Amiga.org
Amiga computer related discussion => General chat about Amiga topics => Topic started by: Themamboman on August 02, 2013, 04:00:50 AM
-
I'm interested to see how the different flavors of Amiga OS next generation hardware stack up against each other, speed wise.
I've gotten an idea of how this ranking is over on the Morphos side.
So, unless there are some real benchmarks, would someone like to take a stab at ranking the hardware speeds of the various PPC hardware that supports Amiga OS4.x?
BlizzardPPC
CyberstormPPC
AmigaOne XE G3
AmigaOne XE G4
Pegasos II G4 (was there a G3?)
Micro-A1c
Sam440ep
Sam440ep flex
Sam460
AmigaOne 500 (doesn't this one offer a 1.15 Ghz version of 460?)
AmigaOne X1000
I'm pretty sure the really old Phase5 cards are the slowest and the X1000 is the fastest, but I'm not sure about everything in between.
Thoughts?
-
@Themamboman
I don't know anything about AmigaOne 500 or AmigaOne X1000.
According to everything I have read the Pegasos II G4 with MorphOS or OS4 beat the pants off everything else in your list.
But you can get some sorts of old Macs that run MorphOS and are better. Some old macs are worse, others are better, I can't keep all the models straight. I am sure there are several MorphOS experts reading this who can tell us the fastest macs that run MorphOS.
-
You can put that pegasos2 right below the x1000. os4 performance wise
-
@Themamboman
I don't know anything about AmigaOne 500 or AmigaOne X1000.
According to everything I have read the Pegasos II G4 with MorphOS or OS4 beat the pants off everything else in your list.
But you can get some sorts of old Macs that run MorphOS and are better. Some old macs are worse, others are better, I can't keep all the models straight. I am sure there are several MorphOS experts reading this who can tell us the fastest macs that run MorphOS.
The fastest Amiga currently available is the PowerMac G5 2.7GHz Dual Processor machine running MorphOS 3.2.
(https://sintonen.fi/pics/mplayer_benchmark.png)
(https://sintonen.fi/pics/lame_benchmark.png)
-
You can put that pegasos2 right below the x1000. os4 performance wise
A 500MHz PowerMac outperforms a 1.12GHz Sam460 even.
@Hyperion
PLEASE port OS4 to Mac hardware, you are losing customers because of it.
-
I have only used Mac mini 1,42GHz and sam440ep-flex and I must say that the Mac mini preforms quite well on MorphOS and the SAM440ep-flex runs AOS 4x quite ok, I wish I had a faster AOS machine near the mac mini specs to compare. I like em both in different ways but the mac mini feels LOTS faster.
-
@Nicholas
Thanx dude! You're a handy guy to have around! I love timing tests!
Do you know much about those G4 and G5 machines?
I am thinking "Damn! I want one of those MorphOS G5 machines!"
But then I am thinking "Wait, I don't want a blacksmith forge in my bedroom that can smelt iron. I want something coooool so maybe I better get a 2.0Ghz G5 PowerMac instead of the 2.5Ghz version"
But then I am thinking "Wait, maybe they are different versions of the chip or different masks or whatever. So for all I know the 2.5Ghz one runs cooler than the 2.0 Ghz version. Like how my 50Mhz 060 is much cooler than my 25Mhz 040."
So do you know anything about their heat dissipation? (watts)
If you never had one or read up on them then I will "just assume" that I should aim for getting a lowly 2.0 Ghz model to keep the heat down.
Is there a list anywhere of TDP for both the CPU itself and the whole computer for all systems listed above?
I'm conservative so electrical efficiency is my prime criteria when selecting any type of computer and has been so since 1993. I don't like wasting resources. Using resources is ok but wasting them is not. And it may seem weird but I also prefer to keep my money in MY bank account instead of the Electric Company's bank account.
-
@Hyperion
PLEASE port OS4 to Mac hardware, you are losing customers because of it.
Porting to old Macs is no longer relevant. We are now in the Arm Age.
The macs were nice but they are no longer being built or upgraded. They are in the past.
Arm machines are damn cheap with multiple machines available from multiple vendors brand new for $99.00 or less.
Arm machines get more powerful every single year. And since they all run linux that means they can could also run MorphOS or OS4.
The Arm machines drink such a tiny amount of electricity compared to old Macs that you can buy yourself a new computer every single year with the money you save on your electric bill. Its like getting a free upgraded computer every year.
I predict that whichever team ports to Arm first will crush the other team.
Piru, Ralph Schmidt, are you listening?
-
I have only used Mac mini 1,42GHz and sam440ep-flex and I must say that the Mac mini preforms quite well on MorphOS and the SAM440ep-flex runs AOS 4x quite ok, I wish I had a faster AOS machine near the mac mini specs to compare. I like em both in different ways but the mac mini feels LOTS faster.
Have you tried the Hyperclock utility to overclock that sam44ep-flex?
-
If you don't have/own all these machines...
HOW did you run these speed tests???
-
Have you tried the Hyperclock utility to overclock that sam44ep-flex?
Overclocking wastes giant blobs of electricity. Electrical consumption does not increase linearly. I think it increases exponentially. It would be smarter to underclock it. Then next year buy yourself a new computer with all the money you saved on your electric bill from not overclocking it.
-
Those timing graphs are completely irrelevant. They were made by Piru (a MorphOS developer), and do not compare like with like (the different versions were made on different people's systems with a different version of the software, probably compiled by a different compiler) - they're not comparing one system with another, they're comparing a truckload of variables, making the comparison useless for anything except propaganda.
It can be difficult to say which is "faster". On some tasks, a Sam 460ex will be better than a Pegasos II (for instance tasks which require better infrastructure - the 460ex uses PCI Express for starters). On others, a slower G4 Peg II will slaughter a 1.1GHz 460ex if the task is Altivec enabled.
I believe the order for most uses of AmigaOS 4 is:
AmigaOne X1000
Pegasos II G4
AmigaOne XE G4
Sam 460 1.1GHz
Sam 440 Flex and EP (faster CPU, 800MHz)
Pegasos II G3 600MHz
Sam 440 Flex and EP (Slower CPU, <733MHz)
AmigaOne XE G3
Micro-A1
CS-PPC
Blizzard PPC
Of course there are variations - I believe the fastest BlizzardPPC outruns the fastest CyberstormPPC, for instance. Then of course some apps use the faster bus of the Sam compared to the AmigaOne XE, that sort of thing.
Generally speaking, though, the Peg-II is a good board to have if you don't mind being limited to pre RadeonHD graphics cards and a PCI/AGP bus. If you want to run more modern graphics cards you need a Sam460ex or best of all the X1000.
-
Those timing graphs are completely irrelevant. They were made by Piru (a MorphOS developer), and do not compare like with like (the different versions were made on different people's systems with a different version of the software, probably compiled by a different compiler) - they're not comparing one system with another, they're comparing a truckload of variables, making the comparison useless for anything except propaganda.
Those timing tests are dead-on accurate and reflect all other tests made
by big and professional companies I read ... Those tests can be used to
give you a very clear picture of what you're buying ...
@ChaosLord
When it comes to performance and heat consumption ratio on old Mac you
just can't beat MacMinis ...
They will work faster with Morphos , they will live a longer and happier life , and they will help you save mother earth and your money :)
-
Good summary. I'm sure someone will post a response disagreeing with you in 3...2... ;)
-
Good summary. I'm sure someone will post a response disagreeing with you in 3...2... ;)
:rofl:
-
Those timing tests are dead-on accurate and reflect all other tests made
by big and professional companies I read ... Those tests can be used to
give you a very clear picture of what you're buying ...
If you showed that timing graph to a real benchmarking forum they'd just laugh at you.
1) What version of the tools benchmarked was being used? If not the same version, then no comparison can be made.
2) What compiler was used for each system? If not the exact same version of the same compiler, then no comparison can be made.
3) What RAM did each computer have - did each platform have the best RAM available? If one platform was using sub-optimal RAM, and another was using fastest available, then no comparison can be made.
4) Do the tasks involve HD access? If so, what HDD was used? Was one using an SSD and another an HDD? Did one have DMA available and another not? Was one SATA, and another PATA?
5) Were each of the benchmarks carried out on the latest versions of the OS on a clean installation? If not, no comparison can be made.
6) Were all background tasks halted before the benchmark was executed? If not, no comparison can be made.
7) Was the network disconnected from each machine? If not, no comparison can be made.
8) Does one of the systems support SSD instructions and one not? If so, then the benchmark is meaningless except in the area of SSD apps, and should not be used arbitrarily.
Benchmarking between systems isn't just a matter of running a program with the same parameters on two systems and timing the difference. You have to be certain that ALL other parameters are equal.
I remember the thread that spawned those benchmarks. Piru had gone through the forums and found results from other people, regardless of their system. I also know that his benchmarks were using an older version of the tool under AmigaOS 4.
These "benchmarks" were just numbers trawled from forums, and have no meaning whatsoever, as they only show 10% of the full picture.
-
Have you tried the Hyperclock utility to overclock that sam44ep-flex?
Haven't tried yet (quite new on AOS hardware), got the 800MHz sam and I will give it a go and put some extra cooling on it :) Thanks.
-
@Nicholas
Thanx dude! You're a handy guy to have around! I love timing tests!
Do you know much about those G4 and G5 machines?
I am thinking "Damn! I want one of those MorphOS G5 machines!"
But then I am thinking "Wait, I don't want a blacksmith forge in my bedroom that can smelt iron. I want something coooool so maybe I better get a 2.0Ghz G5 PowerMac instead of the 2.5Ghz version"
But then I am thinking "Wait, maybe they are different versions of the chip or different masks or whatever. So for all I know the 2.5Ghz one runs cooler than the 2.0 Ghz version. Like how my 50Mhz 060 is much cooler than my 25Mhz 040."
So do you know anything about their heat dissipation? (watts)
If you never had one or read up on them then I will "just assume" that I should aim for getting a lowly 2.0 Ghz model to keep the heat down.
Is there a list anywhere of TDP for both the CPU itself and the whole computer for all systems listed above?
I'm conservative so electrical efficiency is my prime criteria when selecting any type of computer and has been so since 1993. I don't like wasting resources. Using resources is ok but wasting them is not. And it may seem weird but I also prefer to keep my money in MY bank account instead of the Electric Company's bank account.
I can't take the credit for the benchmarks, I pinched them from Piru. :)
The 2.7 GHz model runs at around 80 degrees C sat around doing nothing when fan cooled but runs a bit cooler when liquid cooled (the default is liquid cooled, fan cooling needs a mod).
They don't use that much electric when on OSX as it has more power saving features than MorphOS.
I recommend the PowerBook G4 1.67GHz machine with 128MB Radeon 9700 Pro myself. Runs cool and quiet and is very fast.
-
Overclocking wastes giant blobs of electricity. Electrical consumption does not increase linearly. I think it increases exponentially.
Fortunately, it's not exponential or we wouldn't have 4 GHz machines today.
You can think of an electronic circuit as a capacitor and the clock as an AC source: the current is proportional to the voltage and to the frequency: I = C * U * F
With P = U * I you get P = U * C * U * F thus P ~ F:
20% higher clock, 20% more calculation power, 20% more electrical power
However, if you increase the voltage for better overclocking you'll notice that P increases with U * U: P ~ U²
And this is what starts burning electricity; a 10% increase in voltage uses 21% more power. Then you can possibly raise the clock by another 5% but you'll be using up 27% more power.
I experimented quite a bit with K6-II and -III CPUs and reality is extremely close to these formulas (C is highly constant with a given CPU).
-
The fastest Amiga currently available is the PowerMac G5 2.7GHz Dual Processor machine running MorphOS 3.2.
TRue in raw CPU power. In disk, memory and graphics, X1000 is still first, SAM 460 second, then G4 CPUs (amongst OS4 systems).
-
TRue in raw CPU power. In disk, memory and graphics, X1000 is still first, SAM 460 second, then G4 CPUs (amongst OS4 systems).
I feel a challenge ahead! :)
When you get your X1000 install a fresh Debian and run a benchmark of your choice.
I'll do the same with the G5 and compare.
-
Benchmarking between systems isn't just a matter of running a program with the same parameters on two systems and timing the difference. You have to be certain that ALL other parameters are equal.
If you a attempting a scientific test of a microprocessor running a specific bit of code then the above might be valid, sometimes. But the result will be completely meaningless because that's not what people buy.
In this case it is systems being compared with neither the same hardware or operating system. The compilers versions supported are likely to be different and the same versions of the code might not compile.
It is not some small part of the system being compared but the entire thing. It's how fast can system X produce a result compared to system Y.
Look at the industry standard benchmarks - SPEC and TCP. They all run on wildly different systems, you are allowed to compile them however you want using whatever compiler you want on whatever OS / hardware combination you want. There is no requirement other than you can actually buy the system.
Consider the Top500 supercomputer list. It tests systems where *everything* is different. You are not only allowed to modify the source code but you are expected to!
-
Benchmarks are mostly marketing rather than mathematics or computing science.
-
When I do a benchmark it is entirely science. I did the benchmark so I know it isn't rigged. I am not trying to sell anybody anything so it isn't marketing. I just report the results.
As to the benchmarks in this thread some of them were performed by random forum members. Are you claiming they lied or cheated in some way?
I have known Piru for many years and he has always been a good scientific Vulcan. I don't believe for one second that he would rig a timing test. He is like me, he puts the facts first, ahead of anything else.
-
Without a full breakdown on what hardware was in each machine (for example, same hard disks, same RAM speed/amounts, etc. in all machines?) it isn't worth much to me. Then there's the common sense approach of the whole matter - I wouldn't be using *any* of these machines to do transcoding, not when a $300 PC can do it much, much faster (and likely more elegantly).
FYI, I use both MOS and OS4.
-
When I originally asked this, I was specifically looking for systems that run Amiga OS4.x. I knew that MorphOS on fast Apple hardware would be mentioned. I've run Morphos and it's good. Amiga OS4.1 is the only next gen I haven't run yet due to the hardware costs.
I'm probably going to break down and get the Sam440ep-flex due to the fact that it's the lowest priced one out there (apart from used hardware which isn't easy to come by and still commands high prices years after being discontinued). It won't be a speedster but it will do for testing and some code porting.
-
TRue in raw CPU power. In disk, memory and graphics, X1000 is still first, SAM 460 second, then G4 CPUs (amongst OS4 systems).
Unfortunately raw cpu power doesnt do anything for you when you want to watch a video or play a game and you have no overlay...
-
@ChaosLord
I didn't accuse you of rigging any benchmarks. I said the cpu benchmarks are inherently biased and their most valid purpose is for promoting a product, an opinion, etc. Not every optimisation matters the same for every cpu architecture, not everything is robust enough to be used as a metric, and not everything is indicative of general-use real -life performance. You can have a set of benchmarks to suggest an approximate trend regarding performance as easy as you can have a newer/different version of the same benchmark that invalidates the previous findings.
-
once again to debate the speed of the cpu is kind of laughable when you have an OS that is optimized and super fast on even slow processors. WIthout any real software to use this horsepower whats the point? And again, without proper video drivers quite useless as many sam people have discovered.
-
If you a attempting a scientific test of a microprocessor running a specific bit of code then the above might be valid, sometimes. But the result will be completely meaningless because that's not what people buy.
It's still meaningless. If you want I can benchmark a Core i7 and have it produce results slower than an Amiga 500. That's why it's meaningless, you need to know all the facts and there has to be constraints.
If a benchmark isn't the same across machines, then it has to be transparent, and the differences must be documented.
It's kind of like running quake benchmarks. One person runs it at 1600x1200 with a software renderer, the other plays it with Quake and runs it at 320x200.
Which is the better computer? without all the facts, you can't say. Ergo the benchmark is useless.
It is not some small part of the system being compared but the entire thing. It's how fast can system X produce a result compared to system Y.
Which only makes that benchmark valid for that operation using that software, and shouldn't be used in the computing equivalent of "my dad can beat up your Dad" arguments. It tells you nothing because it doesn't tell you where the bottleneck is.
You could run the same task now and have a wildly different result, therefore you're testing the software (which can get changed) and applying it to the system. That is not good benchmarking! At the very least it should be made clear the EXACT system being benchmarked, the software used, the compiler used and the compilation options. For all we know he could have used numbers from a debug version!
Consider the Top500 supercomputer list. It tests systems where *everything* is different. You are not only allowed to modify the source code but you are expected to!
I suspect those will more tightly regulated. I severely doubt the Top500 is worked out by trawling the forums for numbers and not even knowing what changes were made and what the systems were, which is how that graph came about
-
@spirantho
http://www.amiga.org/forums/showthread.php?t=60604
-
Ehm...
Those timing graphs are completely irrelevant. They were made by Piru (a MorphOS developer), and do not compare like with like (the different versions were made on different people's systems with a different version of the software, probably compiled by a different compiler) - they're not comparing one system with another, they're comparing a truckload of variables, making the comparison useless for anything except propaganda.
Ok...
I believe the order for most uses of AmigaOS 4 is:
AmigaOne X1000
Pegasos II G4
AmigaOne XE G4
Sam 460 1.1GHz
Sam 440 Flex and EP (faster CPU, 800MHz)
Pegasos II G3 600MHz
Sam 440 Flex and EP (Slower CPU, <733MHz)
AmigaOne XE G3
Micro-A1
CS-PPC
Blizzard PPC
We are very scientific here, arent we?
I mean, good that you are critical. But denying benchmarks and providing your own chart based on personal feelings does not compute :)
-
@Itix
Completely OT here but I was just wondering how possible would
it be to develop OS4Emu for LinuxPPC ...
Might get some more "accurate" results in benchmarking :crazy:
-
Ehm...
Ok...
We are very scientific here, arent we?
Don't see anything wrong with that :)
I mean, good that you are critical. But denying benchmarks and providing your own chart based on personal feelings does not compute :)
I'm not "denying" benchmarks, I'm just saying that they're not providing the whole picture, which they're not. Heck, we don't even know if Altivec was enabled for both platforms, and if so in what Altivec was used.
My chart is an impression from my own usage of hardware and from what other people have said. But I'm not passing it off as fact, that's the difference - it's just an (educated) impression.
What's most annoying, though, is that the OP was quite specific about what he wanted - an OS4 speed comparison - and yet the same old MorphOS benchmarks get wheeled out of retirement. Who cares how fast a G5 Mac is when you want to run OS4?
-
Since when os4 hardware has altivec?. Probably x1000 the only one, and then software isn't taking advantage of it.
-
Since when os4 hardware has altivec?. Probably x1000 the only one, and then software isn't taking advantage of it.
Peg2 G4 does and maybe the A1XE.
-
once again to debate the speed of the cpu is kind of laughable when you have an OS that is optimized and super fast on even slow processors. WIthout any real software to use this horsepower whats the point? And again, without proper video drivers quite useless as many sam people have discovered.
So, as a potential SAM440ep-flex buyer, what should I look out for? I'm already planning to get the RadeonHD driver, a mid-to-high end PCIe RadeonHD card (with pci-to-pcie adapter, of the kind recommended by the RadeonHD website).
-
So, as a potential SAM440ep-flex buyer, what should I look out for? I'm already planning to get the RadeonHD driver, a mid-to-high end PCIe RadeonHD card (with pci-to-pcie adapter, of the kind recommended by the RadeonHD website).
As a SAM440ep-flex owner (800MHz version) I have bought the PCI to PCI-E adapter but haven't gotten hold of any drivers yet :(
-
Lame and Blender are altivec enabled on MorphOS and AOS4 for PA6T, G4 and G5 cpus.
This is not comparism of cpus, but of complete systems with software that is available on the respective systems.
-
As a SAM440ep-flex owner (800MHz version) I have bought the PCI to PCI-E adapter but haven't gotten hold of any drivers yet :(
Is this what you need?
http://hdrlab.org.nz/projects/amiga-os-4-projects/radeonhd-driver/
http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1107
http://www.a-eon.com/?page=radeonhd
-
As a SAM440ep-flex owner (800MHz version) I have bought the PCI to PCI-E adapter but haven't gotten hold of any drivers yet :(
Why can't you get the drivers?
Don't drivers come with the computer?
-
Is this what you need?
http://hdrlab.org.nz/projects/amiga-os-4-projects/radeonhd-driver/
http://amigakit.leamancomputing.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1107
http://www.a-eon.com/?page=radeonhd
Oh thanks, didn't think of looking at amigakit to buy them :) Now I will give my SAM a go with a RadeonHD 6750 :) (using a flexible PCI Riser so full height cards ain't no problem)
Why can't you get the drivers?
Don't drivers come with the computer?
AOS4.x does not come with RadeonHD drivers, I thought they where not for sale yet and still in beta (im quite new on AOS4.x) but now I got a link by Themamboman and will order the driver CD from amigakit for €43.04 :)
So as soon as the CD arrives ill give it a whirl :)
-
@Itix
Completely OT here but I was just wondering how possible would
it be to develop OS4Emu for LinuxPPC ...
Just create modified version of AROS.
-
I'm not "denying" benchmarks, I'm just saying that they're not providing the whole picture, which they're not. Heck, we don't even know if Altivec was enabled for both platforms, and if so in what Altivec was used.
I posted a link to thread where these benchmarks were discussed 18 months ago. Go read it and find out what conditions were used.
There is no Altivec in SAM so it doesnt matter was Altivec enabled or not (lame benchmarks). I dont know if X1000 has Altivec or not. But if you go read that thread you are likely to find it out.
What's most annoying, though, is that the OP was quite specific about what he wanted - an OS4 speed comparison - and yet the same old MorphOS benchmarks get wheeled out of retirement. Who cares how fast a G5 Mac is when you want to run OS4?
There is OS4 speed comparison. Just filter out Macs and you get what you wanted. The hardware selection is quite scarce from OS4 user POV but these are the best benchmarks we have.
-
Just create modified version of AROS.
I didn't even think about it that way tnx ...
Not that it would be badly needed either ...
-
I feel a challenge ahead! :)
When you get your X1000 install a fresh Debian and run a benchmark of your choice.
I'll do the same with the G5 and compare.
It will come with Ubuntu. Current tests show that X1000 is faster then G4 in cache and memory (and in real time copy files). How worse or better then G5 is hard to determine, as it wasn`t included in current tests.
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2012-02-00011-EN.html
-
It will come with Ubuntu. Current tests show that X1000 is faster then G4 in cache and memory (and in real time copy files). How worse or better then G5 is hard to determine, as it wasn`t included in current tests.
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2012-02-00011-EN.html
We could run this on each machine tested to see the strength and weaknesses of each machine.
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=downloads
-
If I bought a G4 or G5 MorphOS machine would it somehow in anyway help me to create OS4 software?
I only have classic Amigas now.
I will never ever have $3000.00 for an X1000.
-
Not hard to find older SAM 440ep boards for a couple hundred bucks.
While the low end of OS4 machines, I still find mine extremely enjoyable and capable. Though my requirements and expectations of it are admittedly low, I still find it fun for what I use it for - running a BBS, a bit of web browsing, and coding.
I still run mine in barebones fashion (no add on graphics card) and find it very snappy and fun to use. The addition of a couple SSD's about a year ago give me 10 second or so boot times, even on admittedly slow hardware by todays standards.
-
Why people keep reccomending sam boards?. These boards arent entry level by the price, and the power it offers is too low.
-
Why people keep reccomending sam boards?. These boards arent entry level by the price, and the power it offers is too low.
What else are they going to talk about? If they start comparing it to AROS hardware or MOS hardware, reality starts to bite in on why AOS4 is boxed in and no where to turn to. Gangrene set in long ago and a fresh bandage change will make no difference as the smell overtakes the discussion.
-
What else are they going to talk about? If they start comparing it to AROS hardware or MOS hardware, reality starts to bite in on why AOS4 is boxed in and no where to turn to. Gangrene set in long ago and a fresh bandage change will make no difference as the smell overtakes the discussion.
You are allowed to think whatever you like of SAM boards, but most of customers are pleased with ACube. Plus beside expensive X1000 there are no PPC boards in production now.
Surely, everyone can get used Pegs, old AmigaOnes or PPC Macs, but they are selling more just because people tend to get high end systems like X1000 or G5 Mac.
We could run this on each machine tested to see the strength and weaknesses of each machine.
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=downloads
Agreed. Downloaded suite and will run it on x86 MINT to see how does it performs while waiting. If there is an X1000 owner that would do it now, you are welcome to do it with him, since my X1000 will not arrive in less then two weeks (AmigaKit goes vacation on system building)
-
Agreed. Downloaded suite and will run it on x86 MINT to see how does it performs while waiting. If there is an X1000 owner that would do it now, you are welcome to do it with him, since my X1000 will not arrive in less then two weeks (AmigaKit goes vacation on system building)
Does this mean I can test my 4 year old Aros box and post the results?
-
Does this mean I can test my 4 year old Aros box and post the results?
No, Vox is getting a brand new system and only another brand new system would be justified to test against. We have to keep things fair!
-
Why people keep reccomending sam boards?. These boards arent entry level by the price, and the power it offers is too low.
In the used market, they are more than affordable. Even new (assuming you can find a new one to buy), the 440 boards are significantly cheaper than they were when they were brand new. Performance wise, I am willing to bet most people who own them have few to no complaints.
I certainly don't, and I've owned mine since 2008. I still find it as peppy as I did when I bought it, and I didn't buy it with the intentions of it being a world class rendering machine or anything silly like that.
Curious, have you used a SAM machine before?
-
You won't hear any compliants from me about the sam440 from me, I am quite happy with it.
For those who need to use a mac g5, use it with mos and be happy with it. Those who need x86 or arm can use aros and be happy with it.
The rest of us who wants to use AOS4.x use that and are happy with it.
The people I see complaining about AOS4.x are most likely not users of AOS4.x and probably never will be. And funny as their nagging are, it is also becoming very boring.
-
The people I see complaining about AOS4.x are most likely not users of AOS4.x and probably never will be. And funny as their nagging are, it is also becoming very boring.
I complain about the cost of entry of Aos4 all the time. and yet..
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2804/3oj3.jpg)
Doesn't change the fact that personally I think Aros is a better system.
-
In the used market, they are more than affordable. Even new (assuming you can find a new one to buy), the 440 boards are significantly cheaper than they were when they were brand new. Performance wise, I am willing to bet most people who own them have few to no complaints.
When I had my A1200 with 040 and BVision I was happy with it. It didnt feel slow. When I jumped to Peg1/G3@600MHz I was more than satisfied with it and suddenly my old A1200 was slow and limited. If I was upgrading from my A1200 again I could consider getting SAM if it was available in 2005 and Pegasos 2 didnt exist.
Personally I would try to get Pegasos 2 because it has better price and is more performant.
-
No, Vox is getting a brand new system and only another brand new system would be justified to test against. We have to keep things fair!
Dear Dammy, don`t be a lawyar. I will post extensive results from Linux and AmigaOS. I don`t expect miracles with CPU - about same clock G4 performance, but memory and I/O are simply newer techs then used in PPC Macs, so I expect expected.
If I bought a G4 or G5 MorphOS machine would it somehow in anyway help me to create OS4 software?
I only have classic Amigas now.
I will never ever have $3000.00 for an X1000.
No, you can`t run OS4 software on those. I also throught I will never be able to afford X1000 but will pay it in 60 months (59 now).
However, newer high end models bring older SAMs and AmigaOnes to market used at affordable prices.
-
However, newer high end models bring older SAMs and AmigaOnes to market used at affordable prices.
That's true, but Teron A1s are buggy, SAMs are slow. So, except Peg 2, there isn't anything attractive in the second-hand OS4 market either.
-
I complain about the cost of entry of Aos4 all the time. and yet..
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2804/3oj3.jpg)
Doesn't change the fact that personally I think Aros is a better system.
So what should be the entry level for any of the "NG" Amigaoid systems?
-
So what should be the entry level for any of the "NG" Amigaoid systems?
A large piece of strawberry cake and an orange juice ? :drink:
-
A large piece of strawberry cake and an orange juice ? :drink:
What, no raspberries?
Dammy
-
What, no raspberries?
Dammy
You make 'em buy their own damn raspberries :lol:
-
No, you can`t run OS4 software on those. I also throught I will never be able to afford X1000 but will pay it in 60 months (59 now).
I don't expect to be able to run OS4 software on MorphOS machines.
What I really meant, I guess, is "If I write a game that works perfectly on MorphOS G4/G5 then can I recompile the code using OS4 include files and it will work perfectly?"
Or are they just too incompatible with each other?
Is there a list somewhere of all the incompatibilities between OS3, OS4 and MorphOS?
As a developer I am totally confused about what functions I am allowed to use that will still work on other platforms as advertised.
-
No there is no list showing differences. Think why developers have different sources or (what is more propable) only support one system. 68k (classic), AROS, MorphOS and AmigaOS are all different. There are lot of small differences.
-
We could run this on each machine tested to see the strength and weaknesses of each machine.
http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/?k=downloads
lol here's my aros box. Mind you I built this machine for Aros 4 years ago(Only has DDR2 Memory).
I will run again after I upgrade it. :D
-
I don't expect to be able to run OS4 software on MorphOS machines.
What I really meant, I guess, is "If I write a game that works perfectly on MorphOS G4/G5 then can I recompile the code using OS4 include files and it will work perfectly?"
Or are they just too incompatible with each other?
Is there a list somewhere of all the incompatibilities between OS3, OS4 and MorphOS?
As a developer I am totally confused about what functions I am allowed to use that will still work on other platforms as advertised.
If you use OS3 API then it is compatible with OS4 and MorphOS. Sometimes you have to tweak your code because you may have to tell the operating system that this code is PPC native now. (*)
Only restriction is that there is no support for BCPL anymore and hardware resources no longer exist.
However if you are supporting OS3 I dont see any reason to make PPC native compiles. You are only wasting your time and adds complexity (*). You can still use most of new MorphOS APIs from 68k code if you need it.
So I would just consider PPC native builds as an unnecessary micro optimization.
*) In Magellan porting project those issues escalated. The 68k compile works just fine on all platforms but things were getting worse when we had to get all sublibaries working on all platforms. OS4 library system is totally incompatible with OS3 and MorphOS at source code level and MorphOS libraries are sometimes incompatible to OS3 at source code level. So great amount of glue code had to be written and if/when AROS port is done there will be more...
-
If you use OS3 API then it is compatible with OS4 and MorphOS. Sometimes you have to tweak your code because you may have to tell the operating system that this code is PPC native now. (*)
Only restriction is that there is no support for BCPL anymore and hardware resources no longer exist.
However if you are supporting OS3 I dont see any reason to make PPC native compiles. You are only wasting your time and adds complexity (*). You can still use most of new MorphOS APIs from 68k code if you need it.
So I would just consider PPC native builds as an unnecessary micro optimization.
*) In Magellan porting project those issues escalated. The 68k compile works just fine on all platforms but things were getting worse when we had to get all sublibaries working on all platforms. OS4 library system is totally incompatible with OS3 and MorphOS at source code level and MorphOS libraries are sometimes incompatible to OS3 at source code level. So great amount of glue code had to be written and if/when AROS port is done there will be more...
very good point
-
@Itix
Thanx for the infos! I will stick with Motorola ByteCodes FTW!
And please don't let them break SASC compatiblity for the Classic building.
"I never used a proper debugger" is not an excuse to destroy compatibility with the debugger.
p.s. Good luck with upgrading Magellan!
-
there AROS has its strength. The developer of Antyriad GX ported it in only a couple of days to X64/X86/PPC and 68k. 68k version made some problems because of missing SDK, I hope to improve the situation by creating more online-docu including better documentation of differences.
-
I complain about the cost of entry of Aos4 all the time. and yet..
(http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2804/3oj3.jpg)
Doesn't change the fact that personally I think Aros is a better system.
No one twisted your arm.
-
You won't hear any compliants from me about the sam440 from me, I am quite happy with it.
For those who need to use a mac g5, use it with mos and be happy with it. Those who need x86 or arm can use aros and be happy with it.
The rest of us who wants to use AOS4.x use that and are happy with it.
The people I see complaining about AOS4.x are most likely not users of AOS4.x and probably never will be. And funny as their nagging are, it is also becoming very boring.
I don't think anyone is complaining about OS4.
People are complaining that they would like to run OS4 but are unimpressed with the limited range of hardware available to run OS4 on.
I haven't used OS4 on my own hardware since I sold my BPPC a few years ago but if Hyperion ported it to Macs I'd buy a copy the day it was released, just like many Peg2 owners did.
-
No one twisted your arm.
How do you know? Hell my shoulder could still be dislocated because of the arm twisting. :P
-
I don't think anyone is complaining about OS4.
People are complaining that they would like to run OS4 but are unimpressed with the limited range of hardware available to run OS4 on.
I haven't used OS4 on my own hardware since I sold my BPPC a few years ago but if Hyperion ported it to Macs I'd buy a copy the day it was released, just like many Peg2 owners did.
I will just say that other way around works too: many SAM and X1000 users would like to see MorphOS on their system. SAM 460 port is good way to go, sadly MOS team refused Nemo board from Trevor.
-
I will just say that other way around works too: many SAM and X1000 users would like to see MorphOS on their system. SAM 460 port is good way to go, sadly MOS team refused Nemo board from Trevor.
Why should they work for free? I'm sure he pays Hyperion to port OS4 to X1000 rather than just giving them a free motherboard.
-
Why should they work for free? I'm sure he pays Hyperion to port OS4 to X1000 rather than just giving them a free motherboard.
Well, same can be said for OS4 port for MacMini. Both Hyperion and MOS team expect to be paid for new mobo ports, which is not likely. And not like there are million PPC choices - its exhausted beside SAMs and X1000 for MOS and PPC Macs for AOS4.
-
Well, same can be said for OS4 port for MacMini. Both Hyperion and MOS team expect to be paid for new mobo ports, which is not likely. And not like there are million PPC choices - its exhausted beside SAMs and X1000 for MOS and PPC Macs for AOS4.
The difference is that Hyperion could potentially gain thousands of new customers by releasing the (already existing) Mac port of OS4.
How many potential new customers would an X1000 port bring the MorphOS Team? A couple of hundred at most.
-
The difference is that Hyperion could potentially gain thousands of new customers by releasing the (already existing) Mac port of OS4..
I don't think "they" could because Moana is owned and copyrighted by one of the ACube (former? present?) employees ...
They would have to make their own or pay him for what he's done I guess ...
Whole Moana scandal just seems like a silly game to me really , laptop got stolen , it got released etc ...
Reasons why AOS 4 won't be ported to Mac are known only to Ben and possibly Bill McEwen and they are not legal in their nature because if you have a legal problem in a case like this there is always a legal workaround to solve it and Ben would find it in a heartbeat if he wanted to ...
-
I don't think "they" could because Moana is owned and copyrighted by one of the ACube (former? present?) employees ...
They would have to make their own or pay him for what he's done I guess ...
Whole Moana scandal just seems like a silly game to me really , laptop got stolen , it got released etc ...
Reasons why AOS 4 won't be ported to Mac are known only to Ben and possibly Bill McEwen and they are not legal in their nature because if you have a legal problem in a case like this there is always a legal workaround to solve it and Ben would find it in a heartbeat if he wanted to ...
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
What Ben wants and what the OS4 devs want aren't always the same thing methinks.
-
Overclocking wastes giant blobs of electricity. Electrical consumption does not increase linearly. I think it increases exponentially. It would be smarter to underclock it. Then next year buy yourself a new computer with all the money you saved on your electric bill from not overclocking it.
Not exactly true. Overclocking uses a less than linear increase in power *until* you increase voltages. Only then does power consumption rise drastically (in fact Ive even had a core2duo that I overclocked and undervolted, requiring less power than stock frequency).
Some architectures overclock reasonably well without being overvolted.
-
How many potential new customers would an X1000 port bring the MorphOS Team? A couple of hundred at most.
A couple of hundred? lmao more like you could count them on your hand. This is why these companies never release numbers they would shock alot of the fanboys..
Project Moana or whatever its called should have been the path for os4 instead they chose to do it like Eyetech model with proprietary hw bundled with software for outrageous prices (Notice how Morphos hw is always very reasonably priced? I got my peg1 for $299 new and peg2 for $499 new)
You would think they would learn from the A1 Xe mess but it seems there egos get in the way.