hyperthreading

[Karlos]

No, you had 20+ applications open. Not that many were running.

Since most gui applications are event driven, the vast majority of your applications were simply waiting for you to interact with them.

Only the game will have been running constantly, the music player will probably have been executing code mostly upon interrupts and spending the rest of the time asleep too.

Try running one cpu intensive program that is always in the "ready to run" state, at the same priority as your game and see how well you can play it...

[Karlos]

I can run multiple windowed instances of DOSBox fine on my PC, each playing a different game (all of which were originally designed to completely take over the system using DOS4GW), complete with the overhead of physically emulating an entire PC for each instance running. That whilst simultaenously writing this post and listening to music. And this isn't a hyperthreading CPU either.

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

zyphoid wrote:
i had 3 games going tv sports boxing solitaire and wb arkanoid. yea.. the point is the pc still countn't match this i've tried, so did he. They just have more power and support.  given the age of the amiga....it is just a simply amazing system!  hopw A1 lives up to this

On a 50Mhz 060? I expect the Games were just waiting for input too...

Even if they are constantly running, they'd probably be still waiting on the VBlank for most of the time.

Solitaire is almost certainly sitting there waiting for IDCMP to tell it something happened.

[Karlos]

Try running two windowed instances of quake on your 060 and see how you get on ;-)

[Karlos]

@bloodline

Off topic, have you submitted your voice to voicesofaorg yet? Chop chop, then!

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:
It's just occured to me that I basicly described the Atari Falcon... hardware wise, everything the A1200 should ahve been...

Except for the totally retarded 16-bit databus, you mean :-D

[Karlos]

Starke wrote:

But I dont see your point in trying to make a pc look good while running a windows OS. I find that morally wrong!

Maybe Linux, UNIX, AROS, MorphOS or whatever else will run on it, but not WINDOWS, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I didn't say which OS was running. Simply that an x86 CPU that's older than a P4 could happily outperform a 68060 by orders of magnitude. In no way, whatsoever, is a 68060 based amiga as fast as any "modern" PC. It feels faster to use because of the extremely lightweight, efficient kernel that Mr Sassenrath blessed us with.

However, if you want to demonstrate horsepower, simply try running something that actually taxes the CPU. You will then see anything more recent than say a pentium 60 starting to leave the 68060 behind. A modern x86 leaves it so far behind you'd need something like the hubble space telescope to even see it.

Having said that, OK, So your trying to point out, that it can multitask better now then what it did 10 years ago,

No it can't. There was nothing stopping the 386 running a fast, responsive, multitasking OS either. I've used BSD ports on 486's back in the day that were extremely nimble and felt faster to use than machines today with orders of magnitude more CPU power when all you are doing is simple console based stuff that doesn't use any CPU power anyway.

Unfortunately for the majority of x86 users, every incarnation of Windows seems to find ways of siphoning away all your spare CPU cycles to no good end.

[Karlos]

I think you'll find it's the OP who was attempting to compare a CPU over a decade old with more recent technology and others (like myself) pointing out it was a complete fallacy to do so.

Don't get me wrong on this, I've always preferred the 680x0 architecture to the x86, I also prefer the PPC architecture to the x86, but these preferences are basically moot in todays world. Current x86 technology is absolutely nothing like it was a few years ago. You simply cannot compare 68060 performance, even at a hypothetical normalized clock rate, to something like the Core2 Duo.

It is the AmigaOS exec kernel that makes OS3.x (and 4.0) and Quark (I think it's called) in MOS and whatever underpins AROS that makes these systems so responsive under normal use.

Note that "normal" use refers to a system simply spending its time waiting for events to happen and processing them promptly when they arrive.

The very instant you give a system a compute bound task, the CPU performance becomes the dominant factor and then you will see why it is simply insane to attempt a comparison of 68060, x86 and PPC.

[Karlos]

bloodline wrote:

Karlos wrote:

...and whatever underpins AROS...

That would be a clone of the exec.library 39.xx :-D

And that'll be why it's nice and nippy.

[Karlos]

:lol:

Now that is a phrase I *have* to use at work next week to summarise my analysis of one of our legacy systems :-D