@Uncharted

Quote:

In all honesty how many normal folk would convert a DVD to DiVX?

you would be surprised!

_________________
Indigo 3D Lounge, my second home.
The Illusion of Choice | Am*ga

@Uncharted

"Do you have any idea how many CRT iMacs and G3 iBooks are still in use? No I didn't think so. If G3 is so dead, why would Apple (not known for thier backward thinking) support G3 machines in Panther and (so I've heard) Tiger?"

Well, I only know a Mac user with a G3/500, the rest (maybe 15 or so) have as minimum a G4.

MacOS X may run on G3, but it doesn't run as smooth as on a G4

Come on, with X PostFacto you can even run it on a 604e... well, it won't run, it'll crawl, but that's another thing.

If they supported actively G3, MacOS X would run smoothly on a G3/266 for example, but I doubt that's the case.

"Define most users. I'm a Mac user, I couldn't see much difference for everyday tasks."

Don't you use photoshop, freehand, premiere or any sound tool? Don't you watch DivX?

Most of users I know convert DVDs to DivX, use Photoshop, dreamweaver (that's one of the few apps that come to my mind that wouldn't benefit much of Altivec), Premiere (or similar). Others convert their old records to cd cleaning the samples with filters etc. Others create 3D models.

Of course you can send e-mails with an A500 if you want, but you won't make buy an A500 to send e-mails.

"It's not available in quantity anymore, apples and oranges mate."

That's it. We are not in 1990. We should adapt to the new times. And if we want to adapt we should start using Altivec as soon as possible.

"By slow I gather you mean, normal everyday operations that 99% percent of the computer using population use thier machines for. In all honesty how many normal folk would convert a DVD to DiVX? How many people actully know what DivX actually is for that matter? I bet being able to read Email is severly hampered without vector processing."

I don't know anyone know doesn't know what DivX is. Well, my grandfather probably not, but he won't never touch a computer anyway...

"If you want to do serious stuff then you need a serious computer, and need to spend serious cash on it (G5 or High-end x86). I think you're looking in the wrong place for the perfomance you need."

There's no point in spending huge quantities of money in a computer that does everything 3 times slower than any computer bought by the same price (x86 or ppc with altivec)

_________________
The only spanish amiga news web page/club: CUAZ

@Crumb

Will you just give it a rest! The micro A1 is not a powerhorse machine. The whole idea behind it is not to make systems that are powerhorses. It has been chosen to use a G3 as standard. Live with it.

If you want a G4, buy an XE or else wait for the XC with the new chipset and DDR memory.

By the way, what do you have now and how seriously do you want the microA1??

_________________
AmigaOne-XE G3 OS 4.
A4000 PPC
A1200 PPC

Ditto the above. My partner coverts high quality (better than VHS) music videos, resynchs and filters the audio, and stores 'em on CD/Rs in MPeG format so we can play high quality video jukeboxes on the DVD player.

She does this on a P2 366 with 256Mb of ram, under Win98 - why? because someone else was throwing it away so it replaced her Pentium 200 for free It works just fine, if you need more power you must be a professional video editor, or VERY impatient.

As for converting whole DVDs at a time, I'll leave that to the professional pirates, whose products I pass on because I prefer to own original stuff anyway.

Crumb wrote:
Quote:

What do you think that east-countries people will buy? The price of a MicroA1 is the full salary of 3 months in Poland!

well, more or less, he's got the point - that's why a lot of fine Amiga developers here bought the Peg board.
It's just so-called "globalisation" [yes? -where ] - life here is cheap as hell comparing even to first westen UE countries - but the A1 cost everywhere the same...
If I lived in some more eastern countries [with all respect ofcourse] I'd be x time more pi##ed off seeing the price of the new Amiga...

Ofcourse, somebody'll buy some boards here, but not too many -as it was with the big A1 - and this makes selling the boards less profitable for dealers here, than in i.e. neighbouring Germany - a vicious circle.

My lame conclusion is:

If Eyetech [with all respect - I know it's hard] can't produce uA1 cheap, it should produce less - I'm talking about motherboard, not the quantity

...so going little into future, it'd be nice to see some ArticaP uA1 (or mini A1?) "C" version with the slots ONLY [except standard i/o stuff ofcourse, including firewire(?)] - lets say AGP & 2 PCI & 1 DDR [with further riser cards also possible ofcourse] instead of mounting some obsolete chipsets onboard. It's full of computer scrap here - and if I tried I could get some old radeon7000 almost for free, or can just to grab any hardware stuff from nearby pc...

btw: quite a lot software were created in "eastern" countries [including even Hyperion's "Gorky 17" AFAIR ] so maybe it's worth not to disregard the rest > 3/4 of this planet

_________________
Harthon gerithach raid gelin a chwest adel thraw lín :)

D6 TEAM

Hmm, all this again?

I remember when the A1SE came out there where alot
of people who where complaining that the SE was too
light, well i can tell you that my'n is just doing fine and
i am verry happy with it and also with his speed.

So, if you guys can buy an A1XE now what are you
complaining about, just buy it and be happy with it.

As for the micro, there we have a better board with a better
cpu with free memory and free graphics at a lower price.
I can see no disadvantage with that.

_________________
A1G3-SE + OS4.1 u1 iso (x2)

@sg2

Uh, of course peg2 and a1 cpus are equally fast when accessing memory - they both have 133MHz FSB. Marvell can utilize extra bandwidth for other uses (GigE etc). There was IDE bandwidth test results somewhere and Peg2 beat other machines (90MB/s).

Peg1 is slower due to 100MHz FSB but figures were better than 75MB/s here.

@DrBombcrater

Quote:

So the FX would seem to be no quicker than the CXe on a clock-for-clock basis.

I'm judging my real-life observation, not some theoretical numbers. The 750FX has 512 MB of L2-Cache, and believe me, that *does* make a difference. Maybe not in a Spec benchmark, but in real life.

Also, what revision of the FX was tested there?

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

@Crumb

Quote:

So you can assure me that I can convert a DVD to DivX as fast as a 7447A using Altivec? Or as fast as a PIV? I seriously doubt it.

WTF? DID I SAY THAT? NO I DIDN'T. Don't try to sell me for a fool.

I have been consistantly saying WITHOUT ALTIVEC (sorry for shouting, but obviously it didn't filter through yet). Please do not put words in my mouth.

Quote:

Just like the people who say that a 750FX is wonderful and that the MicroA1 is cheap...

Heck, I didn't say either of it. I said (just to make sure)

The 750FX is, in real-life performance, faster than a 7451 at the same clock speed.

If you want to know, the 7451 (and IIRC the 7455 as well) has a slight problem in the 60x bus protocol that makes it use one latency cycle per memory burst more than the 750FX, which adds to the problem.

I never said anything about prices. If you can point me to somewhere where I said the Micro was cheap, please do so. I also never said that the 7447 with Altivec would be slower, quite the contrary, I have one of them and can compare it.

And now that is all I am going to say on the matter. Apparently, you didn't read my postings anyway, or have trouble understanding them.

_________________
Seriously, if you want to contact me do not bother sending me a PM here. Write me a mail

@DrBombcrater

> It would be interesting to see some real-world 750CXe vs 750FX benchmarks,
> because IBM's published performance figures do not back up the idea that
> there is some kind of huge gulf between the 750CXe and 750FX.

The 750FX has a much larger and more optimised cache. On http://www.geek.com/procspec/procspec.htm it says the 750FX is 25% faster than a 750CXe with the same clock.

Another interesting link is http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/G3CARDS/G3_1.1GHz_vs_G4_1GHz_review/index.html. They compare a 750GX and a G4. The G4 is faster where a vector unit is useful, but the 750GX is faster for games and other things.

Kind regards,

Dennis

Here it is what I've found on this http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Item.cfm?ID=6849&Item=PLGPFZ1000

Quote:

In many real world tests, a G3 800Mhz ZIF upgrade outperformed a similarly priced G4 500 card by nearly 2:1.

The price is veeery interesting.

Eyetech 750FX 800 MHz- 170 GBP
PowerLogix G3(750GX) 1000MHz- 280 $ = 156 GBP

_________________
Sam440ep-flex 800MHz 1GB RAM R9250 128MB SB Live!

@mr2

Well, that means the Eyetech module is at least within expected operating parameters. It's only 30-40% higher price per MHz. Smaller market means higher indirect costs (R&D, shipping, office space, phone lines etc etc. It all adds up), so 30-40% price difference is not unheard of. I still say IBM has a problem if their chips cost that much in practical use, though. Doesn't necessarily mean Eyetech has much choice, I'm just mouthing off at IBM in general here

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@CheatX

> There was IDE bandwidth test results somewhere and Peg2 beat other machines (90MB/s).

No modern harddisk can do more than 60 MB/s uncached sustained (read any manufacturer's modern drive specs), so this only means that they have a cache layer in their IDE code. In OS4, we have one but its located upper in the cake.

Regards,
--
Stéphane

@olegil

An 750GX @733Mhz costs about ~$80 (US) when there still was a 1.1Ghz model to be had it costed ~$160 (US). No idea if those prices includes shipping + handling.

@olegil

Yes thats 36% but there is another difference. Eyetech sells FX not GX CPU.

_________________
Sam440ep-flex 800MHz 1GB RAM R9250 128MB SB Live!

@ssolie

Quote:

ssolie wrote: @Crumb Quote: You are shooting yourself in the foot by not giving the user the option of buying G4s! Please, let it go already. The boards are designed, manufacturered, prices set, etc. so all you are doing is arguing about what could have been. Let it go. Repeat after me, "Calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean, ..."

LOL blue ocean

_________________

Quote:

What advantage does a 68030 give over a 68020 if it's clocked at the same frequency? Increasing the frequency of the 68020 would have been more useful.

I think it's got the data cache as well as the cpu cache. I meant a higher frequency 030 or fast RAM in a SIMM socket or both. That would have tipped the price to £499. I wouldn't have a problem with that but most consumers would have I suppose.

Aaanywaaaayyy! It's getting to the point where I don't care what PPC a u-A1 has as long as it works and is small. A1's and even A2's will always be behind x86's unless some big players get directly involved. It's better than nothing.

If I want power I can get a working Athlon-64 for £229 (p64 Micro Mart Issue 814). In fact if I buy both I get the best of both worlds without taking up much desk space.

_________________

@Intuitioned

Quote:

It's getting to the point where I don't care what PPC a u-A1 has as long as it works and is small. A1's and even A2's will always be behind x86's unless some big players get directly involved. It's better than nothing.

I may have pulled this out of context, but I feel like commenting on it. I agree, that in most cases and in daily use, it doesn't matter, what PPC is in there. These cpus have super-computer performance anyway. (Okay maybe not present day super-computers, but ... VERY good performance.) I think, it's more important, that it IS a PPC and not some x86, because less use of power (Watt), and it feels good to know, that the cpu inside is designed well.

About the "big player", I consider Motorola and IBM big players. I've always seen Motorola as good chip designers. They have top-notch engineers, and they are on the front with new technology. I will far better have some clever technology than some extra MHz. And remember, that research is going on all the time at these companies. If they reach a break-through (and something indicate, that they will soon), performance could suddently jump a factor 10 or 100.

Also remember, that many cpus in the GHz range do nothing a lot of the time, because they get too hot. They have clock-reducing mechanism inside. hmm

/John.

@sg2

About the 98 MB/s figure from the IDE Peg2 benchmark :

The person who did the peg2 benchmark told me that the 98 MB/s figure was obtained by combining reading from cache on 2 drives, and as such, it measures in no way the disk performance itself but rather the IDE interface performance.

I'll repeat the same IDE interface benchmark on the a1 and give you the figures I get.

Regards,
--
Stéphane Guillard

(removed)