amiga.org
     
iconAll times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:06 AM. | Welcome to Forum, please register to access all of our features.

Amiga.org Amiga computer related discussion Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion X1000 benchmarks

Amiga Hardware Issues and discussion This forum is dedicated to the discussion and resolution of issues related to Classic and Next Generation Amiga hardware. Got a problem with a piece of hardware? Click to speak.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-03-2012, 03:56 AM   #1
billyfish
Beginner
Points: 6,150, Level: 50 Points: 6,150, Level: 50 Points: 6,150, Level: 50
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 50
Default X1000 benchmarks

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/...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
billyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:06 AM   #2
Piru
' union select name,pwd--
Points: 30,457, Level: 100 Points: 30,457, Level: 100 Points: 30,457, Level: 100
Activity: 69% Activity: 69% Activity: 69%
 
Piru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,946
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

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/...order=0#650877

Last edited by Piru; 02-03-2012 at 04:09 AM..
Piru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 06:46 AM   #3
persia
Desperately needs a life
Points: 20,846, Level: 90 Points: 20,846, Level: 90 Points: 20,846, Level: 90
Activity: 16% Activity: 16% Activity: 16%
 
persia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,754
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

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.
__________________


What we're witnessing is the sad, lonely crowing of that last, doomed cock.
persia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:11 AM   #4
dammy
Kindred of Babble-on
Points: 21,467, Level: 92 Points: 21,467, Level: 92 Points: 21,467, Level: 92
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
dammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Tequesta, FL USA
Posts: 2,800
Blog Entries: 3
Send a message via Skype™ to dammy
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by persia View Post
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

www.arixfoundation.com
Unless otherwise noted, I speak only for myself.
dammy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:43 AM   #5
HammerD
Cult Member
Points: 11,749, Level: 71 Points: 11,749, Level: 71 Points: 11,749, Level: 71
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 674
Send a message via ICQ to HammerD Send a message via MSN to HammerD
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dammy View Post
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!
HammerD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 07:47 AM   #6
wawrzon
Defender of the Faith
Points: 9,180, Level: 64 Points: 9,180, Level: 64 Points: 9,180, Level: 64
Activity: 63% Activity: 63% Activity: 63%
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,697
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

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.
wawrzon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:14 AM   #7
billyfish
Beginner
Points: 6,150, Level: 50 Points: 6,150, Level: 50 Points: 6,150, Level: 50
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 50
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by persia View Post
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:
Originally Posted by wawrzon View Post
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.
billyfish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 08:28 AM   #8
wawrzon
Defender of the Faith
Points: 9,180, Level: 64 Points: 9,180, Level: 64 Points: 9,180, Level: 64
Activity: 63% Activity: 63% Activity: 63%
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,697
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

@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 edited by wawrzon; 02-03-2012 at 08:34 AM..
wawrzon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 12:13 PM   #9
yakumo9275
Technoid
Points: 5,323, Level: 46 Points: 5,323, Level: 46 Points: 5,323, Level: 46
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
 
yakumo9275's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Melbourne/Australia + VA/USA
Posts: 301
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

I'd like to see some audio latency times.
__________________
--/\-[ Stu ]-/\--
Commodore 128DCR, JiffyDOS, Ultimate 1541 II, uIEC/SD, CBM 1902A Monitor
yakumo9275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 12:18 PM   #10
Rob
Defender of the Faith
Points: 11,337, Level: 70 Points: 11,337, Level: 70 Points: 11,337, Level: 70
Activity: 36% Activity: 36% Activity: 36%
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,051
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dammy View Post
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 edited by Rob; 02-03-2012 at 12:21 PM..
Rob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:00 PM   #11
Derf
Too much caffeine
Points: 8,393, Level: 61 Points: 8,393, Level: 61 Points: 8,393, Level: 61
Activity: 5% Activity: 5% Activity: 5%
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 100
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dammy View Post
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 ...
Derf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:02 PM   #12
Piru
' union select name,pwd--
Points: 30,457, Level: 100 Points: 30,457, Level: 100 Points: 30,457, Level: 100
Activity: 69% Activity: 69% Activity: 69%
 
Piru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 6,946
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by billyfish View Post
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/...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 edited by Piru; 02-03-2012 at 01:15 PM..
Piru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 01:11 PM   #13
Karlos
Sockologist
Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100
Activity: 5% Activity: 5% Activity: 5%
 
Karlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Barishabaad, Sardistan
Posts: 16,667
Blog Entries: 18
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dammy View Post
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? On linux PPC? QEmu, perhaps. Wine Is Not an Emulator.
__________________
OCA
This isn't SCSI... This is SATA!!!
I have CDO. It's like OCD except all the letters are in ascending order. The way they should be.
Core2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz / X48T / 4GB DDR3 / nVidia GTX275 / Linux x64, AROS, Win64
A1XE 800MHz / 512MB / Radeon 9200 / OS4.1
A1200T BPPC 240MHz / 256MB / Permedia 2 / OS 3.1 - OS3.9, OS4
A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9
A1200D Apollo 1240 25MHz (ejector seat ROM edition) / 32MB
Karlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 03:14 PM   #14
Kesa
Ninja Fruit Slasher
Points: 13,842, Level: 76 Points: 13,842, Level: 76 Points: 13,842, Level: 76
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
Kesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Princess Castle
Posts: 2,388
Blog Entries: 4
Lightbulb Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlos View Post
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!

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
__________________
Even my cat doesn't like me.
Kesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 03:54 PM   #15
bbond007
Defender of the Faith
Points: 10,304, Level: 67 Points: 10,304, Level: 67 Points: 10,304, Level: 67
Activity: 4% Activity: 4% Activity: 4%
 
bbond007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,384
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

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?
bbond007 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:33 PM   #16
Karlos
Sockologist
Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100
Activity: 5% Activity: 5% Activity: 5%
 
Karlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Barishabaad, Sardistan
Posts: 16,667
Blog Entries: 18
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kesa View Post
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
Well, the benchmark discussions are pretty interesting. On the one hand, you have people pointing out that G4 class macs are at least as powerful (on the basis of tests so far) and others concluding that due to this, the X1000 is clearly a failure.

Label me a red-camp fanboy for saying this if you must, but I'm not sure I see it that way. Sure, it's an expensive system, no argument. If you consider it to be an over-priced yesterday's news machine, then don't buy it. You can pick up cheap PC kit and pay nothing for a high-quality, robust OS, like linux. Simple, really.

However, it's also a new system, designed and built from scratch that was (by those slamming it now) dismissed as pure vapour since the day it was announced. Now it's here and based on some quick benchmarks we can see that it's on par with old apple hardware and apparently that's really bad. Personally, I disagree. For such a project, going from "sheer vapourware that'll never appear" to "at least as good as Apple's G4-class PPC" is a pretty decent result. Something about saying that seems like deja vu. Weird.

I'm also not convinced we've really seen what the hardware is capable of yet. We know that OS4 certainly isn't making the most of it right now, being restricted to 32-bit operation on a single core. Even 64-bit PPC linux will have limitations if you use a modern graphics card with it as you are unlikely to get a vendor-supplied driver for PPC (unlike OSX) and will have to rely on whatever open source alternatives there are.
__________________
OCA
This isn't SCSI... This is SATA!!!
I have CDO. It's like OCD except all the letters are in ascending order. The way they should be.
Core2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz / X48T / 4GB DDR3 / nVidia GTX275 / Linux x64, AROS, Win64
A1XE 800MHz / 512MB / Radeon 9200 / OS4.1
A1200T BPPC 240MHz / 256MB / Permedia 2 / OS 3.1 - OS3.9, OS4
A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9
A1200D Apollo 1240 25MHz (ejector seat ROM edition) / 32MB
Karlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:43 PM   #17
jorkany
Defender of the Faith
Points: 9,386, Level: 65 Points: 9,386, Level: 65 Points: 9,386, Level: 65
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
 
jorkany's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,009
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlos View Post
Well, the benchmark discussions are pretty interesting. On the one hand, you have people pointing out that G4 class macs are at least as powerful (on the basis of tests so far) and others concluding that due to this, the X1000 is clearly a failure.

Label me a red-camp fanboy for saying this if you must, but I'm not sure I see it that way. Sure, it's an expensive system, no argument. If you consider it to be an over-priced yesterday's news machine, then don't buy it. You can pick up cheap PC kit and pay nothing for a high-quality, robust OS, like linux. Simple, really.

However, it's also a new system, designed and built from scratch that was (by those slamming it now) dismissed as pure vapour since the day it was announced. Now it's here and based on some quick benchmarks we can see that it's on par with old apple hardware and apparently that's really bad. Personally, I disagree. For such a project, going from "sheer vapourware that'll never appear" to "at least as good as Apple's G4-class PPC" is a pretty decent result. Something about saying that seems like deja vu. Weird.

I'm also not convinced we've really seen what the hardware is capable of yet. We know that OS4 certainly isn't making the most of it right now, being restricted to 32-bit operation on a single core. Even 64-bit PPC linux will have limitations if you use a modern graphics card with it as you are unlikely to get a vendor-supplied driver for PPC (unlike OSX) and will have to rely on whatever open source alternatives there are.
You red-camp fanboy! I hope that curry does the flaming sword dance in your lower intestine!
jorkany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:47 PM   #18
Karlos
Sockologist
Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100 Points: 50,618, Level: 100
Activity: 5% Activity: 5% Activity: 5%
 
Karlos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Barishabaad, Sardistan
Posts: 16,667
Blog Entries: 18
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by jorkany View Post
You red-camp fanboy! I hope that curry does the flaming sword dance in your lower intestine!
How did you know I had curry today?

-edit-

Sometimes I wonder what the deal with the ongoing camp arguments is. IMHO, people genuinely interested in getting an X1000 aren't going to be swayed by any of these benchmarks. If price/performance was your main motivator for your choice of "next gen" Amiga, you'd opt for AROS, end of story. There's absolutely no way you can compete with "costs nothing" running on commodity hardware that's faster than anything the combined purples can come up with. The traditional "blue" argument against it used to be that AROS is woefully far behind, but that's simply not true any more. In fact, it's OS4 and MOS that are lagging behind AROS in some areas now (3D springs to mind immediately).

I struggle to see that there are really any "would-be NG" Amiga users left these days that aren't fully aware of the main options on the table and what they each offer. We're not arguing to convince them. We're just doing it because we can
__________________
OCA
This isn't SCSI... This is SATA!!!
I have CDO. It's like OCD except all the letters are in ascending order. The way they should be.
Core2 Quad Q9450 2.66GHz / X48T / 4GB DDR3 / nVidia GTX275 / Linux x64, AROS, Win64
A1XE 800MHz / 512MB / Radeon 9200 / OS4.1
A1200T BPPC 240MHz / 256MB / Permedia 2 / OS 3.1 - OS3.9, OS4
A1200T Apollo 1240 28MHz / 32MB / Mediator1200 / Voodoo 3000 / OS3.9
A1200D Apollo 1240 25MHz (ejector seat ROM edition) / 32MB

Last edited by Karlos; 02-03-2012 at 04:59 PM..
Karlos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:49 PM   #19
jorkany
Defender of the Faith
Points: 9,386, Level: 65 Points: 9,386, Level: 65 Points: 9,386, Level: 65
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
 
jorkany's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,009
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: X1000 benchmarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Karlos View Post
How did you know I had curry today?
The owls are not what they seem!


Nah, you mentioned it in another post. Man, now I want some curry!
jorkany is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2012, 04:55 PM   #20
Kesa
Ninja Fruit Slasher
Points: 13,842, Level: 76 Points: 13,842, Level: 76 Points: 13,842, Level: 76
Activity: 2% Activity: 2% Activity: 2%
 
Kesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Princess Castle
Posts: 2,388
Blog Entries: 4
Lightbulb Re: X1000 benchmarks

@Karlos. I agree with everything you just said

My stance on running DosBox is an ethical one and think it has no meaningful place on Amiga's. But it may be useful here in making meaningful benchmarks possible. I think it is funny how people are putting the x1000 down because it has only just been released and not even optimized yet. It is still in beta as the software that has been made for it has yet to be released. With this in mind it could be a while before it reaches it's full potential.

There's is nothing wrong with being a OS4.x fanboy. Although i have never used OS4.x i can see the appeal as it seems to recreate the classic 3.x workbenches whereas Morphos, as much as i like it, still feels like an Apple somehow and I'm not talking about the hardware. I have a love hate relationship with both the blue and red camps

It sounds to me you are thinking of getting an x1000?
__________________
Even my cat doesn't like me.
Kesa is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
benchmarks , confusing graph , x1000

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump