X1000 benchmarks

[billyfish]

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!



@sam

RAGEMEM v0.37 - compiled 11/06/2010

CPU: P.A. Semi PWRficient PA6T-1682M B1 @ 1800 Mhz
Caches Sizes: L1: 64 KB - L2: 2048 KB - L3: none
Cache Line: 64

CPU
MAX MIPS: 3084

L1
READ32: 6851 MB/Sec
READ64: 13682 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 6851 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 13681 MB/Sec

L2
READ32: 3276 MB/Sec
READ64: 4784 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2531 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 4090 MB/Sec

RAM
READ32: 2857 MB/Sec
READ64: 4000 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2732 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 3383 MB/Sec
WRITE: 352 MB/Sec (Tricky)

VIDEO BUS
READ: 15 MB/Sec
WRITE: 161 MB/Sec

[billyfish]

I don't see why we are revisiting the lame benchmarks as they are lame in every sense of the word.  Surely we can get real world tests now that it's a product not a prototype with NDAs.

Even though I started this thread, I agree 100%.

best case they get head in head.

up till now, real life benchs show x1k=mac g4 on slightly lower clock.

Sigh, not according to those my first email in this very thread.

Anyhooo, given that Hyperion have stated that the OS for the X1000 is currently unoptimised, all of these benchmarks are not really worth the virtual paper that they're written on. I'm much more interested in how people are finding them in every day use.