I'll rather post it to "comparing MorphOS on quad core G5 vs AmigaOS 4 on dual core X1000" thread which would make as much sense, i.e. none.
I'm glad that we agree that the benchmark comparison has a sense rating of none as I explain below...
I know it's hard to accept that 5+ years old apple HW can beat your favorite, and is a lot cheaper, and is more easily available, and has better support and repair possibilities...
Piru, the X1000 software is still unoptimised. You know as well as I do that the benchmark comparisons aren't worth the pixels they're drawn with if you're comparing a debug-type build with an optimised one.
[OFF TOPIC]
I once built a large scale molecular simulation and after running and ananlysing it, managed to get a 900% increase, by changing all the distance comparisons to work in squared distances rather than Euclidean. I.e. getting rid of sqrt () from getting the distance from A to B worked wonders.
[/OFF TOPIC]
My point being compiler support and algorithm optimisation can make *HUGE* differences and given that they've said that it's currently unoptimised means that there is a large scope for improvement.
I'd suggest that a more accurate representation *as the software stands at the minute* would be
1. Code running on a single core on the PowerMacs is probably slightly quicker a single core of the X1000.
2. The memory access speeds on the X1000 are much faster than on the PowerMac.
3. The graphics card capabilities of the x1000 are much ahead of the Mac Mini.
4. All these are subject to change as OS4 and MorphOS code gets more optimised for these systems.
Would you agree with this?