blender benchmarks

[koaftder]

The whining about the benchmarks is hilarious. If I dumped over 3,000 bucks on this crap I probably wound't want to see it either.

[itix]

Seems to me like people are trying to point out that their PowerMacs using MorphOS are faster than the fastest AmigaOS 4 machine out there.

Which is probably true. It's also true that any modern x86 out there will blow either system out of the water. To outsiders we're all crazy for arguing over whose platform is faster, when they're both far slower than what everybody else uses.

I think those benchmarks are perfectly demonstrating where PPC hardware is going today.

It's also true that for myself I don't care, and I value my AOS 4 machines much more than any PC. Power is not important to me, it's how it uses it - and if the X1000 offers me a way to use it in a way that no other machine does, then that's reason enough to get excited.

I am sure you wouldn't mind if X1K was winning by wide margin :-)

[spirantho]

I think those benchmarks are perfectly demonstrating where PPC hardware is going today.

I disagree. These benchmarks are a small part of the full story. They're maths-heavy (which is arguably the X1000's weak point against the G4 Macs), whereas in bandwidth-heavy apps it's a completely different story. Then you have to account for the fact we're only use one core in the X1000 at the moment. PLUS it's unoptimised.

I am sure you wouldn't mind if X1K was winning by wide margin :-)

Well, yes, I would get some satisfaction from that. But only because I'm a bit tired of people trying to spoil the enjoyment of people who do want the latest AmigaOS 4 hardware.

I make no pretence about the fact that I prefer AmigaOS 4 - I do (and I do have MOS and AROS too). And I want Trevor's work to be rewarded, not rubbished. But even if the X1000 slaughtered every PowerMac out there I still wouldn't be going out of my way to point it out to MOS users.

[Tuxedo]

I also prefer AmigaOS4.x versus MOS or AORS, but I also want to use my favourite Operating System for almost everything I need...
So, I need raw power and not only disk transfer or simlar power(that I need really poor...)...

Unfortunately ppc hw today wasnt so nice for home computing, and that was the point imho...

Theorically speaking I think we need a dual-3GHz A1X1000 to get some "modern" results...
X1000 was nice no dubt on that, but with a powefull cpu was much more nice I think...

Just for joke...any chance to get PA-Semi working at 2/2.2GHz overclocking it?

[spirantho]

Agreed - if you want to compete with x86 you'd need the same investment into the PPC architecture, which just isn't going to happen. Your best bet on that front is AROS, which is x86, of course.

But I think it's important that people remember that nobody ever claimed the X1000 to be more than the most powerful AmigaOS 4 machine out there - it's never been pretended that it can compete with 8-core i7s, because it can't.

[commodorejohn]

Which means, using the second core aswell....

Have they worked out how to do SMP reliably with AOS's lack of memory protection, then? I thought that was the limiting factor on why there's no multicore support...

Also, I'm not sure I understand the idea that older PPC hardware is inadequate. The 1.67GHz PowerBook G4 I had was at least as responsive as my Eee,* which I use with no trouble as my main daily-driver computer, and the MDD G4 that currently serves as my Mac machine is pretty well ahead of either of them. Even the Pismo PowerBook G3 I got in a trade handles things pretty well in OS9, and serviceably in OSX. I'm sure the same can be said for similarly-clocked non-Mac PPC boards.
* (Disk I/O and raw memory bandwidth were limiting factors, but then my Eee has its own different limitations, so it about evens out in the wash.)

[Duce]

@ Tuxedo

A 3 ghx OS4 machine will run our non existant, not yet coded programs that ship on $20 smartphones by default, OS4 software that we need at rapid speeds in 3 ghz ranges, which does not exist....

I'm a big fan of OS4.  But I bet Blender crashes just as nice on a X1000 as it does on my SAM 440.

[spirantho]

@ Tuxedo
I'm a big fan of OS4.  But I bet Blender crashes just as nice on a X1000 as it does on my SAM 440.

I would imagine it crashes about 4 times as quickly. That's progress for you.

[pVC]

What is it with your obsession for benchmark on X1000? All I needed to know is that its the fastest machine you can get AmigaOS4 on and if that is what i'm interested in and want to use then that is what I'm going to have to get. Plus hopefully drivers and support for the hardware should only get better over time.

Well... it's been predicted by many that it would be the fastest Amiga compatible system when it's released.. so it's interesting to see if it is and by what margin. And of course every new hardware is benchmarked everywhere in every platform. Usually people would like to know what they get for the money and not just go on blindly by rumours or marketing speech.

[dammy]

Well... it's been predicted by many that it would be the fastest Amiga compatible system when it's released.. so it's interesting to see if it is and by what margin. And of course every new hardware is benchmarked everywhere in every platform. Usually people would like to know what they get for the money and not just go on blindly by rumours or marketing speech.

I'll bite, what is (hardware wise) Amiga compatible about the A1X1K?

[itix]

I disagree. These benchmarks are a small part of the full story. They're maths-heavy (which is arguably the X1000's weak point against the G4 Macs), whereas in bandwidth-heavy apps it's a completely different story.

Or in other words -- when data no longer fits in L2 cache in G4 then 1682M is winner?

Then you have to account for the fact we're only use one core in the X1000 at the moment.

Using 2nd core wouldn't improve Lame benchmarks much.

PLUS it's unoptimised.

The OS or benchmarks? I could buy that it was using conservative memory settings but according to memory benchmarks it is not case.

[Geit]

Theorically speaking I think we need a dual-3GHz A1X1000 to get some "modern" results...

Practically we call such device "Power Mac G5 Quad" or "Power Mac G5 Dual", which come with up to 2.7Ghz. Not 3 Ghz, but regarding the results we already have, ...

 Geit

[commodorejohn]

Or in other words -- when data no longer fits in L2 cache in G4 then 1682M is winner?

That's a good point, actually - neither the Mini nor the 1.67GHz PowerBook have an L3 cache. Wonder how a machine with an L3 cache would stack up?

[zylesea]

"Given the rushed nature of this AmigaOS 4.1 Update 5 release, there are still some bugs and a few rough edges. Remember, the X1000 was originally planned to be released only with AmigaOS 4.2 installed. Also please keep in mind most of the X1000 system is still unoptimized."

They ask for sorry because it was so rushed??? Wasn't the X1000 with OS4.x not initially scheduled for "before summer"(note: summer 2010 was meant!!). It's more than 1.5 yeasr delayed and still they claim it a "rushed release". Funny guys.

[Fab]

Or in other words -- when data no longer fits in L2 cache in G4 then 1682M is winner?

This is why i'd be rather curious to see the result of the benchmark i suggested:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=240&viewmode=flat&order=0#650877

But this thread suddenly got very silent.

[pVC]

I'll bite, what is (hardware wise) Amiga compatible about the A1X1K?

Exactly the same as with Mac with MorphOS. Nothing in hardware wise, but AmigaOS compatible operating system running on it. Nobody should look into hardware naming these days, only operating system compatibilities and quality of the hardware matter.