»

[itix]

Originally Posted by klx300r

btw, you also forgot to mention on your new thread that Blender on the X1000 doesn't have 3D acceleration yet so those numbers should be better when 3D on Debian PPC arrives

3D acceleration wont make any difference to Blender benchmarks.

[KimmoK]

@Iggy
>they haven't announced any T1, T2, or T3 products yet.

"These high-performance QorIQ products will span 2-24 virtual cores"

They seem to have dropped also original single core option.
But the plan is to get new AMP version out per every quarter.
Hope they manage.

>I'm not sure I'm interested in AMP processors outside of the T4280.
>That processor offers the most SerDes lanes (other processors in this family have less).
>This will allow it to support better expansion options (like 16X PCIe cards).

I think we have to wait and see to know how many serdes lines they have on other versions.
+ it takes years before our SW can utilize PCIe-x4 fully, not to mention v2.0 or v3,0 or x16.

(to me it seems dual core version should have at least 16serdes lines, like the B4860 has)

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by Kesa

Exactly. That's why i don't bother with benchmarks. Benchmarks are like thinktanks. Thinktanks are usually used when certain parties have an agenda and then use stats to prove it.

1. The subject of this thread is "debian hardinfo benchmarks" on various machines. It's a HW discussion.
2. The benchmark initiative started on AmigaWorld.net, by OS4 people. It's a HW discussion.
3. The only thing Piru did here, was to add his personal machine to the Graph. It's a HW discussion.
4. MorphOS was never being discussed, the thread was never about it, it's a HW discussion, and the *only ones* trying to make this thread a MorphOS thread is *YOU* (1, 2, 3, 4), and *SPIRANTHO*: 1

This is obvious to *everyone else*, just pointing it out to *you*, since you obviously haven't noticed...

Piru is just sugar coating the numbers in the benchmark to belittle the X1000 for the purpose of promoting Morphos. Sure, numbers don't lie - but people do.

Shooting the messenger delivering info you don't approve of, is a classic (but foul) knee-jerk response to try to "correct" a situation you don't like. Of course it won't change any underlying facts, and in the end, *you* will be the one looking bad in others eyes...

klx300r:
"You're trolling"
Suggesting it's not the truth
"Misleading, useless and Piru knows it
"Agenda"

drHirudo:
Trying to discredit the messenger with external and irrelevant stuff

...and now *YOU* just tried to picture Piru as a liar, when all he did was posting a graph with data that *anyone* can verify. He did nothing more, nothing else, but that's obviously enough for you to try to discredit him in this foul way. But I dare you: Now it's up to you to back up your claims. Prove your claims of Piru being a liar, or stand exposed as the little troll you are.

I have long suspected "Kesa" being just another of those "alter-ego accounts" with an agenda, registered in 2010 (suspicious there already) and already with strong views on a selection of issues, always popping in to push a certain agenda in certain threads. This suspicion is growing stronger by every post you make. It would be interesting to know the real identity behind "Kesa"...

[kolla]

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by minator

Actually, it was designed to provide G5 type performance at much lower power - and if you look at the benchmarks of the X1000 and the G5 2.3GHz is is remarkably close on some of the benchmarks.

The "G4"/e600 was never a bad performer compared to the "G5" on a clock by clock basis, in some areas it was definitely the winner even (but of course the G5 ran at a much higher clock and had other advantages)

From the many, many various benchmarks, on various OS's we have seen during the last months, I'd say that the PA6T is comparable to a G4 class CPU in *performance*, but is comparable to a G5 class CPU in it being *64-bit*. (The last part is of course pointless in an Amiga context)

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by Piru

See Linux PowerPC Blender benchmark

[drHirudo]

drHirudo:
Trying to discredit the messenger with external and irrelevant stuff

...and now *YOU* just tried to picture Piru as a liar, when all he did was posting a graph with data that *anyone* can verify. He did nothing more, nothing else, but that's obviously enough for you to try to discredit him in this foul way. But I dare you: Now it's up to you to back up your claims. Prove your claims of Piru being a liar, or stand exposed as the little troll you are.

Dude, I posted a link with proof in my post. The fact that he didn't edit his OP after being proved wrong makes him a liar. Imagine people from search engines coming to his threads and reading only the first few posts. They will have the feeling that Amikit is breaking law!

If he wanted to be neutral in this thread, he would have posted benchmarks from a recent X86 machine that will make his graphics on different scale and the measures of the difference between the different older CPU indistinguishable for regular observers, who don't care anyway. Yet he didn't, proving that he has an agenda.

Enough said.

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by klx300r

@ Piru

thanks for the link but you forgot to update the graphs in your first post ?

Maybe I misunderstood the processor part of the Hardinfo benchmark, but isn't it a CPU test (which in today reads: Core) by design? If you want a view of real life effects of single or multiple cores you would use other tests, like indeed the Blender benchmark?

btw, you also forgot to mention on your new thread that Blender on the X1000 doesn't have 3D acceleration yet so those numbers should be better when 3D on Debian PPC arrives

...which won't affect anything at all, the 3D acceleration is purely a GUI thing in Blender.

[takemehomegrandma]

Originally Posted by drHirudo

Dude, I posted a link with proof in my post.

The only reason to why you made that post was to shoot the messenger by trying to discredit him. It was completely off topic. Everyone can see that. And everyone can see that the PA6T performs just the same, despite your post, so it had zero impact!

[Terminills]

Originally Posted by Iggy

Whoa!
You actually made a valid point AND you didn't make a CUSA comment.
I'm impressed.
Yeah a quad core A9 at 1.5 GHz would be pretty impressive.
I'd love to see future variants of MorphOS or AOS on that.

But we'll probably see AROS running on ARM before either of those two OS' gets ported.

The hosted version of AROS already runs on ARM. So yes you will see AROS running on ARM first. ;D

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by takemehomegrandma

The only reason to why you made that post was to shoot the messenger by trying to discredit him. It was completely off topic. Everyone can see that. And everyone can see that the PA6T performs just the same, despite your post, so it had zero impact!

He has already discredited himself in the past so many times. No need to discredit him. My post was a sarcasm. People already know where he comes from and what he tries to achieve.

The PA6T may perform the same, which is no wonder, considering it is chip developed some years ago. But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.

[Piru]

Originally Posted by drHirudo

The PA6T may perform the same, which is no wonder, considering it is chip developed some years ago. But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.

Okay, let me begin with 26W at idle and 40W at full load for my PowerBook G4.

How does your X1000 do?

[Jupp3]

Originally Posted by drHirudo

But the PA6T consumes much less power, which is relevant for people like me who are paying the electricity bills by themselves. Hmm, may be I shall create electricity consumptions benchmarks.

That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Yet another interesting calculation would be:

How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")

Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away

[klx300r]

Originally Posted by takemehomegrandma

Maybe I misunderstood the processor part of the Hardinfo benchmark, but isn't it a CPU test (which in today reads: Core) by design? If you want a view of real life effects of single or multiple cores you would use other tests, like indeed the Blender benchmark?



...which won't affect anything at all, the 3D acceleration is purely a GUI thing in Blender.

grandma, for the 10'th time, Hardinfo is NOT MULTI THREADED so knowing that the benchmark figures are misleading..period.
our friend Piru knows this and chooses to not correct the graphs for some 'strange' reason.

as for Blender results you see the difference that using 1 thread as compared to both right? having 3D acceleration should slightly improve the render times as they definitely won't get worse

[drHirudo]

Originally Posted by Jupp3

That sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing that.

Yet another interesting calculation would be:

How long you need to keep your X1000 on for it to "pay the difference in initial cost", compared to f.ex. earlier higher end A1 models (other OS4 choices), Mac Mini (what it was ported for but not released), higher end PowerMacs (including G5) and PowerBooks (what OS4 could run on "relatively easily")

Also could throw in "same spec" X86 as that's what some people will start demanding right away

I bought my microA1 back in January 2005. Works flawlessly till now. Thats 89 months. Oh well, I had to buy $3 battery and replace it two months ago.


Bought in July 2011 Dell Inspiron laptop. It broke in December and in February 2012 I returned it back and had to pay extra to get another laptop from another brand.

So far the ALL the Amiga hardware I have performs good. That includes the old machines.