AmigaONE benchmark - Important

[KennyR]

And the 3rd-level-cache on the G4 is only needed because it doesn't have any other posibility to use modern DDR-RAM, which comes naturally for todays x86s.

You have it the opposite way round. x86 needs modern DDR-RAM for speed because of (bad!) legacy CPU design, while PPC is the opposite and is not sped up much by fast external RAM but is sped up greatly by extra cache. This is also why PPC is so good at cache-based calculation like RC5.

[Dagon]

My brother says that we should check also the rc5 benchmarks because it is linear. He doesn`t trust very much OGR :-D

[Hammer]

You have it the opposite way round. x86 needs modern DDR-RAM for speed because of legacy CPU design,
 

What do you mean by "legacy CPU design"?

For AMD Athlon XP’s case, the DDR architecture was inherited from DEC's Alpha AXP architecture.  What do you expect from same engineers who designed the Alpha CPU?

Athlons XPs works fine enough with KT133A (that's with 133Mhz SDRAMS) chipsets.  

PS; L1/L2/L3 Cache setup works fine(i.e. a speed boost for the given core) for K6 Core( for K6-III product line)....

while PPC is the opposite and is not sped up much by extra external RAM but is sped up greatly by extra cache.

One should be focusing on bandwidth throughput instead of the buzzwords i.e. what is the bandwidth throughput of PPC G4 while it talks to the outside world i.e. 64bit x 133mhz perhaps.

[Atheist]

I have a 2.26 GHz P4 w 533 MHz FSB, 1 Gig ram DDR2100.
w98se

I started the program to do RC5. The OGR24, started instead (I think 24, not 25, whichever is default.) I got, with McAfee firewall and anti-virus in the background, and as near as I can tell all other unnecessary prgs off, 9.1 to 9.3 million nodes a second. So, WOW, A1!!!

RC5, stats
****************************
.....10%.....20%.....30%.....40%.....50%.....60%.....70%.....80%.....90%....100
[Feb 19 06:56:05 UTC] RC5-72: Completed CA:447DFD29:00000000 (1.00 stats units)
                      0.00:22:54.15 - [3,125,592 keys/s]
[Feb 19 06:56:05 UTC] RC5-72: Loaded CA:447DFDD6:00000000:1*2^32
[Feb 19 06:56:05 UTC] RC5-72: Summary: 29 packets (29.00 stats units)
                      0.10:49:43.92 - [3,192,544 keys/s]
[Feb 19 06:56:05 UTC] RC5-72: 16 packets (16.00 stats units) remain in
                      buff-in.r72
                      Projected ideal time to completion: 0.05:57:20.00
[Feb 19 06:56:05 UTC] RC5-72: 8 packets (8.00 stats units) are in
                      buff-out.r72
.....10%.....20%.....30%.....40%.....50%.....60%.....70%.....80%.....90%....100
[Feb 19 07:18:54 UTC] RC5-72: Completed CA:447DFDD6:00000000 (1.00 stats units)
                      0.00:22:49.01 - [3,137,318 keys/s]
[Feb 19 07:18:54 UTC] RC5-72: Loaded CA:447DFDD8:00000000:1*2^32
[Feb 19 07:18:54 UTC] RC5-72: Summary: 30 packets (30.00 stats units)
                      0.11:12:32.93 - [3,190,670 keys/s]
[Feb 19 07:18:54 UTC] RC5-72: 15 packets (15.00 stats units) remain in
                      buff-in.r72
                      Projected ideal time to completion: 0.05:35:00.00
[Feb 19 07:18:54 UTC] RC5-72: 9 packets (9.00 stats units) are in
                      buff-out.r72
.....10%.....20%.....30%.....40%.....50%...
[Feb 19 07:31:38 UTC] Paused... (user generated)
**********************

I think the highest I got was 3,240,000 keys/sec

Amiga! Why? Because I'm a power-user!

[Desmon]

Atheist wrote:
I have a 2.26 GHz P4 w 533 MHz FSB, 1 Gig ram DDR2100.
w98se

I started the program to do RC5. The OGR24, started instead (I think 24, not 25, whichever is default.) I got, with McAfee firewall and anti-virus in the background, and as near as I can tell all other unnecessary prgs off, 9.1 to 9.3 million nodes a second. So, WOW, A1!!!

You're comparing apples and oranges. OGR is NOT RC5-72.
Try starting your client with the "-bench" argument to see what it 9and your machine are capable of.

[Desmon]

Just to add fuel to the fire, I benchmarked my own machine a couple of minutes ago. It's an AthlonXp 2000+ (1667MHz) w/512MB of DDR 2700 RAM running Mandrake 7.1. I had XMMS playing as well as a couple of Mozilla windows open...

dnetc v2.9001-478-CTR-02112023 for Linux (Linux 2.2.15-4mdk). Please provide the *entire* version descriptor when submitting bug reports. The distributed.net bug report pages are at http://www.distributed.net/bugs/ Using email address (distributed.net ID) 'chotch@............'
[Feb 19 08:37:57 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
an AMD K7-6 (Athlon XP/MP/-4) processor.
[Feb 19 08:37:57 UTC] OGR: using core #0 (GARSP 5.13-A).
[Feb 19 08:38:16 UTC] OGR: Benchmark for core #0 (GARSP 5.13-A)
       0.00:00:16.68 [11,873,670 nodes/sec]
[Feb 19 08:38:16 UTC] OGR: using core #1 (GARSP 5.13-B).
[Feb 19 08:38:38 UTC] OGR: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 5.13-B)
0.00:00:19.60 [11,491,880 nodes/sec]

So the Pentium used in those tests doesn't look too good at all.

[volmer]

Yeah. Like a G4 800 would ever beat the fast Intel or AMD CPU's in non-synthetic benchmarks, be it price or performance. I'm living in the real world - which one are you living in? :evil:

[jumpship]

Hay volmer clam down!! have a :pint: :-D

I am more interested in the benchmarks of the AMDs compaired to the Intels.

Besides, this is only a disscussion no need to get to hostile!

[ksk]

>I'm living in the real world - which one are you living in?  

Loosen up a bit. This is just FUN stuff, nothing more.

Have a red&white pill.   :-D

[poweramiga2002]

I for one hope my xe kicks the arse of the p4 wouldent it be great not only the best computor in the world but fast as well ow please release os4 the Amiga will be once again king of the computor world  

I think its interesting how poorly all of these chips do, both AmigaOne and x86, compared to the venerable old CS-PPC...

http://amigapro.com/Images/280.gif

The old CS-PPC (mine is slightly oc'd there, to 66/280MHz) is just under half as fast in OGR as the AmigaOne G4/800, and it completely buries the Athlon per MHz.  The 604e has a better FPU than both chips as well.

[ikir]

Juzz wrote:
Well actually, the link is to an italian site, but I posted the info on the Yahoo groups site.
But it should be pointed out that the P4 is "only" a 2.4 GHz.
My XE has the 3rd level cache.
Nice to see what others have achieved with the hardware they have available - thx, "all" I had is that P4 2.4GHz.

And yes, it has been run without Altivec support - we are working on getting the client to use the vector core (ie. Altivec core).

And, yes, I think that it rocks :-D

Cool! :-D

[poweramiga2002]

its an Amiga theres no doubt it bound to rock you wouldent expect anything less  


       

            WERE BACK AND WE KICK ASS

[ikir]

poweramiga2002 wrote:
WERE BACK AND WE KICK ASS

Yeah! 8-)

[Kronos]

@KennyR
No I am correct !!

The perfect CPU-RAM setup was what we had in an A2000 with Fast-RAM.

The CPU had access to the full 8mb every cycle.

Problem is that while CPUs got faster and faster the RAM wasn't keeping
up which made caches necessary. A cache is always a bottleneck,
and the more stages you got the worse it gets. Having a huge gap
between to stages is also a problem.

So starting with a slow main-RAM is not a good idea.

The use of a fast cache is much bigger in popular benchmarks
than it is in real-world SW, and that is why PPC is hanging behind
x86 when both run the same SW on the same OS.

[Karlos]

Does any of this x86 vs PPC matter?
It always seems to come up.

What matters is, what is the A1 / Pegasos going to do for you?

Is your MorphOS / OS4 experience, compared to OS3.x running on your trusty 680x0, going to kick arse?

With a minimum G3 600MHz behind it, which lets face it is far more powerful than any existing Amiga hardware, what sort of apps can we look forward to?
Will the audiophiles get realtime soft synths?
Will the arty types get more pixel mutating power?
Will the gamers get to blow new stuff up?

All this fretting over what the x86 can do faster and vice versa is just silly.

Lets get smart, have fun and bash out some nice shiny new apps for these machines, rather than running synthetic benchmarks and whingeing ;-)