MorphOS on Power Mac G5

[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.

[Iggy]

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.

That doesn't actually agree with figures I've received from other sources. In fact, while the PA6T clearly beats Applied Micro's new Titan cores and other Applied Micro products the drystone figures I've been given (which is an alternate if fairly artificial measurement) reflect different performance figures than your floating point comparison.

These comments were post by Andreas Wolf on MorphZone.

Just for the purpose of overview I compiled a list of the DMIPS/MHz per core figures for various PPCs in ascending order (AltiVec capability is generally ignored, obviously):

e300: 1.9
PPC440: 2.0
PPC460: 2.0
Titan: 2.0 (presumably PPC450 based)
PA6T: 2.2
PPC750: 2.3
e600: 2.3
PPC470: 2.3 or 2.5 (varying with information source)
e500mc: 2.5
PPC970: 2.9
e5500: 3.0

What seems really weird is the rather low value for the PA6T (which was provided by P.A.Semi themselves btw), especially compared to the PPC970, which I thought it should have been on par with. Or maybe the PPC970 figure is too high (i.e. with AltiVec)?
[unquote]

While PA6T figure may be low, its important to remember the figures came from PA Semi.

Frankly, I don't think the PA6T demonstrate a "quite comfortable" advantage and if these figures are even close to correct then even a G4 at comparable speeds may offer competition for the PA6T.

Once you balance both these measures, you come to realize that at similar speed the performance of the PA6T and the G5 are going to be close. And the PA6T is a far more energy efficient processor. Of course, on the other hand, the G5 (PPC970) operates up to 50% faster.

The real shocker is that while it doesn't support nearly as good floating point performance, Freescale's new 64bit e5500 communications oriented core may outperform all of these (at similar speeds).

[takemehomegrandma]

However, it's not all doom and gloom for the PA6T.

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...

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.

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.

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...

[beller]

Wow I have a 1.8 ghtz G5 that is showing it's age but will make the perfect Moprhos box. Folks can't give away the G5's becuase they just can't run the new MacOS intel only stuff. ***JOYGASM!***

Sounds like we have the same machine, Crom!  I bought my dual G5 1.8 in early 2004 and its been a workhorse.  Since I can't move beyond OSX 10.5 I've mostly moved to my intel Powerbook for most work.  Nice to have a future for the machine since it still runs great and is loaded with memory and hard drives!

Looks like I'd better start paying attention to MorphOS!

Bob

[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.

[takemehomegrandma]

Looks like I'd better start paying attention to MorphOS!

Bob

You do that!

[takemehomegrandma]

The worst performance per watt of any CPU they'd ever used at that point.

...Performance per Watt?! Well, indeed, but also the best performance per se that the PPC could ever offer...

As much as I like PPC, and I do like it

Personally, I have no "feelings" for PPC whatsoever. Why would I? Did you really believe so?

It's dead Jim, DEAD...!

it just cannot compete with current x86/AMD64 based architectures.

Are you kicking in open doors here?

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.

*Definitely* kicking in open doors then! (And the PA6T is everything but new...)

But it's better to pay 1/4 of the price for one kind of "obsolete" hardware, than paying £1500-£2000 for another "obsolete" hardware that performs **worse** than the cheaper one...

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?

Well, as I've said plenty of times before, I'm certainly not in the market for *neither* of these two.

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

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.

Depends on your user pattern I guess.

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

[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.

[Fab]

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

I think it can. Some quick test bigfoot was kind enough to perform indicated it was fast enough for the provided x264 clip, at least.
So, a G5 machine should a nice combo for viewing HD content during the cold winter nights, given its heating potential.

@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.

[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...

[Iggy]

The G5 was in no means a disaster. Apple's primary dissatisfaction was in IBM's inability to get this chip to scale up in speed high enough. The decision to move to X86 had been considered tor years. Blaming it on the G5 isn't completely fair.

>Quote:
But it's better to pay 1/4 of the price for one kind of "obsolete" hardware, than paying £1500-£2000 for another "obsolete" hardware that performs **worse** than the cheaper one...>

Damned right! Frankly, I consider this a hobbyist pursuit, so the less I pay the better. And as a user of AMD processors, performance per watt was not really a concern I was worried about (I have no problem with 125watt processors - my water heater uses 5500 watts). Overall performance, yes. Electricity costs concerns making me want to buy a computer that costs $2000 more and doesn't perform better, no.

      >Quote:
                    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?>

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.

Right now, except for the AmigaOne and the Pegasos, most AOS machines are based on Applied Micro based SAM boards. Even DVD decoding is a challenge to these boards (although they can do it, which is probably better than the Natami will do).

So, no I don't need any better computers than the G4's. And I'm not fixated on new hardware, but some AmigaOS users are. And that leaves them with a choice between under powered and over powered.

I'm looking forward to Nemo, as I've been in contact with the designer in the past. I've been impressed with Varisys since I started using XMOS components. But the X1000 is not based on the most powerful PPC, that's still the 970/G5 (unless you want to count the cell and its related products or future Freescale releases).

And this isn't a pissing match, its just healthy competition. Someone out there is going to be able to afford to buy those high priced X1000s with AOS4 (I hope). And I'm still going to be happy using something more economical.

[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.

[Iggy]

That was a well thought out and succinct reply. I find myself, once again, in agreement with you..
I'd rather see a focus on better video cards and software development. Otherwise I'm happy with where we are now.
If we focus solely on the high end of our markets' hardware, we snub developments in systems people can afford to buy.

Right now, I'm not nearly as excited about the announcement of eventual G5 support as I am about the latest statements that All AGP G4 Powermacs are likely to be supported by MorphOS (as soon as this summer).

This type of hardware is everywhere and, to me, it seems better suited to MorphOS than 64bit multi-processor speed machines.

And AOS vs. MOS, its an apple vs apples argument. Who cares?

[redrumloa]

re: all the negativity

I've been seeing G5s going for super dirt cheap and the trend should keep in the direction. I think this is huge news! Right, it may sound like a vacuum cleaner. I'm sure I can find a solution to fix that. Right, it is a power hog but so is my PC video card. I won't leave it running 24/7, so the power usage cost difference will be negligible.

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.

[Iggy]

Yes Red, its going to be fast and they are cheap, but this summer we may see the next revision of MorphOS supporting all the AGP G4 Powermacs which are cheaper still and more than fast enough.
You've been using an eMac similar to mine. The Mac Mini and the eMac are already pretty fast aren't they?
I'd just like to get this massive one piece unit off my desk and get back to using my LCD display (and recover some of my desk space).

Currently, the development teams next move is to support the AGP G4 Powermacs (apparently pretty soon).
After that, we'll probably see Powerbook support some time in early 2011.

Who knows when we'll see G5 support? But you're already moving a few eMacs and I've already built a G4 Powermac.

Rather than spending a lot of time discussing potential hardware, I wouldn't mind focusing on what's here or close to here.

[persia]

What about iBooks?  I have this iBook that I've replaced with a MacBook and it is just waiting for Morphos to give it a second life!