Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A600 Memory

AuthorTopic: X1000 benchmarks  (Read 7203 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline billyfish

X1000 benchmarks
« on: February 03, 2012, 10:56:32 AM »
Hi all

Since we appear to be going benchmark crazy, even though I think that real world usage is more appropriate, for the sake of completeness, here are the Disk I/O benchmark conducted by Mufa at http://forum.amigaone.pl/topic65.html#p503 and the RageMem http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#650254 benchmark conducted by Sam.

I don't (yet!) own either of the machines involved but I think we should show them all regardless of which systems we favour.  

Also, big congrats to Trevor Dickinson and all that have made the X1000 a reality, I really can't wait to get one!



@sam
Quote

RAGEMEM v0.37 - compiled 11/06/2010

CPU: P.A. Semi PWRficient PA6T-1682M B1 @ 1800 Mhz
Caches Sizes: L1: 64 KB - L2: 2048 KB - L3: none
Cache Line: 64

CPU
MAX MIPS: 3084

L1
READ32: 6851 MB/Sec
READ64: 13682 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 6851 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 13681 MB/Sec

L2
READ32: 3276 MB/Sec
READ64: 4784 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2531 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 4090 MB/Sec

RAM
READ32: 2857 MB/Sec
READ64: 4000 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2732 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 3383 MB/Sec
WRITE: 352 MB/Sec (Tricky)

VIDEO BUS
READ: 15 MB/Sec
WRITE: 161 MB/Sec
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2012, 11:06:55 AM »
Considering how skewed the initial Mufa lame bench was I would take any results from him with a grain of salt. The least there should be a clear specification how the test was performed in order to be able to repeat it.

In memory bandwidth X1000 clearly is superior though.

Here's a MPlayer decoding benchmark where X1000 could really show its power:
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=240&viewmode=flat&order=0#650877
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 11:09:35 AM by Piru »
 

Offline persia

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2012, 01:46:45 PM »
I don't see why we are revisiting the lame benchmarks as they are lame in every sense of the word.  Surely we can get real world tests now that it's a product not a prototype with NDAs.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

What we\'re witnessing is the sad, lonely crowing of that last, doomed cock.
 

Offline dammy

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2012, 02:11:05 PM »
Quote from: persia;678955
I don't see why we are revisiting the lame benchmarks as they are lame in every sense of the word.  Surely we can get real world tests now that it's a product not a prototype with NDAs.


I'm waiting for Linux benchmarks coming from the A1X1K.  Say running BF2 via WINE should do a nice stress test. Or would that be too much for the PA6T to even attempt?
Dammy

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arix-OS/414578091930728
Unless otherwise noted, I speak only for myself.
 

Offline HammerD

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2012, 02:43:45 PM »
Quote from: dammy;678959
I'm waiting for Linux benchmarks coming from the A1X1K.  Say running BF2 via WINE should do a nice stress test. Or would that be too much for the PA6T to even attempt?


I'd like to see some stop-watch tests for normal tasks.   Also for any benchmark it should be noted whether or not HIGHER is better or LOWER is better, otherwise they are useless.
AmigaOS 4.x Beta Tester - Classic Amiga enthusiast - http://www.hd-zone.com is my Amiga Blog, check it out!
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2012, 02:47:48 PM »
Quote

Also for any benchmark it should be noted whether or not HIGHER is better or LOWER is better

best case they get head in head.

up till now, real life benchs show x1k=mac g4 on slightly lower clock.
 

Offline billyfish

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2012, 03:14:41 PM »
Quote from: persia;678955
I don't see why we are revisiting the lame benchmarks as they are lame in every sense of the word.  Surely we can get real world tests now that it's a product not a prototype with NDAs.


Even though I started this thread, I agree 100%.

Quote from: wawrzon;678965
best case they get head in head.

up till now, real life benchs show x1k=mac g4 on slightly lower clock.


Sigh, not according to those my first email in this very thread.

Anyhooo, given that Hyperion have stated that the OS for the X1000 is currently unoptimised, all of these benchmarks are not really worth the virtual paper that they're written on. I'm much more interested in how people are finding them in every day use.
 

Offline wawrzon

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2012, 03:28:55 PM »
@billyfish:
but these are calculation benchmarks im talking about, what can be done about the os to make them run faster on a given hardware?? i mean except it is seriously busy-looping in the background at all times.

Quote

 I'm much more interested in how people are finding them in every day use.

and then you post a highly artificial benchmark result to start the thread? learn to live with objective results you get. i hope you will find real life benchmarks to your liking even if it might be difficult considering the current performance to the gfx card and lack of 3d support?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 03:34:48 PM by wawrzon »
 

Offline yakumo9275

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2012, 07:13:09 PM »
I'd like to see some audio latency times.
--/\\-[ Stu ]-/\\--
Commodore 128DCR, JiffyDOS, Ultimate 1541 II, uIEC/SD, CBM 1902A  Monitor
 

Offline Rob

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2012, 07:18:51 PM »
Quote from: dammy;678959
i'm waiting for linux benchmarks coming from the a1x1k.  Say running bf2 via wine should do a nice stress test. Or would that be too much for the pa6t to even attempt?

wine?
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 07:21:21 PM by Rob »
 

Offline Derfs

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2012, 08:00:50 PM »
Quote from: dammy;678959
I'm waiting for Linux benchmarks coming from the A1X1K.  Say running BF2 via WINE should do a nice stress test. Or would that be too much for the PA6T to even attempt?


and theres me thinking wine is not an emulator ... ;)
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2012, 08:02:07 PM »
Quote from: billyfish;678930
Hi all

Since we appear to be going benchmark crazy, even though I think that real world usage is more appropriate, for the sake of completeness, here are the Disk I/O benchmark conducted by Mufa at http://forum.amigaone.pl/topic65.html#p503 and the RageMem http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=35053&forum=33&start=40&viewmode=flat&order=0#650254 benchmark conducted by Sam.

I don't (yet!) own either of the machines involved but I think we should show them all regardless of which systems we favour.  

Also, big congrats to Trevor Dickinson and all that have made the X1000 a reality, I really can't wait to get one!


I've always found those old results weird. I don't know what is wrong with the said system (maybe highly fragmented SFS partition?), but these are the results I get:


X1000 is of course still faster (as would likely be Sam 440/460 as well).

It should be noted that many things can affect such benchmark, such as the filesystem being used (copy may return immediately if delayed writing is applied by the filesystem). Another significant factor is the physical location of the partitions, are they located on the same or different HDDs? And finally, rotating HDDs are clearly slower than SSD.

Notes: The PowerBook has a newer Western Digital Scorpio Blue WD2500BEVE 250GB 5400 RPM 8MB Cache 2.5" HDD, while the Mac mini has the original Apple branded Seagate Momentus 5400.2 ST9808211A 80GB HDD).
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 08:15:10 PM by Piru »
 

Offline Karlos

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2012, 08:11:38 PM »
Quote from: dammy;678959
I'm waiting for Linux benchmarks coming from the A1X1K.  Say running BF2 via WINE should do a nice stress test. Or would that be too much for the PA6T to even attempt?


:roflmao:  Wine? On linux PPC? QEmu, perhaps. Wine Is Not an Emulator.
int p; // A
 

Offline Kesa

  • Ninja Fruit Slasher
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 2408
  • Total likes: 0
Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2012, 10:14:25 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;679021
:roflmao:  Wine? On linux PPC? QEmu, perhaps. Wine Is Not an Emulator.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone mentioned DosBox or "virtualisation". You people make me sick!  :p

In all seriousness you don't really think people would spend all that money just to emulate Windoes do you? What a waste. Please, get that Windoes **** off here :rant:
Even my cat doesn\'t like me.
 

Offline bbond007

Re: X1000 benchmarks
« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2012, 10:54:58 PM »
I can't decide...

Should I buy 10 mac mini G4 computers with MorphOS licences (assuming I can get a mini with 512K and Morphos license for $300) or should I purchase one X1000?

What would be faster?