debian hardinfo benchmarks

[fishy_fiz]

My opinnion of AOS4 HWs state
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35140&forum=33#661434
In short:
Amiga HW technology gap (against wintel):
1986: ahead of all others
1993: 2 years behind? (ok (only) for instrumentation, video and games)
A1 2002: 5,8 years behind (ok CPU performance, otherwise...)
SAM440 2008: 8,6 years behind
SAM460 2010: 6 years behind
A1x1000 2011: 2,6 years behind (CPU is only in netbook level, otherwise ok)

So, current top of the line AOS4 HW is priced similarly to cheapest expandable Mac (PowerMac), it has y2006 caliber CPU, otherwise it has modern specs & expandability (when compared to mainstream shops).
What is not modern is the SW support, and untill that is fixed, it's not point to compare the modernity...

******
btw... Anyone tried partition to partition copy speeds with observation on system responsiveness?
(I'm surpriced how much better SAM667Mhz is when compared to 3800+ AMD system with linux. I'm eager to see how x1000 handles the situation (initially I've read about 70MB/s copy speeds, 4x faster than my best x86 from y2008.).)

Im curious as to how you come up with these highly amusing results. 70MBps 4x best from 2008? I was getting those sorts of speeds close to a decade ago using an ide drive. (edit: just noticed you write "your" best pc. Let me guess, it's either ide, or sata1 vs a sata2/3 in the x1000 you speak of, in which case the machine being used isnt far from irrelevant.
X1000 only 2.6 years below x86? Again, its closer to a decade. Even my oldest, most budget core2duo from about 5 years ago will demolish it.
I can only imagine youve compared a best case scenario for os4 h/w vs worst case you found for x86.

Dont get me wrong, if people are happy with their amiga hardware Im happy for them, but when a person writes this sort of,.. umm,.. let's say "biased", or "unbalanced" comments on a public forum they have to be prepared to be corrected.

Feel free to offer benchmarks and I'll give my results from both an 8 years old athlon64 and a 4.5ish year old budget core2duo.

[fishy_fiz]

I guess it comes down to what a person defines as "behind", but given the x1000's pricepoint it seems fairer to compare against high end machines 1/2 the price of the x1000 than to compare it to machines 1/10th of the price. X1000 is a premium product therefore deserves to be compared to other premium products. In these situations it is decimated. Compared to budget systems 10% of the price its probably not too much of a stretch to say its only 2-3 years behind. Mind you, these elcheapo systems are weaker than what existed close to a decade ago as well.

[fishy_fiz]

1). Youve compared an outdated x86 netbook cpu vs the strongest arm cpu
2). X1000 is a desktop machine. X86 desktop cpus are orders of magnitude faster than thier piddly little netbook cousins
3). You GFlops number are off by a factor of about 50-70. An i7-2700k for example has a rating of roughly 130-150 GFlops.

[fishy_fiz]

When comparing things you need to look at the entire picture/spectrum. Not just hand pick bits and pieces. This whole comparitive things started with you suggesting X1000 is 2.6 years behind. If a person wants to compare an x1000 vs an x86 pc its inaccurate to just compare it to x86 gear thats in a similar ballpark. Just because that's as far as the X1000 goes doesnt mean a person should disregard pretty much all modern x86 hardware (the original atoms are weaker than gear from a decade ago for example).

Comparing a $3000 modern pc to an X1000 is like comparing a commodore64 to an a4k+top of the line csppc Completely different league.
Not that it means much at the end of the day, its all down to what a person enjoys, but you keep trying to mould these things to your liking near as I can tell, and that really doesnt give an accurate overview. Your stance appears to be something along the lines of, "It's almost as good as the bottom of the barrell x86 stuff (which in itself is completely destroyed by mid-high end x86 gear), therefore its only a few years behind". This is pretty inaccurate when considering the overall picture.

[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.

[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.

[fishy_fiz]

That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Yet another interesting calculation would be:

How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")

Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away :lol:

Ivy Bridge cpus use less power than either. Theyre actually being aimed at netbook use such is their power consumption (or lack of). AMD cpus of course are a different story despite being lower performing.