»

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by the_leander

Tbh I didn't really follow the G5 much beyond it's launch. It's interesting to see that even afterwards, whilst some of the gap between PPC and x86 was gained, it was still on the trailing edge of performance, except, as before and as you noted: Photoshop.

RE the PIV, a power hungry, hard to cool beast it may have been, but it could still put the kosh to a G4 or a G5.

?? The chart shows AMD64 boxes beating G5 systems in photoshop...

PowerMac G5 (two PPC 970 @ 2Ghz, two cores)
18 sec for 50 MB test
51 sec for 150 MB test

Polywell Polystation Two (K8 Opteron 246 @2Ghz, two cores)
17 sec for 50 MB test
47 sec for 150 MB test

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by Karlos

No, it does not. The original comparison to which I was replying was one of alleged 68K superiority over PPC in being able to execute such a loop effectively. The critical miss in this argument is the implication that the PPC is a poorer architecture because of this. This is, of course, complete nonsense. It's simply a different architecture with different gains and trade-offs. A non-lazy programmer will learn these and write code accordingly, not complain that the simplest possible loop is not as fast as it could be on the basis of the behaviour of a completely different architecture. Being able to do this on 68060 does not obsolete the technique at all when talking about a different CPU (the PPC) or even an earlier m68k.

The PPC can do floating point multiply add. That requires 2 instructions on 6888x/68040/68060. How horridly inefficient. It can also do bounded rotates and shifts, which require several instructions on 680x0. The 486 had bswap. Does that mean the 68K was utter pants for requiring 3 instructions to accomplish the same?

For the last time, a non-lazy programmer concerned about performance writes the best possible code for the architecture. If that's a simple loop, then great, an easy win. If he has to unroll it and align operands, then that's what he does instead.

Many moons ago, I wrote a series of tests to gather information about memory performance and got a great deal of data back regarding this very type of operation over different types of memory (system ram, chip ram, RTG ram) and on different 680x0 / PPC. FWIW, despite suggestions to the contrary, I have always found that a suitably aligned, unrolled loop even on 68060 performs better (or at least no worse) than the naive case. I just don't presently have the data to hand in order to back that up.

I know it isn't 68k nor PPC but all this talk got me reminiscing about the old days and this wonderful article in particular.

http://nondot.org/~sabre/Mirrored/Gr...Book/gpbb7.pdf

Enjoy!

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by Hammer

The chart shows AMD64 boxes beating G5s systems in photoshop...

FFS... Yes, I know, I read it.

What I said was and I quote:

still on the trailing edge of performance, except, as before and as you noted: Photoshop.

I didn't say the G5 beat anything, just that in that particular test, it didn't perform like last years bargain bin part like it did on every other test. The numbers between the two things are in real terms only a gnats tadger apart.

That is all.

[runequester]

For any of the current "amiga" OS's, are there any practical difference between 1 and 3 ghz ?


Will an I7 run Deluxe Paint V faster than a 68060 ?

Will Quake run better on a G5 than a G3 ?

Does it make a difference for Final Writer 97 if I have 1 or 8 gigs of RAM ?

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by runequester

For any of the current "amiga" OS's, are there any practical difference between 1 and 3 ghz ?


Will an I7 run Deluxe Paint V faster than a 68060 ?

I would expect an i7 to be able to emulate AGA significantly faster than the actual hardware. Since that was the major bottleneck to performance for Deluxe Paint, not the processor then the answer is yes, obviously.

Originally Posted by runequester

Will Quake run better on a G5 than a G3 ?

Faster, yes, better? Depends.

Originally Posted by runequester

Does it make a difference for Final Writer 97 if I have 1 or 8 gigs of RAM ?

Obviously not, although at this point you're verging dangerously close to strawman territory.

[runequester]

Originally Posted by the_leander

Obviously not, although at this point you're verging dangerously close to strawman territory.

I'm being ridiculous on purpose.

When the software we have is between 10 and 15 years old in many cases, it becomes somewhat moot if the hardware is bleeding edge or not.

A while back, maybe a year ago, when asking some questions about Morph OS and what apps were available, I was directed to Final Writer 97.

[nicholas]

Originally Posted by runequester

I'm being ridiculous on purpose.

When the software we have is between 10 and 15 years old in many cases, it becomes somewhat moot if the hardware is bleeding edge or not.

A while back, maybe a year ago, when asking some questions about Morph OS and what apps were available, I was directed to Final Writer 97.

It's all about OWB 1.10 and Google Docs now!

[XDelusion]

PPC seems dead in that there are no inexpensive machines with a descent bus speed that use PPC CPU's. Besides so many of my PPC games don't work in MorphOS anyhow, thus defeating one of the main purposes of my purchase. So I've little faith in the future of PPC in that respect also, though who knows, maybe these compatibility issues will some day be resolved.

The 680x0 line is great, I'd love to see the Natami succeed since running MorphOS and AROS are great and all, but not quite the same thing as a native environment.

As for AMD. Sure why not! Now a days it doesn't seem to matter what CPU you got, as they all seem very well rounded now a days. It's fast, it's cheap, go for it!

BOttom line, I want it all!!!

[dreamcast270mhz]

@Kthunder

What do you take me for? Of course I know that, my 270 means its OCed 70 mhz (I really don't have one OCed that high however) because thats teh highest stable speed i've seen w/o water cooling.

@Thread

I can see my arguements mean nothing, I am sorry to say that today I will not be joing you all in hell. Please send Intel my regards, that I'd rather stay outside their machines. Fate forbid the Amiga community suffers BeOs's fate, I will not be drawn.

Please, someone kill my account. For real, I'm tire of endless debates with **** tards.

[tone007]

Originally Posted by dreamcast270mhz

I can see my arguements mean nothing

A breakthrough!

Originally Posted by dreamcast270mhz

Please, someone kill my account. For real, I'm tire of endless debates with **** tards.

I believe the best way to prevent yourself from posting is to change your password to something you won't remember.

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by dreamcast270mhz

@Thread

I can see my arguements mean nothing, I am sorry to say that today I will not be joing you all in hell. Please send Intel my regards, that I'd rather stay outside their machines. Fate forbid the Amiga community suffers BeOs's fate, I will not be drawn.

Needs more ham and over dramatization.

Originally Posted by dreamcast270mhz

Please, someone kill my account. For real, I'm tire of endless debates with **** tards.

Moar dramallama..

[the_leander]

Originally Posted by runequester

When the software we have is between 10 and 15 years old in many cases, it becomes somewhat moot if the hardware is bleeding edge or not.

It's not an issue of being "bleeding edge", just not getting ripped off for 6+ years out of date hardware.

But there is a larger issue I think that really, really needs to be addressed.

Amiga is a retro hobby, treat it as such - see Minimig for how to do it right.

The whole AmigaNG thing is 10 years or more past being a realistic possibility and for everyone involved it's time to set it down as such.

I think the community really needs to come to terms with this.

[runequester]

Originally Posted by the_leander

It's not an issue of being "bleeding edge", just not getting ripped off for 6+ years out of date hardware.

But there is a larger issue I think that really, really needs to be addressed.

Amiga is a retro hobby, treat it as such - see Minimig for how to do it right.

The whole AmigaNG thing is 10 years or more past being a realistic possibility and for everyone involved it's time to set it down as such.

I think the community really needs to come to terms with this.

I absolutely agree. Minimig, natami if it ever materializes and at the promised cost, building some new accelerator boards or other nifty bits and pieces, thats what we got and how the community can be served.

[commodorejohn]

Originally Posted by the_leander

Amiga is a retro hobby, treat it as such - see Minimig for how to do it right.

The whole AmigaNG thing is 10 years or more past being a realistic possibility and for everyone involved it's time to set it down as such.

What are you talking about? Ten years ago it wouldn't even have been a possibility, let alone a realistic one; now, we're finally starting to see some progress towards a more powerful Amiga-compatible (note the emphasis on "compatible," as in "not just a generic PPC/x86 system that's adopting the Amiga name?") The market doesn't have to be split binarily between "direct recreations of original hardware with no extra power or features" and "bog-standard x86 clone system running software that's somewhat modelled on an older OS people liked."

Assuming that the people behind projects like NatAmi do see them through to completion, and transition them to a business sanely (where "sane" is defined as "not charging $2300 for a 2GHz computer,") it can work. We live in a world where $50 will buy you a clone of a game console that used to cost $200-300; producing an affordable boosted-but-not-bleeding-edge clone of the Amiga is perfectly within the realm of possibility.

[kedawa]

I just want a system that will run all of the classic games and apps natively, so a perfected 68k core is sufficiently powerful. For me, binary comapatibility with classic Amiga software is power.