blender benchmarks

[kickstart]

I speak for myself dont worry, i dont talk about mac mini or morphos in any moment, chill out boy, but if you buy a x1000 then... is for what?

[HenryCase]

Linux is completely irrelevant

Of course Linux benchmarks are relevant. What they will show is the potential waiting to be unlocked in the X1000 hardware, or at least they will more accurately show this potential as the Linux builds have been maturing for longer.

Anyone with half a brain understands that early software builds for new hardware platforms are not the most optimised. Early adopters buy for the hardware, with the promise that the software that runs on it will improve. There is no reason to suspect this pattern won't be repeated with the X1000 too, as OS4 is still in active development, and X1000 is the flagship system of this OS.

So, bring on the Linux benchmarks, let's get a better picture of what the X1000 can do.

[zylesea]

Of course Linux benchmarks are relevant. What they will show is the potential waiting to be unlocked in the X1000 hardware, or at least they will more accurately show this potential as the Linux builds have been maturing for longer.

Anyone with half a brain understands that early software builds for new hardware platforms are not the most optimised. Early adopters buy for the hardware, with the promise that the software that runs on it will improve. There is no reason to suspect this pattern won't be repeated with the X1000 too, as OS4 is still in active development, and X1000 is the flagship system of this OS.

So, bring on the Linux benchmarks, let's get a better picture of what the X1000 can do.

Well, Linux benchmarks are making only little sense. They will show the theoretical potential of the X1000. But it would be as intelligent as to measure/demonstrate a dual cpu PowerMac G5 with Bluetooth, Flash, latest 3D Hardware expansion under OS X/Linux to get a measure how well a PowerMac performs when MorphOS is the target.

Compare what's there here and now and not the theory. In theory MorphOS can even run on an i7 or Power7, well it's not much uptimized yet, hence take linux benchmark to show the potential of that machine that will of course get full support in two more weeks. But better buy that i7 now - you can easily wait the two weeks after the purchase antil MorphOS will support it.

The X1000 is more than 1.5 years delayed already, how long should users wait again? Two more weeks?

[haywirepc]

Yeah its already a year and a half late. How long till the second core works in amiga os? I'd say never.

How long till the xmos thing works?

How long till the built in networking works?

Sound?

I can't help thinking its ludicrous to pay 3k for a machine thats missing drivers, using only one core, that performs about as good as a 6 year old mac mini.

Add to that the ridiculous NDA they want users to sign so you can't complain publicly when something does not work right.

While I applaud anyone who dreams a dream, the reality is this is just another big disappointment.

Power pc is dead dead dead. Nothing like this will change that anytime soon.

Why anyone would pay 3k for this I don't know, but I do wish them luck with it and I hope they think it was a worthwhile investment.

"only amiga makes it possible."

[HenryCase]

Well, Linux benchmarks are making only little sense. They will show the theoretical potential of the X1000.

Actually, they don't show the 'theoretical' potential at all, they show the potential as it exists now... if you run Linux.

Anyway, with regards to benchmarking, it's fairly simple. When it comes to measuring anything in a scientific way, the best bet is to remove as many extraneous variables as possible, to isolate that which you are trying to measure. The question then is, what are you trying to measure? If you want to compare the performance of X1000 vs PPC Mac hardware, then your best bet is to make the software you use for testing these machines as similar as possible, so that the relative strengths of the hardware being tested shines through. This is why Linux benchmarks are a fairer test.

[Zac67]

Benchmarks were run with:

Code: [Select]

blender_binary -b projects/bricks_and_water_plugin.blend -o ram:pool -F JPEG -f 0

Sorry guys, if I spoil the party...

But I totally fail the point in shelling out such an amount for a machine to run Blender on when an el-cheapo 250€ box will run that benchmark in [...] 0.56s. (Actually, that's pretty depressing...)

The video playing stuff is much more relevant as it shows what a potential "everyday-use, allround" machine can or can't do at all (since video needs to be played realtime).

[commodorejohn]

Speak for yourself. I would rather spend 2500Euro than use a crappy macmini any day.

I don't get the infatuation with the Mini, myself...it's really pretty much just an iMac G4 minus the art deco lamp case, and frankly the iMac G4 is no great shakes in anything other than the aesthetics department as it is. Power Mac G4s can be had for chump change (or less, if you make a lucky find at your local recycle center,) any of them will best a similarly-clocked iMac/Mini, later models are commonly available in dual-CPU configurations, and they're infinitely more expandable. Unless you're extremely strained for desk space, I don't see why the Mini is worth the bother.

[Boot_WB]

I don't get the infatuation with the Mini, myself...it's really pretty much just an iMac G4 minus the art deco lamp case, and frankly the iMac G4 is no great shakes in anything other than the aesthetics department as it is. Power Mac G4s can be had for chump change (or less, if you make a lucky find at your local recycle center,) any of them will best a similarly-clocked iMac/Mini, later models are commonly available in dual-CPU configurations, and they're infinitely more expandable. Unless you're extremely strained for desk space, I don't see why the Mini is worth the bother.

Macmini is quieter (even after replacing the MDDs fans with ultraquiet ones), has lower power consumption (important when ~always-on), and a smaller footprint (sits next to the TV nicely without taking up half the room).
Downside is that the audio sucks, at least on mine (loads of interference from usb, graphics operations, network transfers). I still find it frustrating that we don't have isochronous transfers over USB just for this reason.

[Kesa]

My Macmini is useful as a home theatre system. I love the way it can fit inside any backpack so easily. I am also seriously lacking in desk space. In fact my Macmini, at the time i am writing this post, is sitting on top of my switched on laptop (which is connected to external monitor and keyboard) so the compact design definitely comes in handy

[agami]

...
PowerBook G4 1.67GHz and Mac mini G4 1.5GHz are my own machines. Mac mini is running stock MorphOS 2.7.

Some of us would also like to run benchmarks (among other things) on our PowerBook G4's with MorphOS 3.0.

Is MorphOS waiting for the next news cycle?

(Code: Ambiguous reply for 'Yes, in two weeks', and Evasive reply for 'They don't tell me squat'.)

[bbond007]

Macmini is quieter (even after replacing the MDDs fans with ultraquiet ones), has lower power consumption (important when ~always-on), and a smaller footprint (sits next to the TV nicely without taking up half the room).
Downside is that the audio sucks, at least on mine (loads of interference from usb, graphics operations, network transfers). I still find it frustrating that we don't have isochronous transfers over USB just for this reason.

The VGA quality of mine sucks. DVI looks great.

Some of the G4 minis has infamously bad VGA quality. I remember being really disappointed when I bought it. I remember searching on forums and finding other people with similar complaints.