lame benchmarks (pun intended)

[kas1e]

@Piru
Can you please make a graph with all the non-altivec lame tests ? Because currently i can't understand the reall differences beetwen macs and x1000. Only what i see, is that non-altivec version on x1000 are the same by speed as macs with altivec one, but then seems non-altivec version on macs will be slower in 2 times in compare with x1000 one (even powermac ones).

[kas1e]

@Krashan

As Piru linked (and I can confirm as a native Polish speaker), Mufa states that he used AltiVec accelerated LAME on X1000. Then on Piru graph all results except of AmigaOne 500 of course, are for AltiVec accelerated LAME.

Hardly can belive than matherboard with 1800mhz cpu, can be the same by speed on the lame tests as mac mini with 1.4. Imho mufa do something wrong in that terms.. Or, it will be epic fail, but still, i think that non-altivec version was used even he say that he use altivec one. Can you ask him what he download, from where, and how he run it and so on.

[kas1e]

@wawrzon

@kas1e: mufa might mix something up, although as another native polish speaker i must confirm that he explicitely claims that his version of lame is altivec enabled. time for him to confirm or contradict that, otherwise we must assume pirus graph is correct, besides...

Still dunno how 1.8ghz can be the same as 1.4ghz by tests. Something wrong somethere still.

[kas1e]

Piru simply has taken the X1000 result from the Mufa's graph. Mufa clearly states he used AltiVec enabled LAME on his X1000 to perform the test. At least he is convinced of it. So for X1000 it is just single result. For mac Mini 1.5 GHz we have two results: 33 seconds is without AltiVec, 17 seconds is with AltiVec.

While i still think that mufa messing things up, will be pretty intersting to know, the results without altivec then. Its unpossible that they will be slower than on sam460 (or the same). Just unreal even with everything taking in account. And did he for sure use that AKsack.wav ?

[kas1e]

It is obvious in my opinion, that he used the same file.

You know that amiga users can do any kind of not-obvious stuff.. Well, seems just need to wait someone else with that x1000, who can normally explain everything (i.e. what he download, where, how run, with what file, show alivec and non altive results and so on). If then it will be the same bad, then it will be kind of surprise.

[kas1e]

It is not bad at all.

Its can be not bad, if price of x1000 are around 500usd. But when price are 3k and HW made "from scratch" i somehow was in fairly hopes that it will beat all the macs by everything. Still, i think we need to wait someone else to confirm the results and show us altivec/non altives results one more time. If it will be confirmed, then, its its bad.

[kas1e]

You can easily verify that the lame.g4-3.98.2 binary contains altivec support:

• > wget http://os4depot.net/share/audio/record/lame.lha
  
• > lha x lame.lha
• > ppc-amigaos-objdump -d lame-398-4/bin/lame.g4-3.98.2 | egrep v[0-9]+,

Doesn't mean much. I also have some stuff which have altivec insturctions inside, but still, that piece of code unused in the necessary place. In the readme to that archive a lot to say about mess with altivec, so it can be not suprise that its just broken, disabled and not works.