@OlafS25

As already mentioned PC was not used in Europe as a generic term. We used Micro Computer! PC meant IBM PC compatible. Today it means x86-64 based general computing machine. That the Americans used it differently doesn't matter as the Amiga was all but irrelevant in America anyway other than at cable networks and video production companies. They'd probably say all PCs fell by the wayside other than the IBM PC!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@NomadOfNorad

Rumor has it there is one just north of Jacksonville.

Just a rumor, of course.

LyleHaze

_________________
question=(2b||!(2b))

@lylehaze

Since the topic is about the AmigaOne A1222 here is a nice video posted by Daniel Müssener of GoldenCode Video Link

Enjoy

TrevorD

edit: Typo

Last edited by TrevorDick on 14-Feb-2017 at 05:38 AM.

_________________
No, I don't need no reason, I'm just breezin'

I've fallen a bit behind on the specs:

Are there any details online of the relative performance of the A1222 compared to the X1000 and X5000?

@lylehaze

Quote:

lylehaze wrote: @NomadOfNorad Rumor has it there is one just north of Jacksonville. Just a rumor, of course. LyleHaze

Rumor is that one of WHAT is north of Jax, a store with boxed A1222's on the shelf ready for purchase?

_________________
"I love peacenicks, they're so easy to conquer." --Ivan J Ironfist, the Dictator

@TrevorDick

Stop teasing Trevor and work them beta testers faster so we can all have the A1222 quicker the wait is killing me LOL

_________________
A1200 ACA1232 128MB Indivison MkIICr
Elbox empty Power Tower
RPi3 Emulating C64 ZX Atari PS BBC
Wii with Amiga emulation
Vampire v4 SA

@ne_one

Quote:

Are there any details online of the relative performance of the A1222 compared to the X1000 and X5000?

Benchmarks performed by betatesters under Linux show single core integer performance comparable to G3 1-1.2 GHz and native FPU performance to G3 600 MHz. This means (rough estimate) 2/3 of X1000 integer performance and 1/2 of X5000 integer performance.

@TrevorDick

Nice!

However, Quake 3 not compiled for SPE would be far more interesting - if you want to show your customers how Tabor works with old applications.

@pavlor

x1k/x5k cpus are in a range of g3 performance?

what concerns the demo video, yes it would be more appropriate to communicate that it is a particularly compiled binary. im not sure if it is as such executable on other os4 platforms or it is a specific different platform that is being introduced here, along with some limited binary compatibility.

@wawa

Quote:

x1k/x5k cpus are in a range of g3 performance?

G3 and G4 CPUs have similar raw performance/MHz (except AltiVec of course). G5 is more complicated - it has more powerful FPU (even than e5500) and can use fast memory, but application performance varies, sometimes even G4 is faster/MHz with generic integer code. As e5500 and e500 cores don´t have vector unit, I use plain G3 for comparison.

Quote:

along with some limited binary compatibility.

Interesting to note, 680x0 FPU seems to be emulated in Tabor´s OS4 (as shown in the video Trevor linked). We know current OS4 applications work on Tabor, only open question is performance of FPU demanding games.

@pavlor

Quote:

We know current OS4 applications work on Tabor

this is expectable, what i ve been asking aboout is if applications compiled specifically for tabor are executable on other os4 machines as well (fat binaries?), but so far there isn many such applications to check i guess.
´
apparently only in this case it would be valid to talk about tabor beating sam boards in performance.

@wawa

Quote:

what i ve been asking aboout is if applications compiled specifically for tabor are executable on other os4 machines as well

Certainly not. It is like executing AltiVec version on non-AltiVec hardware (well, sort of).

Quote:

apparently only in this case it would be valid to talk about tabor beating sam boards in performance.

This depends on application: eg. internet browsing and video playback may be faster on Tabor than on SAM, but current 3D games (not compiled for SPE) will be slower.

@wawa

Quote:

this is expectable, what i ve been asking aboout is if applications compiled specifically for tabor are executable on other os4 machines as well (fat binaries?), but so far there isn many such applications to check i guess.

Why would fat binaries be needed? An installer script should be able to check what machine it's running on and install the appropriate binary in cases where an application is also compiled with SPE support.

What I'd be interested in knowing is the performance difference between the standard compile of this and the SPE version and also how much extra work was involved in building the binary or does the compiler take care of everything.

@Rob

Quote:

What I'd be interested in knowing is the performance difference between the standard compile of this and the SPE version and also how much extra work was involved in building the binary or does the compiler take care of everything.

Also, I'd like to know if an OS4-native GCC port that is able to compile SPE-specific binaries will be made available to developers. Because if a cross-compiler is required, I can't be arsed to support the Tabor.

Last edited by Trixie on 14-Feb-2017 at 09:11 PM.

_________________
The Rear Window blog

AmigaOne X5000/020 @ 2GHz / 4GB RAM / Radeon RX 560 / ESI Juli@ / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition
SAM440ep-flex @ 667MHz / 1GB RAM / Radeon 9250 / AmigaOS 4.1 Final Edition

@Rob

Installing special version means that you cant just d&d an application onto an USB stick an run it onather OS4 HW.

All this means extra work for developers thatcould have been better spend on adding features.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@Rob

Up until now we've had single binaries. I suppose we did well all that time. But a fact of the matter is we had to deal with this in the 68K times when 000, 020 and 040 binaries were in the package. And now developers are resisting this multi binary need. It works well if you can keep CPU specific code in the kernel and share the same user code so only one binary is needed.

Last edited by Hypex on 15-Feb-2017 at 01:57 PM.

@Kronos

Quote:

Installing special version means that you cant just d&d an application onto an USB stick an run it onather OS4 HW.

im not even sure it has dependably worked like that till now. from peoples postings it appears that there is software that say runs on x1k but doesnt run on x5k´or the like, for whatever reason. something an amiga user may be accustomed to, remembering cpu dependant binary version hell from the nineties. certainly not the way it should be done though, when trying to appeal to wider audience.

Last edited by wawa on 15-Feb-2017 at 03:21 PM.

@Kronos

Quote:

Installing special version means that you cant just d&d an application onto an USB stick an run it onather OS4 HW.

What's wrong with putting the original archive on a USB stick or making copies of the different binaries in the archive.

@wawa

Quote:

im not even sure it has dependably worked like that till now. from peoples postings it appears that there is software that say runs on x1k but doesnt run on x5k´or the like, for whatever reason.

Can't say I'm aware of such situations, can you point to examples?

@Rob

Quote:

Can't say I'm aware of such situations, can you point to examples?

http://amigaworld.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=30693&forum=32&start=200&viewmode=flat&order=0