»

[Piru]

1st graph where lower bar means better result:


2nd graph where higher bar means better result:


sources:

Sam440ep-Flex 800MHz and AmigaONE X1000 1.8GHz: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/...71&forum=34&22
PowerBook G4 1.67GHz: my own test run

[haywirepc]

Nice to know how slow x1000 is. So much for "Modern hardware specs".

[takemehomegrandma]

This is the peak performance OS4 system, sold as new in 2012, being beaten by a 2005 level Mac *laptop*. It seems the A1X1K can't play 1080p video without GPU acceleration (that's not even there anyway), which a 2005 level PowerMac can do with no problem. Well at least it's cheap. Oh wait, $3,000...

Pegasos 2's, Amigaone's, Apple HW etc from 2004 are still being used today (although *this is* running them on overtime). If this life span is applied to the Amigaone X1000, sold as new in 2012 with sub-2005 level performance, it means that this is what many OS4 users will be using in 2020. If there still is a OS4 by then, which I'm not entirely certain about, given the chosen path they are travelling.

Madness. But it's not like they weren't warned...

[Seiya]

With linux will be more interesting benchmark with LAme, Blender and Mplayer.
Hardinfo seems give strange results.

FPU in fpu-fft on X1000 is faster than Powerbook, but it's slower in raytracing..
and X1000 in cpu is slower than Powerbook but with n-queens is faster..

[Cool_amigaN]

1) I am very dubious about the results and how a single core can beat up two cores' cpu. Was the software used for benchmarking designed to take advantage of PA6T's both cores?
2) The fastest OS4.x was Pegasos II. A1X1k should be faster than a G4 ~1.1Ghz (I believe). Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it, as a primary targeted OS (develop, used for simple task everyday tasks etc).
3) I think that PA6T was already on the market (meaning, shipped to various developers) by 2007. That's already 5 years ago. So no one could characterize it as "modern" by any means.

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by Cool_amigaN

The fastest OS4.x was Pegasos II. A1X1k should be faster than a G4 ~1.1Ghz (I believe).

The Pegasos 2 G4 was 1.0GHz (although easily overclocked).

Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it

I think this Linux benchmarking is a response to some people dismissing *the previous* set of benchmarks made on OS4 (and MorphOS) as "pointless", since those benchmarks didn't test the *HW* in an identical way (the differencies in OS's would impact results too much) and OS4 in its current state couldn't make full use of the A1X1K hardware, etc, etc. Hence the Linux tests!

So no one could characterize it as "modern" by any means.

Of course it's not "modern", it's being stomped by 2005 level Mac's!

But this is what they market as the peak performance Amigaone, today, in 2012.

[Forcie]

Originally Posted by Cool_amigaN

Still, benchmarking in Debian is pointless since no one is gonna buy a similar unit to run solely linux on it

Why? This is a pure CPU benchmark and is extremely unlikely to perform significantly different on any other OS. Unless that OS is seriously broken or you f.e. change cache settings, CPU results are going to stay mostly the same. This gives a good overview of what the PA6T is capable of - in OS4 as well as Linux.

[KimmoK]

My opinnion of AOS4 HWs state
http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/...orum=33#661434
In short:
Amiga HW technology gap (against wintel):
1986: ahead of all others
1993: 2 years behind? (ok (only) for instrumentation, video and games)
A1 2002: 5,8 years behind (ok CPU performance, otherwise...)
SAM440 2008: 8,6 years behind
SAM460 2010: 6 years behind
A1x1000 2011: 2,6 years behind (CPU is only in netbook level, otherwise ok)

So, current top of the line AOS4 HW is priced similarly to cheapest expandable Mac (PowerMac), it has y2006 caliber CPU, otherwise it has modern specs & expandability (when compared to mainstream shops).
What is not modern is the SW support, and untill that is fixed, it's not point to compare the modernity...

******
btw... Anyone tried partition to partition copy speeds with observation on system responsiveness?
(I'm surpriced how much better SAM667Mhz is when compared to 3800+ AMD system with linux. I'm eager to see how x1000 handles the situation (initially I've read about 70MB/s copy speeds, 4x faster than my best x86 from y2008.).)

[Kesa]

What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.

If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.

[Forcie]

Originally Posted by Kesa

What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.

If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.

As far as I can see it is just a similar thread to this one: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/...topic_id=35671

But I guess that thread is just a troll thread telling us why x86 PC is superior to OS4 systems? I bet the SAM and X1000 owners posting their results really wanted to hurt and upset people by showing simple hardware facts about their systems. Right?

[WolfToTheMoon]

surprisingly slow

are these benchmarks available for android? would like to see how my mobile compares to these(dual core qualcomm s3 at 1,5 GHz)

[Kesa]

Originally Posted by Forcie

As far as I can see it is just a similar thread to this one: http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/...topic_id=35671

But I guess that thread is just a troll thread telling us why x86 PC is superior to OS4 systems? I bet the SAM and X1000 owners posting their results really wanted to hurt and upset people by showing simple hardware facts about their systems. Right?

Your link is a bit too vague so maybe you could be more specific?

Anyway you must be daft if you really think Piru isn't using those silly graphs without having an agenda. He did it before when it first came out and now he is doing it again. In fact this is almost free advertising in favour of MOS and you and i both know who develops MOS.

You guys can use all the polls you like to try and prove that the x1000 is inferior and overpriced but it doesn't change anything. If i could afford it i would happily hand over the money for the obviously (according to Piru) outdated/overpriced x1000 if it means i don't have to use my $150 G4 Apple MacMini piece of **** anymore.

BTW, now i have your attention what is going on with the NatAmi? I'm getting worried...

[cgutjahr]

Originally Posted by Kesa

You guys can use all the polls you like

You know, it's tradition to actual read and (at least try to) understand a thread before contributing to it. There are no polls here, just a few facts.

Anyway you must be daft if you really think Piru isn't using those silly graphs without having an agenda.

Like most MorphOS core developers, Piru suffers from the "me too!" syndrome. Imagine you've got the (allegedly) better OS, the better and cheaper hardware, you're on the market two years before your competitor - and absolutely nobody cares. That must be hard indeed, so let's be nice and cut Piru some slack.

But Piru just quoted some numbers here, most of which were actually posted by OS4 people. I don't see why his "agenda" would be relevant to those of us wanting to discuss these numbers?

Or, to give you some of your own advice: You don't like this thread? Don't read it.

[dammy]

Originally Posted by Kesa

What is the purpose of this thread? This is just a blue camp troll thread telling us why MOS is superior to OS4.x.

If you don't like the x1000 don't buy it, otherwise stop trolling.

That would be nice if that was followed in other threads as well, but trolls will be trolls.

[dammy]

Originally Posted by WolfToTheMoon

surprisingly slow

are these benchmarks available for android? would like to see how my mobile compares to these(dual core qualcomm s3 at 1,5 GHz)

This should be the month we find out.