Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion => Topic started by: Piru on February 02, 2012, 05:50:04 PM
-
AmigaONE X1000 has been benchmarked against Mac mini G4 1.5GHz and AmigaONE 500 460EX 1.15GHz with lame (mp3 encoder). The graph shows some interesting results:
(http://sintonen.fi/pics/lame_lame_benchmark.png)
X1000 appears to crush the competition, even with only single core enabled.
Except that interestingly the MorphOS results are from a lame build without AltiVec SIMD support. Why is that significant you may ask? The AltiVec accelerated version is significantly faster than the scalar (non-AltiVec) one. See what happens when you run the tests with the proper AltiVec enabled lame (http://aminet.net/mus/misc/lame-morphos.lha):
(http://sintonen.fi/pics/lame_benchmark.png)
-
An invalid comparison. The PPC Macs are outdated hardware from 2006, the X1000 is brand new hardware! As such the X1000 should be compared to current hardware.
From the A-eon website:
The X1000 ends the years of AmigaOS being relegated to a ghetto of outdated hardware - great as it was at the time, the world has moved on a long way since the days of Commodore. For the first time in many years, AmigaOS has a genuinely modern hardware platform.
-
x1000 need some propaganda, real or false, for excuse the overprice.
-
Piru - any chance to benchmark it under experimental MorphOS on G5 Mac?
-
Piru - any chance to benchmark it under experimental MorphOS on G5 Mac?
Piru, also could you link the source audio file you used in the conversion?
-
Piru, also could you link the source audio file you used in the conversion?
http://sintonen.fi/temp/AKsack.wav (md5sum: 5f644fbe4fe60211f8f1dde60e55dd53)
To benchmark it, download the file, and then issue the following command:
lame AKsack.wav
(with MorphOS make sure you're using the lame_vmx binary if you have altivec!)
-
@Piru
According to the lame readme (http://os4depot.net/index.php?function=showfile&file=audio/record/lame.lha) on os4depot, the AmigaOS4 version also lacks altivec support (the porter couldn't get it working properly). The A1-X1000's CPU has an altivec unit.
Hans
-
@piru:
i knew it! what a mess! so, where is the file, clear instructions and finally g5 result? hurry up!
-
@Piru
According to the lame readme (http://os4depot.net/index.php?function=showfile&file=audio/record/lame.lha) on os4depot, the AmigaOS4 version also lacks altivec support (the porter couldn't get it working properly). The A1-X1000's CPU has an altivec unit.
Hans
The benchmark author claims (http://forum.amigaone.pl/topic65.html#p497) he used the altivec version (I can only presume he used the older Stephan Rupprecht's version included in the said archive: lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2)
In english this post says: "Of course, why should I use other version while my CPU has AltiVec. Don't ask me about MorphOS, but I assume that they also used AV lame on G4 machines"
As far as I remember the PA6-T AltiVec indeed is slower than the one found from E600 (G4). It's somewhere close to 970 (G5) IIRC. Per clock the e600 altivec is the fastest implementation to date.
-
@Piru
Can you please make a graph with all the non-altivec lame tests ? Because currently i can't understand the reall differences beetwen macs and x1000. Only what i see, is that non-altivec version on x1000 are the same by speed as macs with altivec one, but then seems non-altivec version on macs will be slower in 2 times in compare with x1000 one (even powermac ones).
-
Can you please make a graph with all the non-altivec lame tests ? Because currently i can't understand the reall differences beetwen macs and x1000. Only what i see, is that non-altivec version on x1000 are the same by speed as macs with altivec one
As Piru linked (and I can confirm as a native Polish speaker), Mufa states that he used AltiVec accelerated LAME on X1000. Then on Piru graph all results except of AmigaOne 500 of course, are for AltiVec accelerated LAME.
-
The PPC Macs are outdated hardware from 2006
The 10+ year old 500MHz PowerMac is beating the AmigaOne 500, too. Oh the humanity!
-
So we know two things:
- Altivec use is great and speeds up some multimedia demanding tasks 2x
- X1000 is champion in same fair category of non altivec use, in this case. Good, so its worthwhile after all as "new miggy champ"
-
@Krashan
As Piru linked (and I can confirm as a native Polish speaker), Mufa states that he used AltiVec accelerated LAME on X1000. Then on Piru graph all results except of AmigaOne 500 of course, are for AltiVec accelerated LAME.
Hardly can belive than matherboard with 1800mhz cpu, can be the same by speed on the lame tests as mac mini with 1.4. Imho mufa do something wrong in that terms.. Or, it will be epic fail, but still, i think that non-altivec version was used even he say that he use altivec one. Can you ask him what he download, from where, and how he run it and so on.
-
The 10+ year old 500MHz PowerMac is beating the AmigaOne 500, too. Oh the humanity!
Its clear AMCC CPUs are not performance wise and meant for integrated combos and not desktops. Or software is just not optimized for them since they should have multimedia instructions of their own but not as standard as Altivec (have 24 additional digital signal processing instructions). However, SAM460 does make good use of fast RAM, SATA and PCI-E and will try to balance the loss there to make it overall feel the same / faster execept in any CPU intensive tasks.
Previous benches like Ragemem tests at AW,nt showed it, but not that 500Mhz G4 can beat SAM 460 http://httwww.amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=14&topic_id=32815&viewmode=thread&order=0 (http://httwww.amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?forum=14&topic_id=32815&viewmode=thread&order=0)
That is a bit surprising!
-
Tested with WinUAE. Lame 3.99.3 compiles it in 58 secs.
:laughing:
-
@kas1e: mufa might mix something up, although as another native polish speaker i must confirm that he explicitely claims that his version of lame is altivec enabled. time for him to confirm or contradict that, otherwise we must assume pirus graph is correct, besides...
@piru: ..has it now been confirmed that the same file has been used for the test??
-
@wawrzon
@kas1e: mufa might mix something up, although as another native polish speaker i must confirm that he explicitely claims that his version of lame is altivec enabled. time for him to confirm or contradict that, otherwise we must assume pirus graph is correct, besides...
Still dunno how 1.8ghz can be the same as 1.4ghz by tests. Something wrong somethere still.
-
So we know two things:
- Altivec use is great and speeds up some multimedia demanding tasks 2x
- X1000 is champion in same fair category of non altivec use, in this case. Good, so its worthwhile after all as "new miggy champ"
Not so fast. If mufa did indeed use an altivec enabled version, then nothing can be concluded in the non-altivec case. Wait until mufa confirms what he did (preferably by rerunning his tests and explicitly recording the version of lame that he used each time).
Hans
-
@piru: ..has it now been confirmed that the same file has been used for the test??
The "Mac mini G4 1.5GHz" 33 second result is from a test that used the AKsack.wav.
This file (and the Mac mini G4 33 sec result) are derived from an earlier benchmark:
http://www.apc74.ppa.pl/PPA/Efika_vs_reszta_swiata.html#table7 and
http://www.apc74.ppa.pl/PPA/Efika_vs_reszta_swiata.html#table8
In this old benchmark non-altivec lame was utilized.
-
@wawrzon
Still dunno how 1.8ghz can be the same as 1.4ghz by tests. Something wrong somethere still.
CPU performance is affected by a lot more than just the clock speed. The design of the pipe-line also affects performance, a long with a heap of other design factors. One of PASemi's goals was energy efficiency, and the G4's design may have delivered higher performance per clock at the cost of greater energy consumption.
I'm not saying that this is how it is (I haven't looked at it in detail), just that it is possible.
Hans
-
Still dunno how 1.8ghz can be the same as 1.4ghz by tests. Something wrong somethere still.
It can happen if PA6-T AltiVec isn't as fast as the E600 (7447/7448) one. Considering PA-Semi didn't have the freescale core to derive their work on, this may well be the case.
Also, mp3 encoding is highly CPU bound task, and thus a fast bus doesn't help much. Clearly PA6-T will excel in anything that is memory bound (as we've seen the RageMem and stream benchmarks).
-
this test is no good!
how can pasemi make 18 seconds with altivec and 18 seconds with altivec off?
for the same reason a g4 makes 36 sec without altivec and 17 seconds with altivec?
it does mean that x1000 benchmark are simply and totally without altivec in both cases!
edit: test says it's altivec enabled in both tests... so really my g4 is faster than an x1000?
and what about an x1000 without altivec?
-
What's interesting about this benchmark is that it takes my Q9450 8 seconds to perform the same test.
karlos@Megaburken-II:~/Desktop$ time lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 64bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:08/ 0:08| 0:08/ 0:08| 33.665x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
real 0m8.175s
user 0m8.120s
sys 0m0.060s
Those old PPC machines don't look too shabby under the circumstances.
-
@karlos, yeah, just thought the same, even if file was not placed in ram for conversion. my i7/2.93 needs 7s:
C:\Programme\Lame For Audacity>lame AKsack.wav AKsack.mp3
LAME 3.99.3 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:07/ 0:07| 0:07/ 0:07| 36.295x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
darren@themintybox ~/Desktop $ time lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 64bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:04/ 0:04| 0:04/ 0:04| 57.782x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
real 0m4.778s
user 0m4.690s
sys 0m0.080s
in a VirtualBox VM of Linux Mint 10
core I-7 unlocked 3.4Ghz, 8Gb of ram assigned to the VB
-
@wawrzon
One thing I notice about my system is that while it takes 8 seconds, my CPU doesn't doesn't seem to step up from 2GHz to the full 2.67GHz in the time it takes to convert the file.
It could be one of those tasks that becomes quite convergent and dependent more on IO than anything.
-
It can happen if PA6-T AltiVec isn't as fast as the E600 (7447/7448) one. Considering PA-Semi didn't have the freescale core to derive their work on, this may well be the case.
Also, mp3 encoding is highly CPU bound task, and thus a fast bus doesn't help much. Clearly PA6-T will excel in anything that is memory bound (as we've seen the RageMem and stream benchmarks).
Sorry if I've overlooked it, but can you confirm if the first graph and second graph are based on results carried out under the same conditions?
If that's the case, it suggests that for the PASemi either altivec was enabled in both tests or in neither test. The time was the same in both instances (18s). There should be some difference if one was scalar and the other vector, surely?
-
Sorry if I've overlooked it, but can you confirm if the first graph and second graph are based on results carried out under the same conditions?
Piru simply has taken the X1000 result from the Mufa's graph. Mufa clearly states he used AltiVec enabled LAME on his X1000 to perform the test. At least he is convinced of it. So for X1000 it is just single result. For mac Mini 1.5 GHz we have two results: 33 seconds is without AltiVec, 17 seconds is with AltiVec.
-
Piru simply has taken the X1000 result from the Mufa's graph. Mufa clearly states he used AltiVec enabled LAME on his X1000 to perform the test. At least he is convinced of it. So for X1000 it is just single result. For mac Mini 1.5 GHz we have two results: 33 seconds is without AltiVec, 17 seconds is with AltiVec.
While i still think that mufa messing things up, will be pretty intersting to know, the results without altivec then. Its unpossible that they will be slower than on sam460 (or the same). Just unreal even with everything taking in account. And did he for sure use that AKsack.wav ?
-
Sorry if I've overlooked it, but can you confirm if the first graph and second graph are based on results carried out under the same conditions?
I have no way of knowing how the X1000 and AmigaOne 500 results were derived, except the file and lame options (none) being used. The author claims the X1000 result is from altivec accelerated lame (but I have no way of verifying the claim).
What I did was to run the MorphOS G4 results with altivec enabled lame.
If that's the case, it suggests that for the PASemi either altivec was enabled in both tests or in neither test. The time was the same in both instances (18s). There should be some difference if one was scalar and the other vector, surely?
The X1000 result is assumed to be altivec already (as claimed by the author).
-
Its unpossible that they will be slower than on sam460 (or the same).
PA6-T is easily faster than 460ex in scalar operations, no question about that.
-
And did he for sure use that AKsack.wav ?
Yes. In the first post he writes "Some time ago I've promised to Recedent, I will confront X1000 with his benchmarks". Then he links to tests performed by Recedent, where testfiles are listed. It is obvious in my opinion, that he used the same file.
-
It is obvious in my opinion, that he used the same file.
You know that amiga users can do any kind of not-obvious stuff.. Well, seems just need to wait someone else with that x1000, who can normally explain everything (i.e. what he download, where, how run, with what file, show alivec and non altive results and so on). If then it will be the same bad, then it will be kind of surprise.
-
If then it will be the same bad, then it will be kind of surprise.
It is not bad at all. MPEG Audio compression operates on relatively small data chunks, L2 cache is very well used. Then LAME is not speeded up much with very good performance of X1000 memory bus. So only clock frequency and processor efficiency counts. We have 7447A processor running at 1.42 GHz in Mac mini and PA6T processor running at 1.80 GHz in X1000. Then clock-wise X1000 is 25% faster. But then PA6T is based on IBM core, not on Freescale core. It is also designed to be more energy saving than 7447. For example AltiVec has one execution unit less compared to 7447. It is not impossible that PA6T "per megahertz" performance is by 25% lower compared to Freescale's e600 core used in 7447.
It resembles the case of Pentium 4, which was significantly slower "per megahertz" compared to Pentium III. On the other hand P4 could be clocked much higher due to its new design. Too bad in case of PA Semi the development has been killed prematurely.
-
Plz use my benchmark topic to make that tests if possible so we can all ahve same bench base:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30008&forum=2
thank you.
-
Is there any way we could include an overclocked G4 mac mini? I've seen people getting theirs up to 1.8Ghz. I ask this as i am considering doing this to mine.
Cheers!
-
It is not bad at all.
Its can be not bad, if price of x1000 are around 500usd. But when price are 3k and HW made "from scratch" i somehow was in fairly hopes that it will beat all the macs by everything. Still, i think we need to wait someone else to confirm the results and show us altivec/non altives results one more time. If it will be confirmed, then, its its bad.
-
how bout use os4emu under MOS to compare test? so we can run the same exe on different machines?
-
@Piru
According to the lame readme (http://os4depot.net/index.php?function=showfile&file=audio/record/lame.lha) on os4depot, the AmigaOS4 version also lacks altivec support (the porter couldn't get it working properly).
You can easily verify that the lame.g4-3.98.2 binary contains altivec support:
- > wget http://os4depot.net/share/audio/record/lame.lha
- > lha x lame.lha
- > ppc-amigaos-objdump -d lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2 | egrep v[0-9]+,
-
You can easily verify that the lame.g4-3.98.2 binary contains altivec support:
- > wget http://os4depot.net/share/audio/record/lame.lha
- > lha x lame.lha
- > ppc-amigaos-objdump -d lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2 | egrep v[0-9]+,
Doesn't mean much. I also have some stuff which have altivec insturctions inside, but still, that piece of code unused in the necessary place. In the readme to that archive a lot to say about mess with altivec, so it can be not suprise that its just broken, disabled and not works.
-
@kas1e: bad! now you are overreacting. in the end this practical benchmark in comparison with karlos and mine native x86 test shows, that x1k or mac mini for that matter, is almost as usable as middle range about up to date pc hardware. its surely not the whole truth, more to come, but i wouldnt call results devastating. the other question is as always if it is worth these investments but the question stands as it did, nothing changed for better or worse.
-
On my Peg2@1131 the wav file with lame altivec:
8.RAM Disk:> lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16537 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:22/ 0:22| 0:23/ 0:23| 12.095x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
I realise it's a bit off topic, but I'm far more surprised by my Q9450 result. I've gotten it down to ~6.5 seconds using a RAM based tmpfs for source/destination and disabling clock scaling so that the machine is locked at 2.67GHz.
I actually find that a pretty embarrassing result for a 64-bit build, which supposedly has SSE3 enabled by default*. 6MB L2 cache (12 in total, but the Q9450 design is akin to a pair of 6MB cache dual cores), 1333MHz FSB with dual channel DDR3 6-6-6 latency and an X48 chipset. And all I got was a factor of 2.6 over a 1.5GHz G4 when there's a 1.78x increase in clockspeed to start with? That makes this machine, what, 46% faster at this task clock for clock? :lol:
*I'm going to have to rebuild this myself and ensure all SSE3 optimizations are enabled.
-
Doesn't mean much. I also have some stuff which have altivec insturctions inside, but still, that piece of code unused in the necessary place. In the readme to that archive a lot to say about mess with altivec, so it can be not suprise that its just broken, disabled and not works.
Did you read the readme? Here's the relevant part highlighted by me:
Unfortunately the people who tested the Altivec version for me did not have
any success, and therefore this upload only includes a generic PPC version
of 3.98.4, and Stephan Rupprecht's prior 3.98.2 G4 build.
The archive has 3 lame binaries:
[generic] 197665 411156 48.1% -lh5- 3de4 Oct 6 2010 lame-398-4/bin/lame
[generic] 50969 168764 30.2% -lh5- 9a1e Oct 6 2010 lame-398-4/bin/lame-shared
[generic] 322281 710768 45.3% -lh5- 2952 Sep 26 2008 lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2
The first two are the non-altivec builds (one static and the other using SObjs/libmp3lame.so).
The third is the old (26-sep-2008) - altivec enabled - build by Stephan Rupprecht, included as-is.
The same is confirmed here (http://os4depot.net/index.php?function=comments&file=audio/record/lame.lha&showform=1326302134) as well:
In any case, no-one loses anything. 3.98.4 for generic PPC, new libmp3lame which was always generic, and the prior 3.98.2 for altivec is in here. Win-win.
-
I realise it's a bit off topic
at least on blender test my i7 rig fits the expectations 00:39.26. so that might be a more dependable benchmark-
-
at least on blender test my i7 rig fits the expectations 00:39.26. so that might be a more dependable benchmark-
How is it with one thread?
-
is there a way to influence it?
-
is there a way to influence it?
I seem to recall an option in the render settings somewhere for the number of threads, which seemed to be set to 4 on my quad core. Probably be 8 on yours if it is counting logical cores.
-
@Piru
I tryed all the lame versions on hte archive from OS4Depot and get:
for Lame-G4 : 23 secs
for lame/lameSHARED : 40 secs
So the lame G4 that was 3.98.2 intead of 3.98.4 of the other 2 compiles seems to have AltiVec enabled...
Now have to see wich version was used on X1000...
EDIT:
I tryed the lame vmx from aminet under MOS 2.7 on my Peg2@1131 and GOT:
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:24/ 0:24| 0:25/ 0:25| 11.077x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
@Piru
I tryed all the lame versions on hte archive from OS4Depot and get:
for Lame-G4 : 23 secs
for lame/lameSHARED : 40 secs
Indeed. Now, would Hans_ & kas1e please figure this thing out already? OS4 *does* have altivec enabled lame.
-
@Piru
the problem was only if the X1000 test author have used the G4 version...
-
@Piru
the problem was only if the X1000 test author have used the G4 version...
Why else would he claim he did use the altivec version?
-
I seem to recall an option in the render settings somewhere for the number of threads, which seemed to be set to 4 on my quad core. Probably be 8 on yours if it is counting logical cores.
ah, didnt knoew one needs to set it manually within the app like on on lightwave. another thing amiga has introduced in advance. lol. so may previous result was with one thread since this is default, with 8 i get the picture done in 00:08.80
-
Indeed. Now, would Hans_ & kas1e please figure this thing out already? OS4 *does* have altivec enabled lame.
I heard you the first time when you pointed out that the old g4 version was in the archive (which I completely overlooked).
In the meantime I got tired of waiting, so here are my A1-X1000 lame results for aksack.wav:
5.RAM Disk:> lame aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:29/ 0:29| 0:30/ 0:30| 9.2340x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
5.RAM Disk:> lame.g4-3.98.2 aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16537 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:17/ 0:17| 0:18/ 0:18| 16.010x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
5.RAM Disk:> data:
5.Data:> lame aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:30/ 0:30| 0:31/ 0:31| 8.9321x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
5.Data:> lame.g4-3.98.2 aksack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16537 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding aksack.wav to aksack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:17/ 0:17| 0:17/ 0:17| 16.010x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
Hans
-
@Hans_
Thank you. Nothing wrong with the results as we can see.
Also, the scalar results are rather interesting. Here's the result from my Mac mini G4 1.5GHz (first scalar, then altivec):
2·Ram Disk:T% showconfig
SYSTEM: PowerMac10,2
REGISTERED: Harry Sintonen
PROCESSOR: 7447A (G4) (V1.5) 1500MHz (FSB 166MHz)
VERSION: MorphOS version 2.7, Ambient version 1.43, Kickstart version 51.37
RAM: Node type $8A, Attributes $1505 (FAST), at $20000CA8-$5CD8D000 (~973.5 meg)
BOARDS:
Vendor $106B Device $0034 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 AGP
Vendor $1002 Device $5962 ATI Technologies Inc, RV280 [Radeon 9200]
Vendor $14E4 Device $4318 Broadcom Corporation, BCM4318 [AirForce One 54g] 802.11g Wireless LAN Controller
Vendor $106B Device $003F Apple Computer Inc., KeyLargo/Intrepid USB
Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
Vendor $1033 Device $00E0 NEC Corporation, USB 2.0
Vendor $106B Device $003B Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth/Intrepid ATA/100
Vendor $106B Device $0031 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 FireWire
Vendor $106B Device $0032 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 GMAC (Sun GEM)
2·Ram Disk:T% lame_ppc AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| [b]0:24[/b]/ [b]0:24[/b]| [b]0:24[/b]/ [b]0:24[/b]| 11.086x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
2·Ram Disk:T% lame_vmx AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| [b]0:16[/b]/ [b]0:16[/b]| [b]0:16[/b]/ [b]0:16[/b]| 16.362x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
/me pats the Mac mini G4 & PowerBook G4 ;-)
-
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.
Steven
-
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.
Steven
Right here brah:
http://lame.sourceforge.net/links.php#Windows
No command line. There's a couple there that appear to be lame with a GUI frontend, but all the rest incorporate lame as programmatic interface and seem to use lame as just one step in their processing.
-
Where can I find a windows binary of this lame encoder? Looked but only found source tarballs. I'd like to run this test on a windows and linux machine and see the results and how they stack up against x1000 on quad core and 6 core intel machines.
Steven
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php
Athlon XP 2600+ :)
C:\>lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.4 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: MMX (ASM used), 3DNow! (ASM used), SSE (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:16/ 0:16| 0:16/ 0:16| 16.975x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
LAME 3.99.4 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:05/ 0:05| 0:05/ 0:05| 52.606x| 0:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Hardware:
Hardware Overview:
Model Name: iMac
Model Identifier: iMac11,3
Processor Name: Intel Core i7
Processor Speed: 2.93 GHz
Number of Processors: 1
Total Number of Cores: 4
L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB
L3 Cache: 8 MB
Memory: 8 GB
Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
Boot ROM Version: IM112.0057.B00
SMC Version (system): 1.59f2
Serial Number (system): xxxxxxx
Hardware UUID: xxxxxx
Software:
System Software Overview:
System Version: Mac OS X 10.7.2 (11C74)
Kernel Version: Darwin 11.2.0
-
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ @2.6 GHz
LAME 3.99.4 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: SSE (ASM used), SSE2 (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:08/ 0:08| 0:08/ 0:08| 31.520x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
I got 7 seconds on a quad core intel windows xp box.
I got 6 seconds on a quadcore intel ubuntu box.
Both those machines would cost less than 500$ right now.
For me, that kind of puts many things in perspective about the x1000.
Thanks Piru.
Steven
-
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8296/hehesl.png) Don't care so much about the thread but the tags are funny. :)
-
/me pats the Mac mini G4 & PowerBook G4 ;-)
"Up Your Shaft"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypasUL_GktI
-
Just my 2 cents on PowerMac MDD 1.67Ghz (OC)
Ram Disk:> showconfig
SYSTEM: PowerMac3,6
REGISTERED: Dominik Glowacki
PROCESSOR: 7445/7455 (G4) (V3.3) 1667MHz (FSB 167MHz)
VERSION: MorphOS version 2.7, Ambient version 1.43, Kickstart version 51.37
RAM: Node type $8A, Attributes $1505 (FAST), at $20000CA8-$7C7F0000 (~1480.0 meg)
BOARDS:
Vendor $106B Device $0034 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 AGP
Vendor $1002 Device $5961 ATI Technologies Inc, RV280 [Radeon 9200]
Vendor $10EC Device $8139 Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd., RTL-8139/8139C/8139C+
Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
Vendor $1033 Device $0035 NEC Corporation, USB
Vendor $1033 Device $00E0 NEC Corporation, USB 2.0
Vendor $1102 Device $0002 Creative Labs, SB Live! EMU10k1
Vendor $1102 Device $7002 Creative Labs, SB Live! Game Port
Vendor $106B Device $0019 Apple Computer Inc., KeyLargo USB
Vendor $106B Device $0019 Apple Computer Inc., KeyLargo USB
Vendor $106B Device $0033 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 ATA/100
Vendor $106B Device $0031 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 FireWire
Vendor $106B Device $0032 Apple Computer Inc., UniNorth 2 GMAC (Sun GEM)
Ram Disk:> lame_ppc AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:22/ 0:22| 0:22/ 0:22| 12.053x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
Ram Disk:> lame_vmx AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.4 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:15/ 0:15| 0:15/ 0:15| 17.575x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
Ram Disk:>
-
(http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8296/hehesl.png)
Don't care so much about the thread but the tags are funny. :)
:lol: I wonder who put that there?
And why do I feel like curried lamb meatballs for dinner...
-
It appears mr Mufa claims (http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum.amigaone.pl%2Ftopic65.html%23p521) that I've "faked" the results. Thus I've decided to release couple of photographs showing the results:
http://sintonen.fi/pics/bench_raw_macmini_g4_15.jpg
http://sintonen.fi/pics/bench_raw_powerbook_g4_167.jpg
Excuse the poor quality of these pictures. They should still serve their purpose however.
-
thats nothing new to me that Pa6 is slow.its a embedded CPU with less performance /MHZ.
some years ago i post on amigaworld links that show on some rare benchmarks that pa6 is slow.of course there are few benchmarks for pa6 because they want not show that it is slow i guess ;-)
but the fact that Apple choose is X86 depend i guess too that pa6 is not fast.Apple miss long time a fast and power save notebook CPU from motorola and pa6 does not fill the gap, so they give up PPC.
What's interesting about this benchmark is that it takes my Q9450 8 seconds to perform the same test.
karlos@Megaburken-II:~/Desktop$ time lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.98.2 64bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:08/ 0:08| 0:08/ 0:08| 33.665x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
real 0m8.175s
user 0m8.120s
sys 0m0.060s
Those old PPC machines don't look too shabby under the circumstances.
you use a non SSE Version on windows.On my I5 760 (2.8 GHZ 3.3 GHZ turbo boost) it need 4 sec.see the output of CPU features (CPU features: SSE (ASM used), SSE2 (ASM used)).lame seem not run on multi core.Because i choose in windows shell 1 CPU.speed is same 4 sec.also i get only CPU load 25% seem 1 Core is active and the 3 cores (75% sleep).I guess multithread is not need in lame , because the frontend do it and start more lame threads at once.
my results are 4.5* faster as X1000 or in numbers, when i downlclock my X86 from (3.3 GHZ /4.5) = 0.733 GHZ ore 733 MHZ it is as fast as X1000.
this is the result i get with that files for 64 bit from that page
http://lame.sourceforge.net/links.php#Binaries
i go to this
http://www.rarewares.org/mp3-lame-bundle.php
-------------------
C:\Users\pc>E:\tmp\lame.exe E:\AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.4 64bits (http://lame.sf.net)
CPU features: SSE (ASM used), SSE2 (ASM used)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding E:\AKsack.wav to E:\AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:04/ 0:04| 0:04/ 0:04| 55.937x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
C:\Users\pc>
------
-
you use a non SSE Version on windows.
You might be right about the SSE support (which I mentioned above that I'd have to check), but it most assuredly isn't running on Windows.
-
Tested with WinUAE. Lame 3.99.3 compiles it in 58 secs.
:laughing:
whre you have download the 3.99.3 ?
I have only 3.98.4 find
here on I5 760 need 32 sec in winuae.on 68k it use of course no SSE or any asm code line.time is simular to the 1. mac mini result, so another argument, that this test use no altivec on Mac mini and the values of 18 sec with altivec can be true.
The I5 I7 give a big speedup to the old Core DUO or QUAD.but when buy a new system today you can only buy new I5 for low price or better.and X1000 is tell as a new system.My system is over 1 year old.
but winuae can use native X86 lame.you need only execute winuaelame program with parameters to start the native lame you install in X86
-
whre you have download the 3.99.3 ?
I have only 3.98.4 find
Build this one myself. Shouldn't make a big difference in speed though. Not uploaded yet, was hoping to include a wos version too. But this one is crashing all the time.
here on I5 760 need 32 sec in winuae.on 68k it use of course no SSE or any asm code line.
We do have JIT :biglaugh:
-
Machine Name: Mac mini
Machine Model: PowerMac10,1
CPU Type: PowerPC G4 (1.2)
Number Of CPUs: 1
CPU Speed: 1.42 GHz
L2 Cache (per CPU): 512 KB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 167 MHz
13s - total encode CPU time without write Tag:
SKOLMAN_MWS:~ AMIGA$ /Applications/lame -t /Volumes/RAM\ Disk/AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.5 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding /Volumes/RAM Disk/AKsack.wav to /Volumes/RAM Disk/AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:13/ 0:13| 0:14/ 0:14| 20.254x| 0:00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
14s - normal test with write Tag:
SKOLMAN_MWS:~ AMIGA$ /Applications/lame /Volumes/RAM\ Disk/AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.5 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding /Volumes/RAM Disk/AKsack.wav to /Volumes/RAM Disk/AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:14/ 0:14| 0:15/ 0:15| 19.207x| 0:00
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
-
lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.97 32bits (http://www.mp3dev.org/)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.wav.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz 128 kbps j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:14/ 0:14| 0:15/ 0:15| 19.493x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 76.1 13.4 10.5
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
Dual G5 2.7GHz - OSX 10.5.8 - old version and writing to a single drive - anyone got a PPC AltiVec OSX compiled version they can send me? I only have a really old copy of XCode on this machine.
-
Hehe Google is your friend...
./lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.99.5 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:07/ 0:07| 0:07/ 0:07| 39.013x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB
It appears to be using both cores.
-
]
Please use Linux Mint 11 on both
http://mintppc.org/
Or Debian Wheezy on both and redo the math.
Looking forward to compare those tests to these and let us know of how much space there is for MOS and OS4 to grow on same hardware.
-
benchmarks w/lame... how 1999 of you.
-
benchmarks w/lame... how 1999 of you.
please do MINT tests. You can run Mint 11 on all PPC Macs and X1000
64 bit on X1000, 32 bit on MacsPPC, just to get the right tech use.
http://www.mintppc.org/content/user-experiences
http://www.mintppc.org/forums/viewfo...6ff6341813fe07
-
Please use Linux Mint 11 on both
http://mintppc.org/
Or Debian Wheezy on both and redo the math.
Unfortunately no-one is willing to run benchmarks on their X1000 anymore. I wonder why that is...
Looking forward to compare those tests to these and let us know of how much space there is for MOS and OS4 to grow on same hardware.
Actually MorphOS is faster than Linux in some areas, so I don't see much point in these tests.
-
Is there any way we could include an overclocked G4 mac mini? I've seen people getting theirs up to 1.8Ghz. I ask this as i am considering doing this to mine.
Cheers!
A requested, here's a picture of an overclocked Mac Mini running at 2.6Ghz.
-
Can anyone plz add the lame test with x5000 plz?
-
And Vampire? lol
-
And Vampire? lol
Why not?
-
I want to see Vampire benchmarks, too!
It's interesting to see the progression:
33 MHz m68040 (Mac Quadra 605):
3582.799u 6700.611s 3:08:39.78 90.8% 0+0k 0+798io 6pf+0w
50 MHz m68060 (Amiga 1200, Blizzard 1260):
1324.752u 513.886s 31:25.96 97.4% 0+0k 0+556io 0pf+0w
1.5 GHz PowerPC G4 (Mac mini), no Altivec:
31.992u 0.470s 0:37.09 87.5% 0+0k 0+17io 5pf+0w
1.2 GHz Raspberry Pi 3:
30.575u 0.320s 0:34.71 88.9% 0+0k 0+16io 1pf+0w
2.05 GHz AMD Athlon 5350:
10.957u 0.119s 0:11.11 99.5% 0+0k 0+6io 0pf+0w
2.3 GHz NVIDIA Jetson TK1:
10.686u 0.129s 0:10.97 98.4% 0+0k 0+7io 2pf+0w
3.6 GHz AMD FX-8150:
5.641u 0.170s 0:05.81 100.0% 0+0k 0+3io 0pf+0w
4 GHz Core i7 6700k:
3.220u 0.050s 0:03.27 100.0% 0+0k 0+6io 0pf+0w
3.4 GHz AMD Threadripper 1950x:
2.956u 0.309s 0:03.62 89.7% 0+0k 0+3io 0pf+0wThat breaks down to this for performance (audio frame per second per MHz):
m68040: .031
m68060: .1145
PowerPC G4 (7447a): .216
ARM Cortex A53: .284
AMD Athlon 5350: .464
ARM Cortex A15: .423
AMD FX-8150: .5
Core i7 6700k: .805
AMD Threadripper: .948That means that, per MHz on LAME encoding, an AMD Threadripper is about thirty times faster than an m68040 :)
-
I should note that this doesn't take turbo clocks in to account.
-
I want to see Vampire benchmarks, too!
What is the command line for the test?
-
What is the command line for the test?
lame file.mp3
-
lame file.mp3
That makes no sence at all too me. Doesnt Lame take an in file and output an mp3?
So what is the file to test and pack?
Is it part of some version? or on the official homepage?
-
That makes no sence at all too me. Doesnt Lame take an in file and output an mp3?
So what is the file to test and pack?
Is it part of some version? or on the official homepage?
Sorry mate but...
on #6 piru links the fiel to test...didnt noticed?
-
Sorry mate but...
on #6 piru links the fiel to test...didnt noticed?
No sorry did not. Thanks. will check it out,
-
with lame v3.1 from OS4depot on X1000:
9.RAM Disk:lame-3.100/bin> lame AKsack.wav
LAME 3.100 32bits (http://lame.sf.net)
Using polyphase lowpass filter, transition band: 16538 Hz - 17071 Hz
Encoding AKsack.wav to AKsack.mp3
Encoding as 44.1 kHz j-stereo MPEG-1 Layer III (11x) 128 kbps qval=3
Frame | CPU time/estim | REAL time/estim | play/CPU | ETA
10529/10529 (100%)| 0:28/ 0:28| 0:28/ 0:28| 9.7744x| 0:00
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kbps MS % long switch short %
128.0 100.0 74.4 13.4 12.2
Writing LAME Tag...done
ReplayGain: +0.5dB