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

AuthorTopic: MPlayer benchmarks  (Read 2221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
MPlayer benchmarks
« on: February 03, 2012, 08:46:28 PM »
Yet Another Benchmark: This time decoding a H264 video clip with MPlayer (suggested by Fab).



As predicted X1000 PA6T fared better in this test.
 

Offline Karlos

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2012, 08:52:13 PM »
Just an observation. Not sure if this was intentional but the options seem to imply this was a test of stream decode performance only, since the audio and video output options are both null.
int p; // A
 

Offline Piru

  • \' union select name,pwd--
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2002
  • Posts: 6946
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.iki.fi/sintonen/
Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2012, 08:55:17 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;679025
Just an observation. Not sure if this was intentional but the options seem to imply this was a test of stream decode performance only, since the audio and video output options are both null.

The video is decoded with these options.
 

Offline jorkany

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2012, 09:15:54 PM »
It's telling that all the focus is on the general processing benchmarks instead of "The Power of X" that the X1000 was supposed to deliver. If OS4 supported Xena, Xorro, etc. I expect we would be seeing a lot more posts devoted to that. Those #2 cores must be feeling awfully lonely about now!
 

Offline Karlos

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2012, 09:18:00 PM »
Quote from: Piru;679027
The video is decoded with these options.


It is, but the frames are just discarded. Whenever I've used mplayer as a benchmark previously, it was always inclusive of rendering them to the display, which is far more important if you are trying to judge whether a system is capable of playing back the video or not (which is what I was doing, rather than basic benchmarking).

Early indications from the RageMem benchmarks suggested that there are problems with VRAM write speeds. At a guess, I'd assume these were driver related at this stage given the hardware is PCIe based. However, if anybody wanted to give the system a real drubbing, which I'm sure plenty of people do, there's your ideal opportunity. Quick, before anybody notices that and fixes it :lol:

Seriously though, right now, the PA6T is uncharted territory for existing software. It's a 64-bit processor running in 32-bit mode. To me, that raises a lot of questions. Are those old optimisations we're used to for the 32-bit machines still valid? Or are they a hindrance? In my personal experience, the PPC can be a huge pain in the arse when it comes to micro optimizing. For anybody unsure about this, Apple's PPC optimized memcpy() implementation is fascinating reading.

We're basing all out our conclusions so far on applications compiled for earlier PPC processors. I'd be interested to see what software actually optimized for PA6T (even in 32-bit mode) is capable of.
int p; // A
 

Offline Rob

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2012, 09:34:00 PM »
@Piru

I ran the Mplayer and Lame tests on My 1Ghz XE and got 184 seconds and 30 seconds respectively.  The tests were done Ram: to Ram:.

You're welcome to add them to your graphs if you wish.
 

Offline Tuxedo

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2012, 10:24:49 PM »
Quote from: Rob;679032
@Piru

I ran the Mplayer and Lame tests on My 1Ghz XE and got 184 seconds and 30 seconds respectively.  The tests were done Ram: to Ram:.

You're welcome to add them to your graphs if you wish.


mmm...
to me seems a bit too much time for that...
Have you done the tests at a "celan" start(i.e. without every commodities)?

You have to get tiomes near to Peg2@1000 imho...
 

Offline Rob

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2012, 10:41:46 PM »
Quote from: Tuxedo;679044
mmm...
to me seems a bit too much time for that...
Have you done the tests at a "celan" start(i.e. without every commodities)?

You have to get tiomes near to Peg2@1000 imho...

Andrew Korn Ran the test on his Peg2 1/ghz and got 173 seconds under OS4.1.  Peg has a better northbridge and DDR ram.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 11:16:33 PM by Rob »
 

Offline buzz

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2012, 11:03:15 PM »
I was interested in how it compared to a couple of pcs here.

6-7 year old laptop with pentium-m @ 2ghz - 43.481s

desktop pc with i5-2500k single thread - 12.891s
desktop pc with i5-2500k threads=4 - 4.596s
desktop pc with i5-2500k threads=8 - 4.070s

of course ffmpeg libs have plenty of x86 optimisations.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 11:07:44 PM by buzz »
 

Offline Fab

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2012, 11:11:44 PM »
Quote from: Karlos;679025
Just an observation. Not sure if this was intentional but the options seem to imply this was a test of stream decode performance only, since the audio and video output options are both null.


The point was to test the CPU/Memory only, because i know the gfx subsystem on X1000 is still suboptimal and incomplete (no overlay output is available, which would mean only cgx_wpa output driver could be used).
 

Offline freqmax

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2012, 11:13:18 PM »
Now FPGA synthesizis run is something I would like to see ;)
 

Offline Karlos

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2012, 12:07:45 AM »
Quote from: Fab;679063
The point was to test the CPU/Memory only, because i know the gfx subsystem on X1000 is still suboptimal and incomplete (no overlay output is available, which would mean only cgx_wpa output driver could be used).


Fair enough.
int p; // A
 

Offline Miky060

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2012, 12:59:28 PM »
Quote from: Tuxedo;679044
mmm...
to me seems a bit too much time for that...
Have you done the tests at a "celan" start(i.e. without every commodities)?

You have to get tiomes near to Peg2@1000 imho...


Why did you expect similar results? Better hardware + better OS = better results.

Let's riassume..


 
------------------------------
PegasosII G4 \\\'Elite\\\' Machine
------------------------------
Ram: 512 MB DDR
Gfx: Radeon 7000 PCI + Voodoo5 5500 AGP
TV board: Terratec TV Value
Audio: Creative Sound Blaster Audigy
Monitor: Lacie ElectronBlue 22\\"  :-D
------------------------------
http://www.pegasos-italia.com
------------------------------
 

Offline amigadave

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2004
  • Posts: 3836
  • Total likes: 0
    • http://www.EfficientByDesign.org
Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2012, 01:19:11 PM »
Quote from: Piru;679023
Yet Another Benchmark: This time decoding a H264 video clip with MPlayer (suggested by Fab).



As predicted X1000 PA6T fared better in this test.

That is an encouraging test result, since the Peg2 is regarded as the fastest computer to run OS4.x on previous to the X1000 (unless there are some test results from the SAM460ex that I have not seen yet that show otherwise?), and the X1000 is more than twice as fast than the tested Peg2 in this test.

It is also faster than the 1.67GHz G4 PowerBook, which will shortly be the fastest non-overclocked, or third party accelerated, supported MorphOS hardware.  

I know the X1000 can't compete with modern x86 systems, but the results of testing so far are as good, or better than I had expected, as my expectations were realistic and not overly inflated.

I am satisfied that it appears A-Eon & Varisys have done a good job designing and building this system.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2012, 01:25:48 PM by amigadave »
How are you helping the Amiga community? :)
 

Offline F1Lupo

Re: MPlayer benchmarks
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2012, 03:33:09 PM »
Quote from: amigadave;679125
...
I know the X1000 can't compete with modern x86 systems, but the results of testing so far are as good, or better than I had expected, as my expectations were realistic and not overly inflated.

I am satisfied that it appears A-Eon & Varisys have done a good job designing and building this system.


ah finally a voice of reason in all these benchmark threads:):drink:
____________________________________________________________________
c64-dual sids, A1000, A1200-060@50, A4000-CSMKIII
Indivision AGA & Catweasel MK4+= Amazing
! My Master Miggies-Amiga 1000 & AmigaOne X1000 !
--- www.mancave-ramblings.blogspot.ca ---
  -AspireOS.com & Amikit- Amiga for your netbook-
***X1000- I BELIEVE *** :angel: