MorphOS on Power Mac G5

[Karlos]

http://bigfoot.morphos-team.net/test/powermacg5_showconfig.jpeg - only a day late, but oh well


And as always, questions about availability and offers for beta testing will likely be quite pointless at this time.

Nice

Now, to respond in the manner I've come to expect of many in the community:

This really sucks. Old hardware that's less powerful than my N year old PC. Bet there's no 64-bit support and dual G5 boxes are totally out. A 32-bit OS running on just one 64-bit capable CPU out of a possible 2, yada yada etc.

[Karlos]

The G5 is going to be a brute. G5s processors are slightly more powerful then the PA6T and are available at speeds up to 50% faster then that of the X1000 (at a much lower price).

Untrue. The PA6T outperforms the G5 quite comfortably at the same clock, at least for floating point and is on par for integer performance. Try your google fu and you'll soon see.

http://www.amiga.org/forums/showpost.php?p=566253&postcount=31

The advantages of the G5 mac are cost and maximum clock rate. Both of which still equate to a better price/performance ratio than the PA6T, of course.

[Karlos]

Yes indeed this Mac will be faster. From the picture from the G5 Mac from the show:
Processor: 2700 MHz, FSB: 1350 MHz

AFAIK the PA6T processor in the "X1000": 1800 MHz, FSB: 1067 MHz.

So yes, performance wise it will kick "X1000" butt, at a quarter of the cost (in the worst case, probably much less). Even more so if the difference in OS/SW performance between MorphOS and OS4 remains, and I have seen no signs suggesting otherwise.

We will know for sure *how much* behind OS4 on the X1000 will be compared to MorphOS on a fast Powermac G5 when we see a complete comparison benchmark of the two, like the obligement test some time ago. But it will be behind.

Of course it will. What you are suggesting is like comparing a 50MHz 030 against at 33MHz one, it's a complete no-brainer as to which will be faster in processor intensive tasks.

However, it's not all doom and gloom for the PA6T. The mac G5 machines are complete pigs when it comes to power consumption, the very issue PASemi sought to address when they designed the PWRFicient system in the first place.

[Karlos]

Indeed.

For integer performance PA6T has 500 SPECint2000 per GHz. 970FX has 472 per GHz. So already 2GHz 970FX beats X1000.

For floating point performance PA6T has 750 SPECfp2000 per GHz. 970FX has 564. This means that 2.5GHz 970FX is faster than X1000.

Note: For 970MP the performance per clock is higher, so these comparisons only apply to 970FX models. The numbers I could find would suggest 571 SPECint2000 per GHz and 830 SPECfp2000 per GHz, but I couldn't confirm these figures.

It's probably fair to say that, whichever camp you are in, both the PPC970 and PA6T give ample processing power for people used to G4 class machines or slower.

For myself, if I need computational grunt, I use my Core2, which is fast enough for almost everything. If I need even more computational grunt and the problem is of the appropriate class, I use my GPU. The latter delivers throughput that makes code running on the Core2 and any desktop PPC (even with full vector unit optimisation) look utterly pitiful.

[Karlos]

No I'm sure the PA6T and the "X1000" will have a long, bright and glorious future. People are probably already lining up to pay premium money for yesteryear technology...

No need for the sarcasm, I already said it was not a cost effective part in comparison to the G5.

Yes. Well, the point with the PA6T was to be in Apple laptops AFAIK, so the goal was probably to not consume much more than a G4, while still offering performance above the G4's they were using at the time. It would never compete on Apples power desktop market though; it wouldn't replace the G5.

The G5 was a disaster for apple. The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point. Given that one of apple's then long running claimed benefits over "hot, power hungry x86 processors", releasing dual processor, water-cooled CPU machines with over 60W per CPU, the G5 was an embarrassment to them. They'd promised 3GHz but couldn't manage it. They promised lower power, cooler workstations and couldn't manage it. Meanwhile, x86 continued to get faster and less power hungry the entire time.

But obviously Steve Jobs thought it was no point with PPC anyway, since Apple left the platform half a decade ago. Since then, what once was "PA Semi" as well as its IP was assimilated into Apple along with its developers. Apple obviously "scrapped" the technology, used the engineering competence and patents to create their own ARM "A4" processor or whatever, and AFAIK, most of those old PA Semi developers even left Apple since then...

And it was the smartest move he ever made. As much as I like PPC, and I do like it, it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures. Not on performance, not on power consumption, not on cost and not on any permutation of the three. Whatever your CPU needs, there are faster, cooler, lower power and cheaper x86 parts available.

Which is why this G5 v PA6T pissing contest that you are so happily engaging in is a bit of a joke, really. The PA6T may be newer, perform better per watt and depending on which source you believe, better per MHz than the G5. The G5 may clock higher and ultimately perform faster, but whichever way you look at it, they are both obsolete. Thoroughly and utterly.

Finally, what will you do on your obsolete PPC platform of choice that requires either a G5 or PA6T that you can't already do more than comfortably on a G4?

Last time I looked, there wasn't really any Amiga specific software in existence that really needs the horsepower that even these old processors can deliver.

[Karlos]

But to answer your question, for one thing, I would hope they could play 1080p x264 streams. The Mac Mini does 720p (on MorphOS)

...

Depends on your user pattern I guess.

Personally, I'm quite media centric. HD movies of today requires power!

Which means you have even less reason to use MorphOS or AmigaOS. You can get a totally silent, low power usage PC for less than the price of a second hand G5 mac (let alone a new X1000!) that will play 1080p media, record TV etc. using completely free OS and software.

I mean no disrespect to MorphOS, but if you are trying to sell the concept of a buying a second-hand, power hungry G5 box to run an OS you have to pay for just to be able to watch 1080p media, when free alternatives will do the same job on cheaper hardware you can get anywhere, then I'm sorry but it isn't working. I'm not saying you can't use it for that purpose, I'm quite sure you can*  It's just that you'd have to be pretty stupid in the cold light of day to go out of your way to do so in light of said alternatives.

Face it, MorphOS is what OS4 is: an OS aimed squarely at people that want to be able to run Amiga compatible 68K/PPC software and that really is it. What's more, that's all the justification there needs to be. I'm perfectly happy with that, but I can see no other sensible justification for either platform. They just don't do anything beyond running Amiga compatible software that other systems don't already do far more effectively and trying to suggest otherwise is, quite frankly, delusional.

*When my GTX260's display croaked, I even used my A1 to watch standard definition) media streamed over the network from my storage box where it lived. It worked fine, but I wouldn't do it just because I can.

[Karlos]

@Karlos

While it would be stupid to use a G5 machine + MorphOS just for HD content (since there are far better suited platforms or devices for that), it's not that stupid for people who actually use MorphOS as their main desktop operating system. MorphOS (and OS4 i hope) users don't all just play around with their windows and icons.

Looking at most of the forum gallery images here and elsewhere, I'd say that's exactly what they do :roflmao: Wait, wut? That includes me then

Seriously, though, a thread asking how many people use MOS/OS4/AROS as their main OS cropped up recently. I'd never be so myopic as to suggest a single thread/poll is indicative but, well you can see where this is going...

[Karlos]

What are you trying to do Karlos, make our point? I have an eMac that was purchased dirt cheap. Sometime this summer I'm likely to see my Powermac (also purchased dirt cheap) supported under MorphOS.
And, if 7448 processor upgrades are supported, I'd love to run some real benchmarks against the X1000.l.

The question was actually for those people getting excited about G5, PA6T and which will be "teh fasterest amiga!" of the two and not those, such as yourself that are happy enough with their existing systems.

As I've said, other than running amiga specific applications, there is absolutely nothing that you can do on a G5/PA6T class machine that you can't do more effectively and for less expense (taking that as hardware cost or in energy usage or both) with alternative systems. So if you already have a G4 class machine, what would be your main incentive to upgrade?

Of course, as Fab said, if you already use MOS or OS4 as your sole, everyday OS and I'd further add, you cannot bear the thought of using any alternative for any purpose (such as a linux/mythtv box), no matter how stable and free, then yes, if you want HD playback then you have a justification for upgrading.

Don't get me wrong on this. The desire to run MorphOS or OS4 on the fastest hardware upon which it can be run is certainly a motivation I understand and can sympathize with. However, once you've marvelled at how fast you can open a big drawer far too full of icons (by which I mean you have no sense of hierarchical organisation and put all your years of crap into one directory), dragged a few composited windows and watched some 1080p media, that wow effect kind of wears off. In your everyday regular usage, you probably aren't going to notice any difference. Neither OS is slow or unresponsive even on machines considerably slower than your typical G4.

[Karlos]

I completely fail to see your point

My point is very simple. I asked "what amiga stuff does anybody do that requires G5 levels of performance that they can't already do perfectly well on a G4?"

You answered "play back HD content"...

I replied "why on earth would anybody pick a 2nd hand, power-hungry machine (G5) and pay for an OS to run on it to play back HD content, when they can get a brand new machine at a similar price or less, that draws less power and have the OS/software for free?"

It's a pretty obvious question, don't you think?

I find it amusing that you can't grasp this point when so many people say "oh yeah, but I have an XBox360 for gaming" but don't make the same connection that you equally can have dedicated computers for media centre purposes. And by far the best tool for that is an inexpensive x86 box with linux/MPlayer/etc.

So again, the only people that need a G5 class machine to watch HD content are those that simply refuse to have anything to do with any other system.

[Karlos]

re: all the negativity

It's not negativity, just bemusement

MorphOS 3.0 on a PowerMac G5 will be insanely fast, stupid fast! I will be hobby computing at the speed of light for a bargain price? I'm there.

Insanely fast at what, though? That's my whole point. What will you be doing with it where you can honestly say "wow, this is so much slicker and more responsive now that I have a G5" that isn't already on a G4 mac / Peg 2?

So far, we've seen HD playback suggested as an option. Ok, I am sure the G5 will play 1080p fine, but as I say, so will a dozen other systems that will cost you less.

Are there any amiga/mos applications out there that are just unusable on a G4 that I'm somehow unaware of?

If the motivation is simply "I just want to run MOS on the best, most powerful hardware it can run on", that's fine, I totally get it. But if the motivation is "I need a G5 because MOS on my G4 is too slow at X", then I don't get it, because I have no idea what 'X' is.

Is that any clearer?

[Karlos]

More speed/performance is always good cant understand why that is a problem. Just think how fast Photogenics5 would run etc...

What, like it's actually slow on a 1.5GHz G4, is it? I mean we are talking about software that ran respectably on actual RTG 680x0 machines here.

[Karlos]

It could open the door to port more powerful programs and games that may struggle on a G4. But, as you already said "Why not just use a $50 PC and be done with it! "

Finally

I sense people are misinterpreting me as either being anti MOS or unhappy about it being released for G5 etc. I'm not, I just don't see the big motivation for it at this stage. It's clear that MOS is a polished - but incomplete - product that is nowhere near close to bringing a G4 to it's knees. There's also plenty of G4 machines out there, I don't imagine that supplies will dry up that soon.

So all considered, it seems odd to me that going to G5 should be a priority over things like expanding the gamut of drivers for video, audio, wifi etc.

[Karlos]

Here's one for you, FLASH

But seriously, I don't "need" the speed for anything useful, just like I don't need to do any retro computing at all. Everything truly useful I can do on my PC already. The speed would be nice though, applications like MAME, blender, video conversion etc will benefit. Speed is nice and there will not be a huge price difference between a G4 box and a G5 box.

Sure, but the list of apps you just cited are all surely available for your PC already and, unless it is equally retro, it should be able to run them better than the G5?

[Karlos]

Flash...I was wondering if I was the only one who missed that (instead of just attacking it). Well, I can't get that (or a least a good variation of that) under PPC Linux either.

I downloaded the linux 64-bit version whilst it was available, but it seems they withdrew it again. I'm still using it though, it's fast enough

Most people need flash for youtube but to be fair the HTML5 stuff seems to have that base covered nicely. Especially in OWB/MOS.

[Karlos]

Valid point. I have no interest in playing Flash based games. I wish I'd caught the 64bit version you mentioned, I still regularly dabble with Linux (probably because even with my dissatisfaction with it, I appreciate its UNIX underpinnings).

It's open, I can probably send you the .so