debian hardinfo benchmarks

[spirantho]

I don't understand these threads that say how great PowerMacs are compared to the X-1000.

Fact is if speed was the only factor, then we'd all be using x86. The fact that we continue to use our AmigaOS and MOS compatible machines shows that it isn't.

A PowerMac can't run AOS. An x86 can't run AOS. An X1000 can. Therefore it is the best option for AOS; the PowerMac is as irrelevant as an x86 box.
We could do the same for PowerMacs - stick benchmarks of a PowerMac up against an x86 box and act all smug when the x86 wipes the floor with it. It'd be just as relevant: an x86 can't run MOS. A PowerMac can. Therefore a PowerMac is the best option for MOS. An x86 is as relevant to a MOS user as a PowerMac is to an AOS user.

X1000 = best for AOS.
PowerMac = best for MOS.
But if you just care about speed, get an x86.

Threads like this just give MorphOS a bad name.

[fishy_fiz]

RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.
Also, where's the Ivy Bridge netbooks in any of your comparisons? Even things like elc heapo i3-2130's are omitted. Heck youve even omitted newer generation Atoms (the ones with pvr intergrated gfx). These are all mainstream products. All of the "mainstream" products youve mentioned are pretty much bottom of the barrell.

Your above comparisons are pretty off the mark. Its more akin to:
1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.
3000euro x86 pc = quad channel ddr3@2133 (or higher) = 10:1, dual socket hex core cpu = about 20:1, etc., etc.

Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2), 3.86ghz cpu (about 4:1 (core2duo is significantly faster than x1000 per clock).  Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.
Despite its age Id happily put it, using one core up vs the x1000 when/if it ever uses 2 cores, and it'd still come out on top (it's running aros btw).As things stand its even faster than x1000 when running amithlon (ie. and emulated 68k cpu). What youve been doing is akin to me saying, the dragon (assuming it wasnt vapor) is close to ppc because it uses ddr and agp. Completely disregarding what the latter is capable of just because if you strip it down to bottom of the barrell there's similarites.

I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware (although no closer than the original a1's where vs pcs at the time), and if you re-read what Ive written you'll see I even alluded to the fact that it all comes down to what a person enjoys (ie. x86 doesnt allow a person to run OS4.x). The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.

Anyway, I dont really want to argue. If people are happy then Im happy for them. If youre happy convincing yourself that youre not shaping things so they fit what you want to be true then Im also happy for you

[fishy_fiz]

RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.
Also, where's the Ivy Bridge netbooks in any of your comparisons? Even things like elc heapo i3-2130's are omitted. Heck youve even omitted newer generation Atoms (the ones with pvr intergrated gfx). These are all mainstream products. All of the "mainstream" products youve mentioned are pretty much bottom of the barrell.

Your above comparisons are pretty off the mark. Its more akin to:
1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.
3000euro x86 pc = quad channel ddr3@2133 (or higher) = 10:1, dual socket hex core cpu = about 20:1, etc., etc.

Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2), 3.86ghz cpu (about 4:1 (core2duo is significantly faster than x1000 per clock).  Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.
Despite its age Id happily put it, using one core up vs the x1000 when/if it ever uses 2 cores, and it'd still come out on top (it's running aros btw).As things stand its even faster than x1000 when running amithlon (ie. and emulated 68k cpu).

I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware (although no closer than the original a1's were vs pcs at the time), and if you re-read what Ive written you'll see I even alluded to the fact that it all comes down to what a person enjoys (ie. x86 doesnt allow a person to run OS4.x). The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.

[takemehomegrandma]

Care to elaborate?
To me it seem you have not looked at e6500 specs?

Only briefly, since it's not relevant for anything I'm interested in. The e6500 is not a CPU, it's a technology, and I believe the new "AMP" deal will mean a great step-up for the QorIQ Communications Platform that Freescale is offering. It seems it will mean four times the performance from previous offerings, as well as energy saving features such as the "Night mode", where data path delivers packets to only as many cores as required to process them, while the rest of the cores enter low power mode (and wakes as traffic increases again). Energy saving features in networks has been gaining importance during the last half decade (or more), I don't think anyone will deny that, so this may be one of the key features of the AMP concept. The T4240/T4160 chips indeed have an impressive DMIPS/MHz figure for an embedded processor, and coupled with speeds up to 1.8GHz, this will mean much for today's/future network infrastructure that is more and more being complicated by protocols such as IPSec and SSL, which require more than just simple IP packet forwarding. Freescale claims it can forward 50Gbits/s, and no doubt will this mean powerful gateways, routers, switches, proxy server applications, network storage applications, etc. I think this will mean a new position for Freescale in the market!

(not far behind is same as a lot less than decade behind, higher performing than low end x86 dekstop today)

Uh, not going to try to pretend I understood what you just wrote there, you lost me somewhere prior to the comma. (Was that some kind of discrete mathematics? Or just a riddle?)

:lol:

[KimmoK]

@fishy_fiz

>RAM speed is much less than 1:2. Quad channel ddr3@2133 is about 10x that of x1000 ram bandwidth. Worst case scenario is closer to 1:2, but its not a great comparison to compare bottom of the barell to premium.

>1000euro x86 pc = dual/tripple channel ddr3@1866 (about 5:1 vs x1000), 2x pci express 3.0 vs single pci express 2 (about 5:1),etc.

Ok.
But every x86 that I have seen sold below 1000eur has been with single or dual channel RAM, same for Apple.
And the RAM has been DDR3 1333 (that seems slower in practice than DDR2 1067)
And none of them have had more than one PCIex16 or multiple GPUs.
etc…
I need to look harder next time, perhaps…?

And at the same time …
One can put the same GPU in x1000, unlike ever before.
One can put USB3 adapter in, unlike ever before.
One can use SATA2 (+RAID) unlike ever before.
…

And again. We need SW to use multiple cores or GPUs. Again. x1000 is ok/very good, except the price.


>Heck, even my 4.5 year old core2duo (which cost me about $500 4.5 years ago) blitzes the x1000 (dual channel ddr2@1066 (3:2)

Why is that? x1000 has dual channel DDR2 1067.
Are you saying DDR2 runs slower when there is Amiga sticker somewhere?

>Also, dont forget than memory bandwidth doesnt equate to efficient memory usage. Athlon64's using ddr1 used to beat p4's using dual channel ddr2.

Like Athlon did on x86, PA6T is the pioneer of putting memory controller onboard -> best possible bandwidth.

>I absolutely agree that its a big step forward for OS4 hardware

Agreed!!!!!!!!!! ;-)

>(although no closer than the original a1's where vs pcs at the time)

I disagree.  To my math A1 GAP in 2002 vs x86 was 5,8 years.   (gaps: CPU 4y, FSB 6y, Expansions 10y, USB 4y, GPU 5y, when it is 10y, 2y, 1y,1y,0y for x1000)
And I will not go in more details with you. ;-)

>The whole point to my responses is that youve pretty heavily misrepresented where x1000 stands vs. x86.

To my math, x1000 was about 2.6 (..3) years behind the medium-high end in y2011, and it’s just my math. Everyone can do their own math.
The gap was growing until SAM460 and x1000 were released.
Today it’s possible to build more modern PPC systems (with latest peripherals) than some time ago + I do not think PPC catch up x86 ever again, though.

>Anyway, I dont really want to argue. If people are happy then Im happy for them. If youre happy convincing yourself that youre not shaping things so they fit what you want to be true then Im also happy for you

I think my glasses are not that red as you think + your glasses seems pretty black, btw, but anyway.
I should remember that when I try to be non-biased, I’m not.  Perhaps you should too.

Anyway... I was never good in math anyway. One better do his own.

[KimmoK]

@takemehomegrandma

>Uh, not going to try to pretend I understood what you just wrote there, you lost me somewhere prior to the comma.

PA6T was 10 years behind desktop chips when x1000FC came to market. e6500 based chips are less behind. Does it now compile?

If Freescale manages to deliver AMP chips as they have planned, PPC motherboard builders should have ok material for faster than before PPC motherboards (+that can accept all modern peripherals off the self).

[Iggy]

e6500 should not be far behind the top of x86)

Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.

[fishy_fiz]

In theory an intergrated memory controller is a big advantage, but its down to the implementation. Original athlon64's outdid the p4's of the era in this area, despite p4's having ram with higher bandwidth (rdram/ddr2 vs ddr1). It's not always true though. Core2 architecture is a testament to this, which using the same memory, and its controller in the core logic had higher ram bandwidth and similar latency. PA6T is inferiror to even athlon64 with its memory controller. Still nice to have, but different architectures (even within same cpu family) play a big part here as well. So no, it has nothing to do with if its amiga or not, it has to do with the how hardware is implemented. A core2 based cpu simply has better, and more efficient use of ram than a PA6T. Not that a core2 based system is anything resembling modern though and is typically outdone by newer budget systems.
In the last few years x86 has again had a growth spurt and new hardware from this time is a whole new generation again. The thing is though that there's still plenty of products around based on older hardware (atoms are about 5 years old for example and only recently being phased out despite there being much better replacements).
I suspect this is maybe where our disagreeing stems from. My perspective is where the technology is today whereas you seem to be coming from an available products angle. Give it a few months and my perspective will become clearer as the currently available obsolete products start getting replaced with more modern equivalents. I must admit to being surprised at just how many obsolete x86 products are still in circulation, even though thier significantly more powerful and advanced replacements are also in the marketplace for similar prices.

[fishy_fiz]

Oh, and Im hardly speaking through black tinted glasses. Ive sepnt next to no time on my aros box in the last few months and have spent considerable time doing amiga os development (I also have a MOS box).
My only real allegiance is to enjoying my amiga hobby.
Im simply a pretty heavy follower of computer technology and have been for 30 or so years. Not to toot my own horn, but I do know my stuff.

[KimmoK]

Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.

No does not.

But the 1.8Ghz 12 core (24cores visible via hyperthreading) should have roughly similar performance than multicore x86 chips. (for heavily multithreaded + SMP + SIMD using tasks)

(it just must not take another 10 years before we have e6500 based A1 + SMP capable OS + good SW)


@fishy
>I must admit to being surprised at just how many obsolete x86 products are still in circulation, even though thier significantly more powerful and advanced replacements are also in the marketplace for similar prices.

Mainstream has become sloppy in generating enough bloatsoftware and that's why there is less need for upgrade?

In real life I see Linux going for the bloatware crown. Even Mint LXDE seems slowish on 2500+ dumbster HW (that in amiga CPU land would compete with PA6T).

But at work the corporate IT service is the king of all. It's amazing how slow and crashy they manage set these core2 machines.
(already spent 15+ minutes today rebooting this kludge twice and restarting everything, I wonder where they even find this IE8 for these machines... my SAM440 almost beat this in javascript tests .... and it seems every office apps relies in bugged IE bits and pieces ...)

UPDATE, just in case G5 results were not previously mentioned:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35671&forum=34&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#664098

[Iggy]

No does not.

But the 1.8Ghz 12 core (24cores visible via hyperthreading) should have roughly similar performance than multicore x86 chips. (for heavily multithreaded + SMP + SIMD using tasks)

So you're specifically thinking about the T4280.
I can't think of a PC application that could efficiently use that many cores (outside of the communications applications this chip was designed for).
 
And no Amigoid OS supports SMP.
So the T4280 would be no faster then a PA6T.

[takemehomegrandma]

Hey, I'm a big PPC fan, but a 1.8GHz processor (even with 8 cores) isn't going to be a threat to an X86.

Of course not...

[KimmoK]

@Iggy
>So you're specifically thinking about the T4280.

There will be 1...12 core variants. And e6500 is said to cope with up to 2.5Ghz clock rate.

>I can't think of a PC application that could efficiently use that many cores (outside of the communications applications this chip was designed for).

I have used some.
Mainly gcc, and dvd:ripp. But also most of rendering apps can use a lot of cores.
(they can also use cheap heterogenous clusters)
 
>And no Amigoid OS supports SMP.

Before we have second multicore based motherboard out, AOS4.2 with SMP will be out.

>So the T4280 would be no faster then a PA6T.

Even in single core + HT disabled those e6500 chips should be slightly faster than PA6T.
To my understanding they should perform like G4 per Mhz. And when only one core is used e6500 based chips should  go up to 2.5Ghz. (+2.3Ghz DDR3 + PCIe3.0 etc...)

But anyway... SMP is mandatory for all Amiga flavours. Otherwise I see no future hope for those niches growing.
(and all are going SMP ... it will take year(s), though)

[jj]

 
Before we have second multicore based motherboard out, AOS4.2 with SMP will be out.
 

Sure

[Iggy]

@Iggy
...And e6500 is said to cope with up to 2.5Ghz clock rate.

No, the e5500 is supposed to clock at up to 2.5 GHz.
Freescale has downgraded the e6500 to 1.8 GHz.

However, it does look like some e6500 based products (specifically the T4280) may be able to support better PCIe configurations (then e5500 based products).

And I haven't seen any products listed using this core with a low (or single) core count.

[KimmoK]

T4 chips are clocked up to 1.8Ghz.
But they seem to have downgraded e6500 info to 2Ghz.
http://www.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/brochure/PWRARBYNDBITSQIG.pdf

The old info:
http://media.freescale.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=196520&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1576370