debian hardinfo benchmarks

[Kesa]

@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. 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".

[kickstart]

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.

[Iggy]

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).

[klx300r]

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.

[itix]

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.

[fishy_fiz]

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.

[KimmoK]

@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.

[haywirepc]

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.

[fishy_fiz]

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.

[KimmoK]

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)

[fishy_fiz]

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.

[takemehomegrandma]

e6500 should not be far behind the top of x86

:lol:

[KimmoK]

@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 .
- 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

[fishy_fiz]

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.

[KimmoK]

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.

[spirantho]

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.