Just curious what the PA6T that will be used in the X1000 is somewhat equivalent to speed and raw power with modern systems found today on say Apple iMacs and your various run of the mill PCs.

Is it basically about the same as what is used in laptops like the Macbook Air or these ultra-lite notebooks that are coming out these days? Therefore the X1000 will be somewhat similar to the raw power of notebooks of todays genre?

Just curious is all. I see phones with dual core CPUs are similar speeds as the PA6T but wonder if they are really in the same ballpark. Same goes for like my 1st gen Macbook Air that has Intel Core Duo 1.6MHz speed.

TJ

@MacSociety

If the CPU (or the X1000) were really fast or outstanding, then we would have heard something about its speed.

Thanks god AmigaOS is a very responsive OS. With Windows 7 or MacOSX onboard,
the X1000 certainly could not compete with today's Intel systems.

Last edited by hunk on 29-Sep-2011 at 05:11 AM.

@MacSociety

It would be known as the 'G6'

_________________
Men who have girlies in their avatars are Girliemen!

@MacSociety

I wrote an article on Obligement about the history and the characteristics of the PA6T-1682M. You just have to translate it in english.
I wrote : "Globally, in the context when it went out, it is at the same level than the Intel Conroe processeur that we found in Xeon and Core 2 Duo. They share common characteristics with the PA6T : 64-bit architecture, frequency around 2 GHz, 2MB of L2 cache, 65 nm, ... Raw performances are about the same than a PowerPC 970 MP (that is to say a G5) at 2.5 GHz for a consumption that is 6 times lower.

About processors in phones, dual core are here but they are 32-bit, have no hardware virtualization support yet, NEON instead of VMX, ... The Pwrficient 1682M also provides specialized engines but I let you read my article

@MacSociety
Also consider that the capabilities of any given computer system nowadays are also dependent on the GPU (with more and more stuff being accelerated by it).
To put this in perspective, 3 years ago I sold an old PC of mine to my cousin (a system which was already a few years old) it had THIS card in it, and quite frankly, such card would still shred any phone to pieces, while for desktop standards it's considered "ancient".

_________________
SamFlex Complete 800Mhz System + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 4
Amiga 2000 DKB 2MB ChipRam GVP G-Force040 Picasso 2 OS3.9 BB2
AmigaCD 32

@DAX

Quote:

Also consider that the capabilities of any given computer system nowadays are also dependent on the GPU

Correct. The Amiga1000 when released had slower processor than the Atari ST, but thanks to the custom chips (including what we call today GPU) it beat the Atari, Apple Lisa, Apple Macs and SAGE (also 68000 machines at the time) in every aspect. The ST was like 8-bit machine (YM sound chip and lousy graphics) with 16-bit CPU, the Macs only Black and White and the SAGE with text interface good only for fast terminal.

Later, the Atari Falcon had not much faster processor than the Amiga 1200, but it is much better machine thanks to the DSP, awesome even today.

_________________
Games, programs, reviews

@MacSociety

"Macbook Air that has Intel Core Duo 1.6MHz speed"

I think PA6T might perform like that.

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?

@MacSociety

The Core Duo is probably about the same league.
In MIPS the PA6T reaches 4.4 MIPS/MHZ, an C7 up to 46 MIPS/MHz. The PA6T is per core/MHz still rather nice, but current x86 have increased a lot, especially with with additional cores.

Back in its time it was a processor with big potential, unfortunately it was killed. If developed further PA Semi could offer quite good processors today. But it didn't happen...


Edit: I think teh wiki article is wrong on the value for MIPS/MHz/core on the PA6T. It is probably 2.2 MIPS instead of 4.4. The wiki article nowhere says anything abut teh PA6T being a dual core processor. I think they are just wrong on the value.

Last edited by Zylesea on 29-Sep-2011 at 08:52 PM.

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

@MacSociety

Sorry to disappoint you, but it isn't equivalent to ANY of today's systems. It's equivalent to Pentium systems circa 2005.

@ferrels
MacSociety already owns a 440EP and I believe he understands that a bloated modern OS wouldn't even move there.
An X1000 equipped with powerful GFX card and a fast SSD wil deliver any kind of experience with More than adequate speed and unheardof snappiness (not to mention the geeky fun to be had with the xena subsystem).
Priceless

_________________
SamFlex Complete 800Mhz System + AmigaOS 4.1 Update 4
Amiga 2000 DKB 2MB ChipRam GVP G-Force040 Picasso 2 OS3.9 BB2
AmigaCD 32

@ferrels

Quote:

It's equivalent to Pentium systems circa 2005.

Total raw performance yes, performance per Watt is circa 2007/2008.

Current i5/i7 CPUs are roughly 6 times (in sense Y=6*X) faster than PA6T in single core operations.

@ferrels

I'm thinking early Athlon X2 64 performance, though the Athlon X2 64 had higher clock rates and probably better performance.

_________________
Power Mac G4 "Quicksilver 2002"
800Mhz, 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 8500
MorphOS 2.7 (Registered)
$225 total spent!

@MacSociety

I am very curious how it will compare to Power Mac G4 and G5.

_________________
Power Mac G4 "Quicksilver 2002"
800Mhz, 1.5GB RAM, Radeon 8500
MorphOS 2.7 (Registered)
$225 total spent!

@DAX

Quote:

DAX wrote: @ferrels MacSociety already owns a 440EP and I believe he understands that a bloated modern OS wouldn't even move there.

Enjoyed playing with my The Red One Sam 440ep yesterday for an hour or so. Running OS 4.1u2 right now. Downloaded Netsurf 2.8 and played with that for a bit. Played with TuneNet and played some CDs. Downloaded and tried AmigaAMP playing an MP3 also.

Fun little system but will take me a bit and more practice using Amiga OS before I feel comfortable getting around. Still very foreign to me.

I have been hoping the X1000 would have shipped this year as I am ready for a new system and although I should be getting myself a Mac Pro of some kind for work purposes, I guess the Amiga platform has rekindled some of the fun of the 80s for me with using alternative platforms.

I wish Atari had something as close and powerful as Amiga OS 4.1 so at least web browsing was "somewhat" up to date but the Atari, although fun, is just not as advanced software and hardware wise as the Amiga has made it.

Even though I was raised on Atari and moved onto Mac professionally, I still have a heart left for Atari but since Atari is more for retro games and such, and the Amiga at least advanced to a more professional OS with decent enough web functions, I have been itching to get an X1000 and right now learning a little with my The Red One Sam 440ep.

TJ

@MacSociety

Only reference one could find are old school MIPS tests where PA Semi (single core?) is between Athlon at 1.83Ghz and P4 Extreme at 3.2Ghz (proper place to fall)

It doesn`t sound much today, but seems to be "enough horsepower" to do many things. In my experience, those two were the "real revolutionaries"

AMD Athlon XP 2500+ 7,527 MIPS at 1.83 GHz 4.1 4.1
P.A. Semi PA6T-1682M 8,800 MIPS at 2.0 GHz 4.4 4.4
Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 9,726 MIPS at 3.2 GHz 3.0 3.0

Intel Core Duo is out of its league however.

But its not only MIPS dry power: PA Semi is quite complex CPU combined with low consumption OSs like Linux and AmigaOS 4 should give a blaze fast feeling.

_________________
OS 3.x AROS and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionalism. Learn it harder way!
SinclairQL and WII U lover :D
YT http://www.youtube.com/user/rasvoja

@MacSociety
I don't really see too much point in comparing Amiga h/w specs to PC h/w specs... while it might give you a ROUGH idea of performance, it can also be very misleading, given that Windows has far higher resource requirements than AmigaOS.

I mean you'd be nuts to consider running even Windows XP on a 0.5GHz CPU with 0.5GB RAM, yet AmigaOS4 pretty-much flies on a similarly powered machine (Sam440 667Mhz - which is probably closer to 500Mhz due to lack of L2 cache). (Yeah, the lack of "oomph" is a bit more noticable with some demanding apps, but not seriously so I feel.)

IMHO it makes far more sense to compare X1000 to existing Amiga machines. In that case the X1000 has a specification far far beyond the Sam440, for example.

Last edited by ChrisH on 29-Sep-2011 at 05:44 PM.

_________________

@vox
a middle-aged cpu running os4.x is smooth.
i own a 68060 @ 90 mhz and running os3.x is smooth.
os1.x on a a2000 is smooth.

.. if you mean the desktop.


but what happens with some heavy applications?
is os4.x and x1000 build for old software only?

what about heavy tests, making dualboot systems with linux
maconlinux/osx or qemu with winxp or win7 on linux?

if such a system is able to replace my old (9 year old) athlonxp
in emulation, than it is ok.
but i dont think that is powerfull enough.


i still think amithlon where on the right way years ago ...

Quote:

I don't really see too much point in comparing Amiga h/w specs to PC h/w specs... while it might give you a ROUGH idea of performance, it can also be very misleading, given that Windows has far higher resource requirements than AmigaOS.

Why ? most operations (web rendering, video playing, 3d stuff,...) are interesting. The fact Windows isn't responsive doesn't change the raw power of the CPU. In fact, while running 3D apps, PowerPC+AOS is usually a lot slower than the x86+Windows equivalent...

_________________
http://www.warpdesign.fr/

@MacSociety

It's the equivalent of a jet airplane running rocket fuel or the equivalent of Chuck Norris on cocaine.

@ferrels

There are plenty of modern systems that should perform similarly than PA6T system For example Atom and AMD E-350 based systems.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/328?vs=110

_________________
- KimmoK
// For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA
//
// Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer?