@Birbo

Quote:

So, who is there from ACube?

The list I posted is still current. No one from Acube is on that list.

Since Trevor has been speaking about tabor, I suggest addressing direct questions to Trevor.

#6

_________________
This posting, in its entirety, represents solely the perspective of the author.
*Secrecy has served us so well*

@wawa

Actually, I didn't. You assume that ALL the applications using to demo the board are using optimizations not available on OS4, without ANY substance to back this up. From this assumption you continue on to conclude that the board will be unusable with OS4.

A whole lot of data is missing for me to support your conclusions.

Last edited by olegil on 15-Oct-2015 at 02:44 PM.

_________________
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.

All this (again) makes me wonder why anyone even bothers to show hardware before it's up for sale.
In this community there is always more to lose as to gain doing that. Yes I want a cheap OS4 solution but somehow I lose my appetite when I see 20-page topics like this one.

_________________
- Proud Member Of The Belgian Amigaclub Since 2003 -

The Belgian Amiga Club on FACEBOOK !

The Belgian Amiga Club Website

@TrevorDick

Quote:

Despite what you might have read in this thread NO pricing for the tabor hardware was announced. The speculated numbers quoted are also very high.

>very high

OK, at a lower price point, this type of hardware becomes easier to justify.

@olegil

thats true, i am questioning if the applications demonstrated are sufficient to showcase the features of the hardware that will be supported under os4, as it is obviously intended, or at least it is so persumed by the users here.

whether my objections are right or wrong, all or in part remains to be proven, however you obviously are having similar objections, even though you have paradoxically difficulties to admit that.

@wawa

assume and conclude still does not equal question

_________________
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.

@iggy

Quote:

OK, at a lower price point, this type of hardware becomes easier to justify.

so, where did the figures mentioned in original post, on amiga-news.de and in similar threads come from?

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @wawa assume and conclude still does not equal question

sigh... you have really hard time nitpicking on me just in order to tell almost the same without actually agreeing. have it your way. i dont care.

@Birbo

Perhaps you should direct your inquiries to the designers of the board and not those paying to have it built.
IF this is a Varisys design, its very similar to a reduced version of what Paul Gentle told me he would have recommended over a PA6T based board when the x1000 was being readied for release.

I am NOT against using Qorlq processors, it was Paul's recommendation years ago, and its still the best course today.

But we have moved on. The X5000 uses a Qorlq cpu, just a more recent one.'

The P1022 is one generation behind and is perhaps better suited to the legacy apps it was intended for.

BUT, if the board could be produced cheaply enough to make an AmigaOne system affordable for the masses...

The board could provide a bridge to later products that continue a legacy of providing a low cost value option.

@TrevorDick

Quote:

The speculated numbers quoted are also vey high.

OK, that moves me from "slightly interested" to "quite interested."

_________________
"Unix is supposed to fix that." -- Jay Miner

@cdimauro

Quote:

WinUAE 3.2.0 Beta 16 (64Bit) (14 October 2015)

Nice! Time to update... (and for benchmarks of both 32 bit and 64 bit WinUAE)

@TrevorDick

Quote:

The speculated numbers quoted are also vey high.

Very good news! I hope price will be much closer to p-cubed.

@Spectre660

Quote:

134 ?

Single core?

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @Spectre660 Quote: 134 ? Single core?

thanks, i forgot to mention this;)

@wawa

For comparison SAM460EX 1155 MHz (again thanks toSpectre660; post 3):

399.791s (older OS4 result)


Even assuming two cores were used, it is still really nice result (dual-core gives 1.6x faster result, if MPlayer is compiled with threaded decoding support; that would be 214.4s for single core... nearly 2x as fast as SAM460EX).

Edit: Comparable Linux result on SAM460EX: 311.379s (see post 367 in this thread).

Last edited by pavlor on 15-Oct-2015 at 08:01 PM.
Last edited by pavlor on 15-Oct-2015 at 03:58 PM.

Can someone list a few programs that will have problems because of Tabor's design, unless re-compiled? I would like to know how much it would affect me. Thanks!

_________________

@pavlor

right, but this is obviosly under linux. the question still remains what hardware acceleration may be involved and if the same will be available for os4.

Quote:

Everblue wrote: Can someone list a few programs that will have problems because of Tabor's design, unless re-compiled? I would like to know how much it would affect me. Thanks!

i think you can refer to broadblues lists as example, starting with his post #290

Last edited by wawa on 15-Oct-2015 at 04:12 PM.

seems correct .

134 Dual Core and 214 Single Core .

@pavlor

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @wawa For comparison SAM460EX 1155 MHz (again thanks toSpectre660; post 3): 399.791s Even assuming two cores were used, it is still really nice result (dual-core gives 1.6x faster result, if MPlayer is compiled with threaded decoding support; that would be 214.4s for single core... nearly 2x as fast as SAM460EX).

_________________
Sam460ex : Radeon Rx550 Single slot Video Card : SIL3112 SATA card

@Spectre660

So, Tabor (single core) is as fast in MPlayer benchmark as:
SAM460EX 1.7 GHz (if we take comparable Linux result from post 367)
Pegasos 2 G4 700 MHz
Mac Mini G4 600 MHz

Nice result for non-Altivec CPU!


May I ask for dnetc (OGR-NG in particular) result? That would show raw integer performance (not affected by memory speed like in MPlayer benchmark).

Edit: Updated comparison by result from post 367.

Last edited by pavlor on 15-Oct-2015 at 08:03 PM.