X1000 benchmarks

[Piru]

Considering how skewed the initial Mufa lame bench was I would take any results from him with a grain of salt. The least there should be a clear specification how the test was performed in order to be able to repeat it.

In memory bandwidth X1000 clearly is superior though.

Here's a MPlayer decoding benchmark where X1000 could really show its power:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=240&viewmode=flat&order=0#650877

[Piru]

Hi all

Since we appear to be going benchmark crazy, even though I think that real world usage is more appropriate, for the sake of completeness, here are the Disk I/O benchmark conducted by Mufa at http://forum.amigaone.pl/topic65.html#p503 and the RageMem http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#650254 benchmark conducted by Sam.

I don't (yet!) own either of the machines involved but I think we should show them all regardless of which systems we favour.  

Also, big congrats to Trevor Dickinson and all that have made the X1000 a reality, I really can't wait to get one!

I've always found those old results weird. I don't know what is wrong with the said system (maybe highly fragmented SFS partition?), but these are the results I get:


X1000 is of course still faster (as would likely be Sam 440/460 as well).

It should be noted that many things can affect such benchmark, such as the filesystem being used (copy may return immediately if delayed writing is applied by the filesystem). Another significant factor is the physical location of the partitions, are they located on the same or different HDDs? And finally, rotating HDDs are clearly slower than SSD.

Notes: The PowerBook has a newer Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD2500BEVE 250GB 5400 RPM 8MB Cache 2.5" HDD, while the Mac mini has the original Apple branded Seagate Momentus 5400.2 ST9808211A 80GB HDD).

[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.

[Piru]

I just ran into this statement on aw.net:

I won't post any more x1000 benchmarks, OS4.1.5 is not optimized for speed yet on the x1000. Its very stable & thats whats important for the moment. Benchmarks are interesting, but some ppl abuse the results by comparing it to other systems. I won't add fuel to the red/blue war."

- sundown

Well, okay... (Though the same argument has been used about AmigaOS 4 on Pegasos2 for years now... without much change)

How about someone installs linux, disables the 2nd core (as root: echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/online) and runs the the same benchmarks (lame, blender, mplayer). Then at least we could see if the problem really is in AmigaOS 4.1.5 as is claimed.

[Piru]

or, as MOS supporters (and at least one very anxious dev) are so eager to test the X1000 here, why not make a MOS port for the X1000 with duo core support please and thank you

I have no interest in it myself, other than trying to figure out where the supposed performance failure is. Currently the official story appears to be that AmigaOS 4 is at fault. It would still be interesting to verify this claim.