AmigaONE benchmark - Important

[Helgis75]

AmigaOne really kicks asses!!! :-)  :-)  :-D  :-D  :-o  :-o

[ksk]

Has anyone yet run SPECmark, Bytemark or any other little tougher tests?

How does the L2 and L3 cache show up in those benchmarks?

Amiga 68k benchmarks in PPCLinux UAE would be also nice...

[ikir]

Karlos wrote:
Hopefully, Warp3D Nova will address this and we can all look forward to highly accelerated games.

Personally, I'm quite excited at the thought of Altivec optimised softsynths / streaming codecs ;-)

Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhh 8-)

[Desler]

@Helgis75 I like the way you put ass in plural. Im likely to agree. AOne is gonna kick a very wide spectra of ass  :-D
While hackling about the difference between x86 and g4 is somewhat fun, I think, in the light of recent events, that a comparison between G3 and G4, AmigaOne and Pegasos is a topic with much more meat on

[Atheist]

The glory of AmigaOne will only be realised when moto get off of their buts and make the 1.4 GHz available.

Or rather, to heck with them, the 970 from IBM @1.8 GHz!!!

Unless the producers of our neurons give us something we can run with, we'll glow rather than shine!!

Amiga! Has 2 legs in a tree legged race. :-(

[Dan]

It´s the os that LIMITS the speed of the computer not the other way around, winXP is just as slow on my duron 128mb as win95 was on my p60 32mb.
what good is a faster processor if the os keeps getting slower?
It´s the speeds of AmigaOS4 or Morphos versus windows or linux or macos thats important.

Really AmigaONE G4-800Mhz wins over P4 2,6Ghz, this without level3 cache?

if it where only true...

lets get real for a change... 133mhz bus .v. 533mhz bus....

PunyPC cant beat a paper bag... it's crap... my P4 2.4/533fsb stomps dual G4 1.4's in Lightwave render benchmarks accross the boards...

[poweramiga2002]

I dont know why pee cee,s of crap are even mentioned here there not worthy of being associated with the almighty Amiga we kick there ass in everything pee cees is just like having a mini then putting a 30,000 hourse power engine in and using a rubberband as the drive shaft still go no where !!!!!!!!!



     AMIGA WE ARE THE BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ksk]

mips_proc wrote:

Really AmigaONE G4-800Mhz wins over P4 2,6Ghz, this without level3 cache?

if it where only true...
...

But it IS true. On those tiny little tings, like OGR/RC5.  ;-)

[ksk]

Bytemark test on the A1G3SE by some happy A1 user:
http://personal.inet.fi/cool/pekosbil/a1benchmarks.htm

[KrasH]

Useless Information below, I know, but worth a look.

AthlonXP 2400+ (2Ghz), Windblows XP Pro, normal startup stuff running, browsers etc.

dnetc v2.9001-477-GTR-02111118 for Win32 (WindowsNT 5.1).
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) 'krashamiga@austarmetro.com.au'

[Feb 24 07:00:55 UTC] Automatic processor detection found 1 processor.
[Feb 24 07:00:55 UTC] OGR: Loaded 25/25-14-9-4-15-1 (1.75 Gnodes done)
[Feb 24 07:00:55 UTC] OGR: 23 packets remain in buff-in.ogr
[Feb 24 07:00:56 UTC] OGR: 0 packets are in buff-out.ogr
[Feb 24 07:00:56 UTC] 1 cruncher has been started.
[Feb 24 07:01:04 UTC] #1: OGR:25/25-14-9-4-15-1+6-54-21-45 [1,871,285,442]
[Feb 24 07:01:04 UTC] OGR: using core #0 (GARSP 5.13-A).
[Feb 24 07:01:23 UTC] OGR: Benchmark for core #0 (GARSP 5.13-A)
                      0.00:00:16.96 [15,349,112 nodes/sec]
[Feb 24 07:01:23 UTC] OGR: using core #1 (GARSP 5.13-B).
[Feb 24 07:01:43 UTC] OGR: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 5.13-B)
                      0.00:00:16.92 [15,452,267 nodes/sec]


But, with a G4 @ 800Mhz getting 11,000,000+ nodes is pretty impressive indeed. That surely ends the argument of "More Mhz means faster/better"

[Hammer]

But, with a G4 @ 800Mhz getting 11,000,000+ nodes is pretty impressive indeed. That surely ends the argument of "More Mhz means faster/better"

AMD has stated instructions per cycle x clock speed = performance.

"More Mhz means faster/better" is dependant on the targeted market.  

For example, Pentium 4’s target market is well suited for the entertainment market i.e. play games with very high FPS such as in Quake III, Unreal Tournament and 'etc'.  AthlonXP/NForce2 combo should be competitive in that regard.

One should be focusing on end product’s performance and price.  “Instructions per cycle” by itself is pretty point less. It’s just an academic exercise.

[Hammer]

ksk wrote:
Has anyone yet run SPECmark, Bytemark or any other little tougher tests?

How does the L2 and L3 cache show up in those benchmarks?

Just get some late model Power Macintosh’s benchmarks.

[Hammer]

ksk wrote:

mips_proc wrote:

Really AmigaONE G4-800Mhz wins over P4 2,6Ghz, this without level3 cache?

if it where only true...
...

But it IS true. On those tiny little tings, like OGR/RC5.  ;-)

On the other tiny little tings e.g. OpenSSL, the outcome is quite different for PPC.

The ideal benchmark should be a multi-combo benchmarks.

For OpenSSL benchmarks refer to
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20020113045343563

[ksk]

Hammer wrote:

ksk wrote:
Has anyone yet run SPECmark, Bytemark or any other little tougher tests?

How does the L2 and L3 cache show up in those benchmarks?

Just get some late model Power Macintosh’s benchmarks.

After bbrv's recent hints about A1G4XE's pathetic performance, I want to see benchmarks run on the A1. (but also benchmarks run on MOL should be ok)


BTW: I think this benchmark digs out some possible memory bus bottlenecs: http://www.netlib.org/linpack/

The JAVA version: http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/


(some a bit offtopic PPC 970 talk that I just saw)

[ksk]

Hammer wrote:
...
For OpenSSL benchmarks refer to
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20020113045343563

 :-o  :-o  :-o  :-o  :-?