X1000 benchmarks

[bbond007]

I can't decide...

Should I buy 10 mac mini G4 computers with MorphOS licences (assuming I can get a mini with 512K and Morphos license for $300) or should I purchase one X1000?

What would be faster?

[Karlos]

In all seriousness you don't really think people would spend all that money just to emulate Windoes do you? What a waste. Please, get that Windoes **** off here :rant:

Well, the benchmark discussions are pretty interesting. On the one hand, you have people pointing out that G4 class macs are at least as powerful (on the basis of tests so far) and others concluding that due to this, the X1000 is clearly a failure.

Label me a red-camp fanboy for saying this if you must, but I'm not sure I see it that way. Sure, it's an expensive system, no argument. If you consider it to be an over-priced yesterday's news machine, then don't buy it. You can pick up cheap PC kit and pay nothing for a high-quality, robust OS, like linux. Simple, really.

However, it's also a new system, designed and built from scratch that was (by those slamming it now) dismissed as pure vapour since the day it was announced. Now it's here and based on some quick benchmarks we can see that it's on par with old apple hardware and apparently that's really bad. Personally, I disagree. For such a project, going from "sheer vapourware that'll never appear" to "at least as good as Apple's G4-class PPC" is a pretty decent result. Something about saying that seems like deja vu. Weird.

I'm also not convinced we've really seen what the hardware is capable of yet. We know that OS4 certainly isn't making the most of it right now, being restricted to 32-bit operation on a single core. Even 64-bit PPC linux will have limitations if you use a modern graphics card with it as you are unlikely to get a vendor-supplied driver for PPC (unlike OSX) and will have to rely on whatever open source alternatives there are.

[jorkany]

Well, the benchmark discussions are pretty interesting. On the one hand, you have people pointing out that G4 class macs are at least as powerful (on the basis of tests so far) and others concluding that due to this, the X1000 is clearly a failure.

Label me a red-camp fanboy for saying this if you must, but I'm not sure I see it that way. Sure, it's an expensive system, no argument. If you consider it to be an over-priced yesterday's news machine, then don't buy it. You can pick up cheap PC kit and pay nothing for a high-quality, robust OS, like linux. Simple, really.

However, it's also a new system, designed and built from scratch that was (by those slamming it now) dismissed as pure vapour since the day it was announced. Now it's here and based on some quick benchmarks we can see that it's on par with old apple hardware and apparently that's really bad. Personally, I disagree. For such a project, going from "sheer vapourware that'll never appear" to "at least as good as Apple's G4-class PPC" is a pretty decent result. Something about saying that seems like deja vu. Weird.

I'm also not convinced we've really seen what the hardware is capable of yet. We know that OS4 certainly isn't making the most of it right now, being restricted to 32-bit operation on a single core. Even 64-bit PPC linux will have limitations if you use a modern graphics card with it as you are unlikely to get a vendor-supplied driver for PPC (unlike OSX) and will have to rely on whatever open source alternatives there are.

You red-camp fanboy! I hope that curry does the flaming sword dance in your lower intestine!  

[Karlos]

You red-camp fanboy! I hope that curry does the flaming sword dance in your lower intestine!  

How did you know I had curry today? :lol:

-edit-

Sometimes I wonder what the deal with the ongoing camp arguments is. IMHO, people genuinely interested in getting an X1000 aren't going to be swayed by any of these benchmarks. If price/performance was your main motivator for your choice of "next gen" Amiga, you'd opt for AROS, end of story. There's absolutely no way you can compete with "costs nothing" running on commodity hardware that's faster than anything the combined purples can come up with. The traditional "blue" argument against it used to be that AROS is woefully far behind, but that's simply not true any more. In fact, it's OS4 and MOS that are lagging behind AROS in some areas now (3D springs to mind immediately).

I struggle to see that there are really any "would-be NG" Amiga users left these days that aren't fully aware of the main options on the table and what they each offer. We're not arguing to convince them. We're just doing it because we can

[jorkany]

How did you know I had curry today? :lol:

The owls are not what they seem!


Nah, you mentioned it in another post. Man, now I want some curry!

[Kesa]

@Karlos. I agree with everything you just said

My stance on running DosBox is an ethical one and think it has no meaningful place on Amiga's. But it may be useful here in making meaningful benchmarks possible. I think it is funny how people are putting the x1000 down because it has only just been released and not even optimized yet. It is still in beta as the software that has been made for it has yet to be released. With this in mind it could be a while before it reaches it's full potential.  

There's is nothing wrong with being a OS4.x fanboy. Although i have never used OS4.x i can see the appeal as it seems to recreate the classic 3.x workbenches whereas Morphos, as much as i like it, still feels like an Apple somehow and I'm not talking about the hardware. I have a love hate relationship with both the blue and red camps  

It sounds to me you are thinking of getting an x1000?

[Karlos]

The owls are not what they seem!

:lol:

There's a fake plastic one on the roof of a building opposite the office where I work. I thought it was to scare off feral pigeons. You can imagine my amusement when I noticed today that it's rather caked in bird crap. As if feral Manchester pigeons have ever seen an owl.

Nah, you mentioned it in another post. Man, now I want some curry!

Oh yeah, forgot about that. I had lamb too, albeit not the kind I mentioned (which was actually a clue to the thread tag thing). It was good stuff though

[bbond007]

I think it would be interesting to run some sort of 68K based benchmark.

I could provide results for

UAE on a i7 740QM which is a 1.7 (i think)
MorphOS 2.6 on 1.42 mini
A1200/060/FastATA IV

if so, what benchmark application?

[Piru]

@Karlos

You have good points there.

However, it has to be pointed out that the obviously incorrect initial benchmark results were readily accepted as facts by many. This I believe shows the amount of unrealistic expectations some might have had of X1000.

[wawrzon]

I'm also not convinced we've really seen what the hardware is capable of yet. We know that OS4 certainly isn't making the most of it right now, being restricted to 32-bit operation on a single core. Even 64-bit PPC linux will have limitations if you use a modern graphics card with it as you are unlikely to get a vendor-supplied driver for PPC (unlike OSX) and will have to rely on whatever open source alternatives there are.

apart from multicore support i dont see how 64bit operation would speed up anything. in fact my 64bit version of lightwave9 was marhinally slower than a 32bit on my then 64bit capable system. 64bit operation enabled amounts of memory are anyway marginally useful under amiga-like applications. so thats imho not a point.

[bbond007]

apart from multicore support i dont see how 64bit operation would speed up anything. in fact my 64bit version of lightwave9 was marhinally slower than a 32bit on my then 64bit capable system. 64bit operation enabled amounts of memory are anyway marginally useful under amiga-like applications. so thats imho not a point.

I think it depends a great deal on the CPU architecture.

For example, the original netburst P4 and the Itanic took a huge performance hit running legacy code.

[stevieu]

@Karlos

You have good points there.

However, it has to be pointed out that the obviously incorrect initial benchmark results were readily accepted as facts by many. This I believe shows the amount of unrealistic expectations some might have had of X1000.

Indeed he does. I never had any of these 'unrealistic expectations' about the X1000.

What I did know, is that this 'custom built' computer was led and funded by an enthusiast  (and a very decent guy) and was everything I wanted to buy, regardless of 'value for money'. I'm sick of the money 'and what it could buy' argument.

I was a HUGE fan of MorphOS back in the day, and no 'camp' meant anything. Alas, things changed... and so did my opinion.

The X1000 is here through dedication and hard work, as is the OS that runs on it. The users that choose to use it, are here to stay. I just wish the ambience between 'choices' could be so much more amiable.

I admit to being totally put off by some of the attitudes shown around here. Nevermind. 'Let's keep this party going'

Cheers.

Steve

[Karlos]

apart from multicore support i dont see how 64bit operation would speed up anything. in fact my 64bit version of lightwave9 was marhinally slower than a 32bit on my then 64bit capable system. 64bit operation enabled amounts of memory are anyway marginally useful under amiga-like applications. so thats imho not a point.

That depends. I do have 32-bit compiled code for my Core2 that's faster than the same code compiled 64-bit native (as well as the sort of contrary examples I was expecting). However, as mentioned above by bbond007, whether any given system is faster or not in 64-bit mode ultimately comes down to how that chip is implemented and what features may or may not be available in a given operation mode. On thing 32-bit has going for it over 64-it generally is that pointers take up half the memory and thus half the amount of cache. That could make a difference to the performance of various inner loops of code where lots of pointer operations are used.

[minator]

@Karlos

You have good points there.

However, it has to be pointed out that the obviously incorrect initial benchmark results were readily accepted as facts by many. This I believe shows the amount of unrealistic expectations some might have had of X1000.

The PA6T is a OOO PPC with a 2MB cache and a memory interface much better than any G5.  It was designed by some of the best people in the industry so it should be competitive with a G5 at the same clock rate, if not faster.

There are any number of reasons the tests are coming out as they are.  One pretty big possibility is it's the first release of the HW/OS and it's not been properly set up yet.  The memory benchmarks might indicate this - they are good but they should be far higher.

Another problem is it's not always clear what people are testing against what.  Tests should at least be repeatable.  OTOH running different binaries on different OSs is a pretty good way of *not* testing a processor.


It'd certainly be interesting to see some Linux benchmarks. These should do:
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/


BTW I've recently seen some some benchmarks of a Pandaboard which came out pretty badly. A couple of kernel changes later and the results are wildly different.  All but one of the test was over 50% faster.

[Iggy]

Can the PandaBoard now use all its memory w/o crashing?

As I've had conversations with the folks at Varisys in the past (before the connection to Aeon was announced), it hardly surprises me that the hardware works (well).

PA6T faster then the G5? Not really.
The original intent was to have a processor that would draw less power while being more powerful then the G4 (As G5s were not practical for laptops).

Camps? That's fiction. Some of us hold strong opinions, others may retain some hard feelings, and still others continue to strive to keep an open mind.
We're not two camps, but individuals with a broad spectrum of opinions.

As a MorphOS user, I've never felt any ill will toward this project.

And I like Treavor.

Ben has made some dicky statements though.

And, no, it doesn't surprise me that at comparable speeds the PA6T and the G4 are not that far apart in benchmarks.

That was predicted quite a long time ago when the specs for the X1000 were first announced.

[itix]

There's absolutely no way you can compete with "costs nothing" running on commodity hardware that's faster than anything the combined purples can come up with.

Is X1000 sold at 3000$ your strategy to compete against AROS? :-)

This X1000 project has big "dead end" written in the wall. The computer built in 2012 and sold at $3000 is only marginally better than used Macs from yesteryears. The platform has stagnated. This is the final stop. Last passengers will be served and then it is over.

It is time to admit PPC is finished. And when you have done that start enjoying old Macs, old Amigas, old/new AmigaOnes, SAMs, or whatever, again. The train is still here. There just aren't tracks anymore.

The traditional "blue" argument against it used to be that AROS is woefully far behind, but that's simply not true any more. In fact, it's OS4 and MOS that are lagging behind AROS in some areas now (3D springs to mind immediately).

Hmm... I think you are confused. MorphOS never had problem with AROS and they have shared their work in the past. It is just that AROS not having binary compatibility and not so developed it has been dismissed by both MorphOS and OS4 users.

AROS is a research operating system interesting in its own way.