its more akin to:
1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.
3000euro x86 pc = quad channel ddr3@2133 (or higher) = 10:1, dual socket hex core cpu = about 20:1, etc., etc.
Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2), 3.86ghz cpu (about 4:1 (core2duo is significantly faster than x1000 per clock). Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.
Despite its age Id happily put it, using one core up vs the x1000 when/if it ever uses 2 cores, and it'd still come out on top (it's running aros btw).As things stand its even faster than x1000 when running amithlon (ie. and emulated 68k cpu).
I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware (although no closer than the original a1's were vs pcs at the time), and if you re-read what Ive written you'll see I even alluded to the fact that it all comes down to what a person enjoys (ie. x86 doesnt allow a person to run OS4.x). The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.
-
Care to elaborate?
To me it seem you have not looked at e6500 specs?
Only briefly, since it's not relevant for anything I'm interested in. The e6500 is not a CPU, it's a technology, and I believe the new "AMP" deal will mean a great step-up for the QorIQ Communications Platform that Freescale is offering. It seems it will mean four times the performance from previous offerings, as well as energy saving features such as the "Night mode", where data path delivers packets to only as many cores as required to process them, while the rest of the cores enter low power mode (and wakes as traffic increases again). Energy saving features in networks has been gaining importance during the last half decade (or more), I don't think anyone will deny that, so this may be one of the key features of the AMP concept. The T4240/T4160 chips indeed have an impressive DMIPS/MHz figure for an embedded processor, and coupled with speeds up to 1.8GHz, this will mean much for today's/future network infrastructure that is more and more being complicated by protocols such as IPSec and SSL, which require more than just simple IP packet forwarding. Freescale claims it can forward 50Gbits/s, and no doubt will this mean powerful gateways, routers, switches, proxy server applications, network storage applications, etc. I think this will mean a new position for Freescale in the market! :)
(not far behind is same as a lot less than decade behind, higher performing than low end x86 dekstop today)
Uh, not going to try to pretend I understood what you just wrote there, you lost me somewhere prior to the comma. (Was that some kind of discrete mathematics? Or just a riddle?)
:lol:
-
@fishy_fiz
>RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.
>1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.
Ok.
But every x86 that I have seen sold below 1000eur has been with single or dual channel RAM, same for Apple.
And the RAM has been DDR3 1333 (that seems slower in practice than DDR2 1067)
And none of them have had more than one PCIex16 or multiple GPUs.
etc…
I need to look harder next time, perhaps…?
And at the same time …
One can put the same GPU in x1000, unlike ever before.
One can put USB3 adapter in, unlike ever before.
One can use SATA2 (+RAID) unlike ever before.
…
And again. We need SW to use multiple cores or GPUs. Again. x1000 is ok/very good, except the price.
>Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2)
Why is that? x1000 has dual channel DDR2 1067.
Are you saying DDR2 runs slower when there is Amiga sticker somewhere?
>Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.
Like Athlon did on x86, PA6T is the pioneer of putting memory controller onboard -> best possible bandwidth.
>I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware
Agreed!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
>(although no closer than the original a1's where vs pcs at the time)
I disagree. To my math A1 GAP in 2002 vs x86 was 5,8 years. (gaps: CPU 4y, FSB 6y, Expansions 10y, USB 4y, GPU 5y, when it is 10y, 2y, 1y,1y,0y for x1000)
And I will not go in more details with you. ;-)
>The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.
To my math, x1000 was about 2.6 (..3) years behind the medium-high end in y2011, and it’s just my math. Everyone can do their own math.
The gap was growing until SAM460 and x1000 were released.
Today it’s possible to build more modern PPC systems (with latest peripherals) than some time ago + I do not think PPC catch up x86 ever again, though.
>Anyway, I dont really want to argue. If people are happy then Im happy for them. If youre happy convincing yourself that youre not shaping things so they fit what you want to be true then Im also happy for you :P
I think my glasses are not that red as you think + your glasses seems pretty black, btw, but anyway.
I should remember that when I try to be non-biased, I’m not. Perhaps you should too.
Anyway... I was never good in math anyway. One better do his own.
-
@takemehomegrandma
>Uh, not going to try to pretend I understood what you just wrote there, you lost me somewhere prior to the comma.
PA6T was 10 years behind desktop chips when x1000FC came to market. e6500 based chips are less behind. Does it now compile?
If Freescale manages to deliver AMP chips as they have planned, PPC motherboard builders should have ok material for faster than before PPC motherboards (+that can accept all modern peripherals off the self).
-
e6500 should not be far behind the top of x86)
Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.
-
In theory an intergrated memory controller is a big advantage, but its down to the implementation. Original athlon64's outdid the p4's of the era in this area, despite p4's having ram with higher bandwidth (rdram/ddr2 vs ddr1). It's not always true though. Core2 architecture is a testament to this, which using the same memory, and its controller in the core logic had higher ram bandwidth and similar latency. PA6T is inferiror to even athlon64 with its memory controller. Still nice to have, but different architectures (even within same cpu family) play a big part here as well. So no, it has nothing to do with if its amiga or not, it has to do with the how hardware is implemented. A core2 based cpu simply has better, and more efficient use of ram than a PA6T. Not that a core2 based system is anything resembling modern though and is typically outdone by newer budget systems.
In the last few years x86 has again had a growth spurt and new hardware from this time is a whole new generation again. The thing is though that there's still plenty of products around based on older hardware (atoms are about 5 years old for example and only recently being phased out despite there being much better replacements).
I suspect this is maybe where our disagreeing stems from. My perspective is where the technology is today whereas you seem to be coming from an available products angle. Give it a few months and my perspective will become clearer as the currently available obsolete products start getting replaced with more modern equivalents. I must admit to being surprised at just how many obsolete x86 products are still in circulation, even though thier significantly more powerful and advanced replacements are also in the marketplace for similar prices.
-
Oh, and Im hardly speaking through black tinted glasses. Ive sepnt next to no time on my aros box in the last few months and have spent considerable time doing amiga os development (I also have a MOS box).
My only real allegiance is to enjoying my amiga hobby.
Im simply a pretty heavy follower of computer technology and have been for 30 or so years. Not to toot my own horn, but I do know my stuff.
-
Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.
No does not.
But the 1.8Ghz 12 core (24cores visible via hyperthreading) should have roughly similar performance than multicore x86 chips. (for heavily multithreaded + SMP + SIMD using tasks)
(it just must not take another 10 years before we have e6500 based A1 + SMP capable OS + good SW)
@fishy
>I must admit to being surprised at just how many obsolete x86 products are still in circulation, even though thier significantly more powerful and advanced replacements are also in the marketplace for similar prices.
Mainstream has become sloppy in generating enough bloatsoftware and that's why there is less need for upgrade?
In real life I see Linux going for the bloatware crown. Even Mint LXDE seems slowish on 2500+ dumbster HW (that in amiga CPU land would compete with PA6T).
But at work the corporate IT service is the king of all. It's amazing how slow and crashy they manage set these core2 machines.
(already spent 15+ minutes today rebooting this kludge twice and restarting everything, I wonder where they even find this IE8 for these machines... my SAM440 almost beat this in javascript tests .... and it seems every office apps relies in bugged IE bits and pieces ...)
UPDATE, just in case G5 results were not previously mentioned:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35671&forum=34&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#664098
-
No does not.
But the 1.8Ghz 12 core (24cores visible via hyperthreading) should have roughly similar performance than multicore x86 chips. (for heavily multithreaded + SMP + SIMD using tasks)
So you're specifically thinking about the T4280.
I can't think of a PC application that could efficiently use that many cores (outside of the communications applications this chip was designed for).
And no Amigoid OS supports SMP.
So the T4280 would be no faster then a PA6T.
-
Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.
Of course not...
-
@Iggy
>So you're specifically thinking about the T4280.
There will be 1...12 core variants. And e6500 is said to cope with up to 2.5Ghz clock rate.
>I can't think of a PC application that could efficiently use that many cores (outside of the communications applications this chip was designed for).
I have used some.
Mainly gcc, and dvd:ripp. But also most of rendering apps can use a lot of cores.
(they can also use cheap heterogenous clusters)
>And no Amigoid OS supports SMP.
Before we have second multicore based motherboard out, AOS4.2 with SMP will be out.
>So the T4280 would be no faster then a PA6T.
Even in single core + HT disabled those e6500 chips should be slightly faster than PA6T.
To my understanding they should perform like G4 per Mhz. And when only one core is used e6500 based chips should go up to 2.5Ghz. (+2.3Ghz DDR3 + PCIe3.0 etc...)
But anyway... SMP is mandatory for all Amiga flavours. Otherwise I see no future hope for those niches growing.
(and all are going SMP ... it will take year(s), though)
-
Before we have second multicore based motherboard out, AOS4.2 with SMP will be out.
Sure
-
@Iggy
...And e6500 is said to cope with up to 2.5Ghz clock rate.
No, the e5500 is supposed to clock at up to 2.5 GHz.
Freescale has downgraded the e6500 to 1.8 GHz.
However, it does look like some e6500 based products (specifically the T4280) may be able to support better PCIe configurations (then e5500 based products).
And I haven't seen any products listed using this core with a low (or single) core count.
-
T4 chips are clocked up to 1.8Ghz.
But they seem to have downgraded e6500 info to 2Ghz.
http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/brochure/PWRARBYNDBITSQIG.pdf
The old info:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1576370
-
Because this is the truth, so people may know it.
Hail for Piru - the truth-bringer. The same Piru who brought the lie about the Amikit breaking laws by avoiding European warranty periods.
Oh, well. Whatever.
Link to the thread (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=59571)
-
T4 chips are clocked up to 1.8Ghz.
But they seem to have downgraded e6500 info to 2Ghz.
http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/brochure/PWRARBYNDBITSQIG.pdf
The old info:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1576370
Yes, the T4 family maxes out at 1.8 GHz and they haven't announced any T1, T2, or T3 products yet.
So, while Freescale claims the e6500 core can run at up to 2 GHz, they haven't pushed it to that yet.
I'm not sure I'm interested in AMP processors outside of the T4280.
That processor offers the most SerDes lanes (other processors in this family have less).
This will allow it to support better expansion options (like 16X PCIe cards).
-
I'm still surprised at the fairly low results. Though it's interesting how close it is to the higher clocked G5 running the same benchmark.
There could be a number of reason for this:
System is set up wrong, but in OS 4 and Linux seems unlikely (unless the same people did both).
The low power has involved compromises that impact its performance - This is quite likely, you don't get low power for free.
The PA6T is "fragile" performance wise - A distinct possibility, this is not exactly rare even at the high end. The G5 was behind the x86s at general purpose stuff but ahead on heavy maths. Could be something similar but more pronounced - its weak on general purpose but the FFT score is very good.
One of the modes is faster than the other - has anyone compared 32 bit to 64 bit Linux to see if it makes a difference?
Software is compiled for the wrong target - The PA6T was in part designed to have similar characteristics to the G5, to the point that one of the G5's weak points was copied (2 cycle integer instructions). Code compiled for the G5 should run better than code for the G4.
-
the truth would be nice eh..see post 20.
@ Piru
I know you don't want to troll this way dude so tell 'the truth' on this thread and change those graphs to refelct that the X1000 is only operating on one core.
How many times must you be told: all of the machines in the graph are running on one core. If any of them were running on two cores you might have some kind of point, but they aren't, none of them. Just because you don't understand this doesn't mean Piru is "trolling".
-
How many times must you be told: all of the machines in the graph are running on one core. If any of them were running on two cores you might have some kind of point, but they aren't, none of them. Just because you don't understand this doesn't mean Piru is "trolling".
I'd like to see Piru post dual core benchmarks.
How about a G4 FW800 Power mac, a G5 Power mac, and the X1000.
-
The low power has involved compromises that impact its performance - This is quite likely, you don't get low power for free.
Of course it has, and IIRC the key goal for the PA6T was low power (Watts), not high performance. AFAIK they targeted it for Apple to use in laptops post G4, not to compete with the G5 desktops. That never happened though, as we all know, it only became a "could have been" parenthesis in computer history (was it even really launched in a final state, or only as samples?)...
-
I'd like to see Piru post dual core benchmarks.
Why don't *you* do it, you are one of those having a dual CPU Mac, aren't you? You might have to choose a different test suite though?
Dual core benchmarks are pointless in an Amiga context though, so why bother? Amiga won't ever be SMP without breaking the "Amiga" in it. I would vote "aye" for doing that in future MorphOS, but my view of the OS4 community is that it's largely built on the "we are based on teh tru sources", "we are teh reel!!1!" and other mumbo jumbo statements, so I don't think it will go down just as easily for them. And of course, if you are going to cut the cord, break from the past, and start with a clean slate, why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to do it on an obscure, backwater PPC platform? Doesn't compute...
-
Dual core benchmarks are pointless in an Amiga context though, so why bother? Amiga won't ever be SMP without breaking the "Amiga" in it. I would vote "aye" for doing that in future MorphOS, but my view of the OS4 community is that it's largely built on the "we are based on teh tru sources", "we are teh reel!!1!" and other mumbo jumbo statements, so I don't think it will go down just as easily for them. And of course, if you are going to cut the cord, break from the past, and start with a clean slate, why on earth would anyone be stupid enough to do it on an obscure, backwater PPC platform? Doesn't compute...
If ALL the machines are benchmarked using two cores then that's a valid comparison, but what does anyone expect? ALL the machines will simply be faster, it isn't going to magically make the X1000 change position. But like you, I wonder what is the point of doing so if the X1000 is involved? The OS the X1000 is supposedly designed for doesn't have SMP or any other sort of multi-core support, so all it will do is expose OS4 users to precisely how little of the processing power of the X1000 is utilized.
Hey I know, maybe if the benchmark suites were redesigned to take advantage of the Power of X, the onboard Xena XMOS chip, then the scales will tip! Yeah that's the ticket! :crazy smiley: :crazy smiley:
-
How many times must you be told: all of the machines in the graph are running on one core. If any of them were running on two cores you might have some kind of point, but they aren't, none of them. Just because you don't understand this doesn't mean Piru is "trolling".
c'mon seriously now you do realize it is very misleading to not clarify on the graphs that the benchmarks in question only utilize ONE CPU core.
As it stands those numbers are totally useless and Piru knows it unless you want to only compare the Samflex@800 and Apple product.
So let's do a 3D Blender benchmark and only use 1 core of the X1000 and then use the full potential of the CPU and compare the results under Debian hmmm I wonder which result would be better:rolleyes:
-
Exactly. That's why i don't bother with benchmarks. Benchmarks are like thinktanks. Thinktanks are usually used when certain parties have an agenda and then use stats to prove it. Piru is just sugar coating the numbers in the benchmark to belittle the X1000 for the purpose of promoting Morphos. Sure, numbers don't lie - but people do.
-
Exactly. That's why i don't bother with benchmarks. Benchmarks are like thinktanks. Thinktanks are usually used when certain parties have an agenda and then use stats to prove it. Piru is just sugar coating the numbers in the benchmark to belittle the X1000 for the purpose of promoting Morphos. Sure, numbers don't lie - but people do.
I'm sure the benchmarks for the upcoming Galaxy SIII (European, not the Qualcomm American version) will provide some interest as well this month with it's quad core 1.5GHz A9 CPUs. Wonder who the winner will be.
-
Exactly. That's why i don't bother with benchmarks. Benchmarks are like thinktanks. Thinktanks are usually used when certain parties have an agenda and then use stats to prove it. Piru is just sugar coating the numbers in the benchmark to belittle the X1000 for the purpose of promoting Morphos. Sure, numbers don't lie - but people do.
yes we all know Piru's 'agenda' with this thread but I think he is usually fair with his facts and will change the info on the graphs to reflect the truth of the benchmarks.
-
I'm sure the benchmarks for the upcoming Galaxy SIII (European, not the Qualcomm American version) will provide some interest as well this month with it's quad core 1.5GHz A9 CPUs. Wonder who the winner will be.
Whoa!
You actually made a valid point AND you didn't make a CUSA comment.
I'm impressed.
Yeah a quad core A9 at 1.5 GHz would be pretty impressive.
I'd love to see future variants of MorphOS or AOS on that.
But we'll probably see AROS running on ARM before either of those two OS' gets ported.
-
For a real world example run a Blender demo on only one cpu and then run it with all the cpu's cores and then you will see real 'facts'
See Linux PowerPC Blender benchmark (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61508)
-
IIRC the key goal for the PA6T was low power (Watts), not high performance. AFAIK they targeted it for Apple to use in laptops post G4, not to compete with the G5 desktops.
Actually, it was designed to provide G5 type performance at much lower power - and if you look at the benchmarks of the X1000 and the G5 2.3GHz is is remarkably close on some of the benchmarks.
-
@ Piru
thanks for the link but you forgot to update the graphs in your first post ?
btw, you also forgot to mention on your new thread that Blender on the X1000 doesn't have 3D acceleration yet so those numbers should be better when 3D on Debian PPC arrives
-
btw, you also forgot to mention on your new thread that Blender on the X1000 doesn't have 3D acceleration yet so those numbers should be better when 3D on Debian PPC arrives
3D acceleration wont make any difference to Blender benchmarks.
-
@Iggy
>they haven't announced any T1, T2, or T3 products yet.
"These high-performance QorIQ products will span 2-24 virtual cores"
They seem to have dropped also original single core option.
But the plan is to get new AMP version out per every quarter.
Hope they manage.
>I'm not sure I'm interested in AMP processors outside of the T4280.
>That processor offers the most SerDes lanes (other processors in this family have less).
>This will allow it to support better expansion options (like 16X PCIe cards).
I think we have to wait and see to know how many serdes lines they have on other versions.
+ it takes years before our SW can utilize PCIe-x4 fully, not to mention v2.0 or v3,0 or x16.
(to me it seems dual core version should have at least 16serdes lines, like the B4860 has)
-
Exactly. That's why i don't bother with benchmarks. Benchmarks are like thinktanks. Thinktanks are usually used when certain parties have an agenda and then use stats to prove it.
1. The subject of this thread is "debian hardinfo benchmarks" on various machines. It's a HW discussion.
2. The benchmark initiative started on AmigaWorld.net, by OS4 people. It's a HW discussion.
3. The only thing Piru did here, was to add his personal machine to the Graph. It's a HW discussion.
4. MorphOS was never being discussed, the thread was never about it, it's a HW discussion, and the *only ones* trying to make this thread a MorphOS thread is *YOU* (1 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691310&postcount=9), 2 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691315&postcount=12), 3 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691350&postcount=25), 4 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691475&postcount=69)), and *SPIRANTHO*: 1 (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691396&postcount=45)
This is obvious to *everyone else*, just pointing it out to *you*, since you obviously haven't noticed...
Piru is just sugar coating the numbers in the benchmark to belittle the X1000 for the purpose of promoting Morphos. Sure, numbers don't lie - but people do.
Shooting the messenger delivering info you don't approve of, is a classic (but foul) knee-jerk response to try to "correct" a situation you don't like. Of course it won't change any underlying facts, and in the end, *you* will be the one looking bad in others eyes...
klx300r:
"You're trolling" (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691331&postcount=20)
Suggesting it's not the truth (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691375&postcount=33)
"Misleading, useless and Piru knows it (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691470&postcount=68)
"Agenda" (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691485&postcount=71)
drHirudo:
Trying to discredit the messenger with external and irrelevant stuff (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691444&postcount=60)
...and now *YOU* just tried to picture Piru as a liar, when all he did was posting a graph with data that *anyone* can verify. He did nothing more, nothing else, but that's obviously enough for you to try to discredit him in this foul way. But I dare you: Now it's up to you to back up your claims. Prove your claims of Piru being a liar, or stand exposed as the little troll you are.
I have long suspected "Kesa" being just another of those "alter-ego accounts" with an agenda, registered in 2010 (suspicious there already) and already with strong views on a selection of issues, always popping in to push a certain agenda in certain threads. This suspicion is growing stronger by every post you make. It would be interesting to know the real identity behind "Kesa"...
-
(http://kolla.no/popcorn.jpg)
-
Actually, it was designed to provide G5 type performance at much lower power - and if you look at the benchmarks of the X1000 and the G5 2.3GHz is is remarkably close on some of the benchmarks.
The "G4"/e600 was never a bad performer compared to the "G5" on a clock by clock basis, in some areas it was definitely the winner even (but of course the G5 ran at a much higher clock and had other advantages)
From the many, many various benchmarks, on various OS's we have seen during the last months, I'd say that the PA6T is comparable to a G4 class CPU in *performance*, but is comparable to a G5 class CPU in it being *64-bit*. (The last part is of course pointless in an Amiga context)
-
For a real world example run a Blender demo on only one cpu and then run it with all the cpu's cores and then you will see real 'facts'
So let's do a 3D Blender benchmark and only use 1 core of the X1000 and then use the full potential of the CPU and compare the results under Debian hmmm I wonder which result would be better:rolleyes:
See Linux PowerPC Blender benchmark (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61508)
:whack:
:roflmao:
-
drHirudo:
Trying to discredit the messenger with external and irrelevant stuff (http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=691444&postcount=60)
...and now *YOU* just tried to picture Piru as a liar, when all he did was posting a graph with data that *anyone* can verify. He did nothing more, nothing else, but that's obviously enough for you to try to discredit him in this foul way. But I dare you: Now it's up to you to back up your claims. Prove your claims of Piru being a liar, or stand exposed as the little troll you are.
Dude, I posted a link with proof in my post. The fact that he didn't edit his OP after being proved wrong makes him a liar. Imagine people from search engines coming to his threads and reading only the first few posts. They will have the feeling that Amikit is breaking law!
If he wanted to be neutral in this thread, he would have posted benchmarks from a recent X86 machine that will make his graphics on different scale and the measures of the difference between the different older CPU indistinguishable for regular observers, who don't care anyway. Yet he didn't, proving that he has an agenda.
Enough said.
-
@ Piru
thanks for the link but you forgot to update the graphs in your first post ?
Maybe I misunderstood the processor part of the Hardinfo benchmark, but isn't it a CPU test (which in today reads: Core) by design? If you want a view of real life effects of single or multiple cores you would use other tests, like indeed the Blender benchmark?
btw, you also forgot to mention on your new thread that Blender on the X1000 doesn't have 3D acceleration yet so those numbers should be better when 3D on Debian PPC arrives
...which won't affect anything at all, the 3D acceleration is purely a GUI thing in Blender.
-
Dude, I posted a link with proof in my post.
The only reason to why you made that post was to shoot the messenger by trying to discredit him. It was completely off topic. Everyone can see that. And everyone can see that the PA6T performs just the same, despite your post, so it had zero impact! :lol:
-
Whoa!
You actually made a valid point AND you didn't make a CUSA comment.
I'm impressed.
Yeah a quad core A9 at 1.5 GHz would be pretty impressive.
I'd love to see future variants of MorphOS or AOS on that.
But we'll probably see AROS running on ARM before either of those two OS' gets ported.
The hosted version of AROS already runs on ARM. So yes you will see AROS running on ARM first. ;D
-
The only reason to why you made that post was to shoot the messenger by trying to discredit him. It was completely off topic. Everyone can see that. And everyone can see that the PA6T performs just the same, despite your post, so it had zero impact! :lol:
He has already discredited himself in the past so many times. No need to discredit him. My post was a sarcasm. People already know where he comes from and what he tries to achieve.
The PA6T may perform the same, which is no wonder, considering it is chip developed some years ago. But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.
-
The PA6T may perform the same, which is no wonder, considering it is chip developed some years ago. But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.
Okay, let me begin with 26W at idle and 40W at full load for my PowerBook G4.
How does your X1000 do?
-
But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.
That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Yet another interesting calculation would be:
How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")
Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away :lol:
-
Maybe I misunderstood the processor part of the Hardinfo benchmark, but isn't it a CPU test (which in today reads: Core) by design? If you want a view of real life effects of single or multiple cores you would use other tests, like indeed the Blender benchmark?
...which won't affect anything at all, the 3D acceleration is purely a GUI thing in Blender.
grandma, for the 10'th time, Hardinfo is NOT MULTI THREADED so knowing that the benchmark figures are misleading..period. :smack:
our friend Piru knows this and chooses to not correct the graphs for some 'strange' reason.
as for Blender results you see the difference that using 1 thread as compared to both right? having 3D acceleration should slightly improve the render times as they definitely won't get worse ;)
-
That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Yet another interesting calculation would be:
How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")
Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away :lol:
I bought my microA1 back in January 2005. Works flawlessly till now. Thats 89 months. Oh well, I had to buy $3 battery and replace it two months ago.
Bought in July 2011 Dell Inspiron laptop. It broke in December and in February 2012 I returned it back and had to pay extra to get another laptop from another brand.
So far the ALL the Amiga hardware I have performs good. That includes the old machines.
-
having 3D acceleration should slightly improve the render times as they definitely won't get worse ;)
Well, if you have GUI running, then you might see few (low) percent decrease in rendering times, as it might waste some CPU time drawing the GUI (which could be used rendering).
But it's been long time since I did some benchmarks, but isn't it possible to run blender from command line without a gui, and tell it to render specific (given from command line) scene?
That way it won't use gfx card at all, so you can see if you can get few percent faster renders :lol:
Doing:
blender -b scene.blend -f 1
Will render the specified frame (1) of the given scene to /tmp/0001.png
With -t you can specify amount of threads (how many cores will be used)
-
grandma, for the 10'th time, Hardinfo is NOT MULTI THREADED
Wasn't that *exactly* what I just said? :confused: It was what I meant, anyway...
our friend Piru knows this and chooses to not correct the graphs for some 'strange' reason.
Given the above, everything *is already correct*, modifying the data would be tampering with the results! If you want to measure the CPU's SMP capabilities you would have to use other benchmarks, like blender (or numerous others)! It seems you don't understand the benchmark...?
as for Blender results you see the difference that using 1 thread as compared to both right?
Yes? :confused:
having 3D acceleration should slightly improve the render times as they definitely won't get worse
Since none of the benchmarks are using GPU for rendering (it's supposed to be a benchmark of the *CPU*), it won't get any better either...
-
...
Given the above, everything *is already correct*, modifying the data would be tampering with the results! If you want to measure the CPU's SMP capabilities you would have to use other benchmarks, like blender (or numerous others)! It seems you don't understand ..
Who is talking about changing data & tampering??? Again as I stated too many times, a simple line stating that the X1000 results are based on only 1 thread will suffice.
Not noting that simple fact is simply wrong/ misleading/ inaccurate/ trolling.
-
a simple line stating that the X1000 results are based on only 1 thread will suffice.
Why? The benchmark (and the results) can only be 1 thread, right?
-
That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.
Yet another interesting calculation would be:
How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")
Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away :lol:
Ivy Bridge cpus use less power than either. Theyre actually being aimed at netbook use such is their power consumption (or lack of). AMD cpus of course are a different story despite being lower performing.
-
Why? The benchmark (and the results) can only be 1 thread, right?
I wonder if he would be so obsessive about unnecessary labeling if the X1000 had been a better performer?
-
I wonder if he would be so obsessive about unnecessary labeling if the X1000 had been a better performer?
My money is on no.
-
@takehomegrandma
You have too many patience with some people.
-
My money is on no.
+1
-
Why? The benchmark (and the results) can only be 1 thread, right?
why does it say so somewhere ? if it was made clear this was the case then there would be no doubt, right?
-
I wonder if he would be so obsessive about unnecessary labeling if the X1000 had been a better performer?
I just would like a test to be factual. If the benchmarks used multi threads those graphs would look quite different, but then again, this thread wasnt started to outline facts and truths right :rolleyes:
-
@takehomegrandma
You have too many patience with some people.
I must have patience with grandma as I work with elderly people all the time:razz:
-
Ivy Bridge cpus use less power than either. Theyre actually being aimed at netbook use such is their power consumption (or lack of). AMD cpus of course are a different story despite being lower performing.
Beyond 4Ghz for both Ivybridge and Bulldozer, the AMD Bulldozer can still tangle with Intel Ivybridge . http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2243073
When all threads can be used, Bulldozer does a good job of making up for the lost single threaded performance. Scaling for FX outshines the i7 3770k by a significant margin. Most notably with techarp's x264 HD, where my FX 8150 @ 4.9 Ghz beats a 5.0 Ghz 2600k, and narrowly loses to a 4.9 Ghz 3770k. (Check source 19)
In TrueCrypt 7.1a we see a 4.9 Ghz FX 8150 performing slightly better than its 22nm 3770k intel counterpart at 4.7 Ghz.
In 7-Zip we see the FX 8150 jumping 2.7 % percent ahead of its 3770k counterpart at the same 4.9 Ghz clock for Compression, but falling behind 2.7% with decompression.
The temperature of a 3770k is also seen to sky-rocket up to 78C during a SuperPi 32m test, while my FX 8150 doest hit above 59C
-
@Kesa
This thread is good news to Hyperion. There is nothing wrong in OS4 regarding raw CPU performance.
MorphOS is faster than OS4 on Pegasos II so there is the potential for OS4 to ring more out of the X1000 than it currently does.
-
@klx300r
Are you OK? Your desperate and frantic postings here in this thread and in that Blender benchmark thread shows signs of a mental break-down! You should take it easy...
A few years ago, some of you bashed the MorphOS team with sticks and stones for going the Mac mainstream HW route, not sparing the mockery. Now, after a two years of development, some people can pre-order "your" alternative, the A1X1K, that for $3,000+ puts you at the same position as that said Mac HW costing a 1/20 of the A1X1K's price. But that doesn't mean it's slow (well, personally, I think it would be nice to be able to play 1080p videos etc in 2012, but maybe that's just me, G5 Mac's seem to be able to do this though, so it's at least *possible* on the PPC). You should be glad for this, you got exactly what you asked for and as others have said, it's the fastest OS4 machine available, be glad for that and not angry about Mac HW beats it! Mind your blood pressure, take it easy, and wait for Hyperion to add support for the on board controllers. Noticed you just got RS-232 drivers, etc. That's good, right? Once you can take those extra/unnecessary PCI cards out of the picture, chances are the price of a system could be lowered slightly as well, and given the OS4 development speed, I'd say that it's only a matter of a few years until the board is fully supported (the Sam 460 for example isn't quite there yet, but I'm sure it will get there some day)...
-
Again, why do you keep using A1X1K? :confused:
Amiga 10 1000. It doesn't even make sense! :confused:
-
@kesa: that name doesnt make sense however you spell it, anyway.
-
@klx300r
Are you OK? Your desperate and frantic postings here in this thread and in that Blender benchmark thread shows signs of a mental break-down! You should take it easy...
...
well now that you ask things have been stressful lately:knuddel:
I just never thought Piru would stoop that low...I never have said one bad thing about MOS ever so please don't confuse me with others.
I've tried MOS and think it's a professional and fast OS and if I could have got myself a PegII years ago I would be using it right now! this isnt about blue vs red for me honestly
-
@klx300r
You actually *still* don't realize you are "seeing" things that simply aren't there?
-
well now that you ask things have been stressful lately:knuddel:
I just never thought Piru would stoop that low...I never have said one bad thing about MOS ever so please don't confuse me with others.
I've tried MOS and think it's a professional and fast OS and if I could have got myself a PegII years ago I would be using it right now! this isnt about blue vs red for me honestly
Well at least we're cool on that, since I myself have considered buying an OS4 system.
But I agree with takemehomegrandma, I don't understand what your problem with Piru's figures is.