Registering Interest for AmigaOne X1000

[Piru]

graphs and diagrams based on false logic and tall tales.

Which graphs you're referring to?

Any of the below have something wrong with them?

lame benchmark


mplayer benchmark


dnetc benchmark


blender benchmark


68k emulation benchmark

[Piru]

can you please start a new thread entiled "benchmark graphs outlining the X1000 in an unoptimized state and only running one one 1 core"

I'll rather post it to "comparing MorphOS on quad core G5 vs AmigaOS 4 on dual core X1000" thread which would make as much sense, i.e. none.

even better please post it at the Apple recycling website.

I know it's hard to accept that 5+ years old apple HW can beat your favorite, and is a lot cheaper, and is more easily available, and has better support and repair possibilities...

[Piru]

I DON'T CARE

Funny I was certain I could read you post
"even better please post it at the Apple recycling website."

Certainly I have nothing against anyone spending their hard earned money as they see fit. Even if it's something as silly as a $3200 custom built HW with no support after couple of years. If you can't stand me pointing out how silly it is, please ignore me or something.

[Piru]

@mikeymike

LOL, it's like Burma here isn't it.

Bad analogy there I'd say.

It is quite hard to avoid the impression that certain parties should be considered avoid any and all criticism.

[Piru]

And how would you know? Always nioce to hear from the experts.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apple+powerpc+repair

Now try to get your X1000 repaired 5+ years from now...

[Piru]

piru, i didn't realize abilities extended even so far as to divine the future

You don't need to be an Nostradamus incarnate to realize that computer with maybe 500 units sold will have way worse support than computer that sold millions.

Really.

[Piru]

@eliyahu

I usually post facts with little sugar coating. Intolerable, I know. Often so much that I get to enjoy the puny attempts at snide remarks and poorly veiled insults.

If someone wants to provoke me they'll have to try much much harder.

[Piru]

MorphOS is a great piece of work, but it doesn't belong in a thread about the X1000 - at all.

Why not?

[Piru]

the X1000 software is still unoptimised.

This claim keeps resurfacing, but I haven't seen any valid data to back this up. I have a feeling this is the same old claim that has always been thrown around when MorphOS has beaten AmigaOS4. If you follow this line of reasoning AmigaOS4 is still unoptimized, not only X1000 but classics, AmigaONE GE/XE/Micro, Sam440 and Sam460, too.

I'd suggest that a more accurate representation *as the software stands at the minute* would be

1. Code running on a single core on the PowerMacs is probably slightly quicker a single core of the X1000.

Depends on the speed of the PowerMac CPU of course.

2. The memory access speeds on the X1000 are much faster than on the PowerMac.

This is true.

3. The graphics card capabilities of the x1000 are much ahead of the Mac Mini.

This makes little practical difference as there are no 3D drivers for the new cards. MorphOS is massively ahead in 3D.

4. All these are subject to change as OS4 and MorphOS code gets more optimised for these systems.

I don't see much performance improvements coming from code optimizations at this point, at least for MorphOS. MorphOS has been fairly optimal for years.

Now, it might be that OS4 is still lagging behind in numerous ways but considering it has been way over 10 years now I can't see how it would change anytime soon.

[Piru]

I'm going by Steve Solie's comment on the Hyperion blog.

Can you link to it? I find it interesting that PA-6T would require specific optimizations, though.

I disagree on this being of little practical difference since this is currently being worked on by Hans de Ruiter and the Friedens on the OpenGL implementation means we'll see a leap in performance when this comes into play.

It's not like MorphOS has been standing still regarding 3D either, but I assumed "accurate representation *as the software stands at the minute*". So we'll consider "future tech" after all?

On this I'll agree that MorphOS appears to be more optimised but I disagree that OS4 can't catch up. I think one of the reasons that OS4 took longer to get going is that prior to the SAMs being released, OS4 was limited to cyberstorm boards, whereas MorphOS had made the leap to the PPC macs.

I'd say it's rather the opposite. Most of the MorphOS optimizations were already done by the time MorphOS was ported to Mac mini. Bulk of the work was done on the slower systems where the difference in optimization could be easily felt in practice.

I think that there's definitely the potential for OS4 on the X1000 to take up some of this slack.

I think it's rather the opposite that might happen. With all the raw CPU crunch and especially fast memory bus around it is IMHO more likely that basic optimizations are not done because performance is already adequate with less optimal code. Similar progression has happened with Linux for instance where for instance reliance on large CPU caches and fast memory bus has severely hurt performance on low end systems.

[Piru]

Yeah, every time I walk down the highstreet I'm tripping over Commodore 64 service centers at every corner.

You're much more likely to find support, repair, spare parts and new hardware devices (and complete reimplementation in FPGA!) for Commodore 64 than Jupiter ACE.

Q.E.D