Poster | Thread |
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:26:48
| | [ #81 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
iggy
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:40:28
| | [ #82 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 20-Oct-2010 Posts: 1175
From: Bear, Delaware USA | | |
|
| @tlosm
Yes, there are benchmarks that will favor the G5. And at the time Intel was still dragging its heels about transitioning to AMD's 64bit ISA (funny how they don't acknowledge that it was AMD's move).
But as time has worn on this comparison really gets dated.
Then the question becomes 'what is enough CPU power?' Frankly, I would have settled for a move to ARM.
Its based on an old (and now invalid) bias, but also influenced by Intel's stumble with Netburst.
And PPCs could still provide years of further utility.
But I'm still for going with the 'Walmart' of silicon vendors. Hey, Intel? Its like fast food, its filling and its cheap.
edit - Not to sound schizophrenic, but there is one reason to stick with NXP. They make what they sell and they are still selling PPC we can use.
but,,,in this case,,,Darth Vader is going to win...eventually Last edited by iggy on 11-Dec-2015 at 05:44 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:45:43
| | [ #83 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @iggy
Today is today , i was reply to some one who is writing something not real with history facts... G5 was my favorite machine yes ... now is X5000 ... but note i have a macbook pro i7 and a Mac Pro Xeon too. plus many other things _________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
WolfToTheMoon
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:53:27
| | [ #84 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 2-Sep-2010 Posts: 1351
From: CRO | | |
|
| @iggy
Quote:
Frankly, I would have settled for a move to ARM. |
ARM seems to have run out of steam on desktops and servers. This means a custom motherboard again(unless you can support integrated graphics, network and I/O of SoC), which mostly defeats the purpose of the ISA switch_________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:53:41
| | [ #85 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9578
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
So, it's a small, albeit the most important, part of the entire o.s., |
Do you get it is ExecSG what makes OS4, well OS4.
Quote:
I made some stats and created a nice chart for you, hoping that your glasses don't make you fail again: |
I fear your own table fails you there:
PowerMac G5 2 GHz: Premiere6 render, Photoshop 50 MB image, Photoshop 150 MB image, Quake 1024x768, Quake 1600x1200 = all within 30 % margin I mentioned... so 5 tests from 8.
Note: Premiere6 QuickTime and both Word benchmarks have probably better optimalization on "x86" hardware and at least the first of them also highly depends on harddisk speed. Quake 3 measures both CPU and GFX card (drivers...) performance, so it is not pure CPU benchmark.
Quote:
Here you made a mistake which only a blind can do, since Quake 3 shows DOUBLE the performance, comparing the DUAL G5 with the single one: 294 vs 147 FPS is exactly 100% more performance of the former over the latter. |
Yes, I´m almost blind, but Quake 3 is SINGLE CORE ONLY benchmark - something other plays role there (GFX card, drivers, what I know...).
Like history, interpreting benchmarks is not your strong side.
Quote:
Of course, WHDLoad solves such issues, but the problem is that, at the time, such software stopped working on 68060 systems. |
At that time? 68060 was introduced in 1994 (CyberStorm)/1995 (Blizzard1260) and buyed mostly for work, not games. Someone, who had enough money for CyberStorm had certainly second computer for old games. By 1997/1998 when peices of 68060 CPU cards fell, there were already HDInstalls for many games (eg. first WHDLoad version was introduced in 1996). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:54:43
| | [ #86 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9578
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Amiga OS 3.9 sold 50K copies, if I remember correctly. That's a lot of cache. |
There was talk about 1/10 of that number, but nothing official. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:56:40
| | [ #87 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @pavlor
you can add this on Quake benchmark to cdimauro... the quality is not the best but is made on real hardware :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY39ZmTE7ug _________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
iggy
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 17:59:17
| | [ #88 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 20-Oct-2010 Posts: 1175
From: Bear, Delaware USA | | |
|
| @tlosm
Yes, and I will probably buy one or two last PPC systems too. But, while I will buy Intel for now, I will never trust them. IBM got too complacent when it became so important to Apple.
If there are no market forces to counter it, it is almost a guarantee that Intel's processor development will suffer.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:08:03
| | [ #89 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @iggy
you can only buy x86 x64 now if you need a desk computer and this is a real big problem... i hope arm will rise up and will become for good desktop computing for gave a big kick in the ass to intel ... will be better if the ppc will return on desktop market but for now it is impossible ... I was like the 199x era when you can chose your machine ... now not all are clones _________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
cdimauro
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:10:59
| | [ #90 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Oct-2012 Posts: 3621
From: Germany | | |
|
| @iggy
Quote:
iggy wrote: @cdimauro
Quote:
Looking only at the graphic, it wasn't an Intel advantage, but a PC (IBM) advantage, thanks to the VGA's mode 13h. |
Oh, that helps explain why I helped write an ET4000 driver for our company's 68K systems (not Amigas btw). Yeah, that was a killer, THEN 2D and finally 3D acceleration.
Could we have kept up,? Well some of us did, but you had to design your systems with more modularity. |
Amiga had also the chance to use RTG cards with "PC graphic chips", but they were the vast minority of the 5 millions user base.
@tlosm
Quote:
tlosm wrote: @all
bla bla bla man (cdmauro) vs facts
|
Well, I reported a lot of FACTs. I know that you don't like them, but that's another question which is related only to you. Quote:
I see that a PowerPC G5 2.5 GHz (4 cores) shows the same performance of Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 2.6 GHz (2 cores): 4 cores vs 2. "Fair" enough...
However this is a synthetic benchmark, which is only useful for people which likes to spend his time just looking at some numbers.
Instead, I reported numbers which come from REAL-WORLD APPLICATIONs. A bit different, right?
And here are some other numbers which come also from other real applications:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/1702/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/1778/5
enjoy also the other pages of the articles... Quote:
Sorry, but they are useless: only good if you want to take a look at them.
In other words: nothing which is useful for a serious comparison.
Look at Anandtech, which used Cinema4D too, and how he produced useful numbers for comparisons. Quote:
... This are real number cdimauro , not taken on internet from some site...
|
Well, what I reported comes from a site, like... your. Yes, the link that you provided is... a site! A site that you used to host some images with some numbers.
Can you tell me the difference with the links of other sites that I provided? Has your site something of magic that cannot be compared to the others?
Ah, yes: there's a little difference. The others come from respectable professional sites, whereas your site is made-up by a perfect unknown!
BTW, they used REAL applications. And produced... guess what... REAL numbers!
But we know: your numbers are more real than the other ones. Orwell rulez... Quote:
all mede by me on real hardware
|
Oh, yeah! It's very well known that the other sites haven't used real hardware. Maybe they took the numbers playing with the lottery... Quote:
after think that who was writing (cdimauro) is not unbiased ... work in intel
|
And here's the usual logical fallacy: the Ad hominem attack.
It seems that facts stop to be facts only because they are reported by an employee of a certain company.
Logic rulez! Quote:
and his life had only an amiga 500
|
Last but not really least, come the lies. No, I didn't owned an Amiga 500: I had an Amiga 2000 and a 1200.
But what this matters with the rest of discussion remains a mystery, of course...
Quote:
tlosm wrote: @iggy
Today is today , i was reply to some one who is writing something not real with history facts... |
I know that you don't like it, but... I reported FACTs. And such data came also from... Mac sites! Blasphemy!!! Quote:
G5 was my favorite machine yes ... now is X5000 ...
|
And of course your opinion isn't biased right? Only mine. Quote:
but note i have a macbook pro i7 and a Mac Pro Xeon too. plus many other things |
Nevertheless, it cannot help hiding the non-sense that you've written... |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:17:47
| | [ #91 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @cdimauro
my bench 3689 is beating this
Mac (Mid 2007) Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 2.8 GHz (2 cores) 3634
and was kicked by this only 180 points! Mac Pro (2008) Intel Xeon 5130 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 3855
Sorry Cdimauro explain me of much threads have this two machine for single core ?
The quad have 4 thread in totals on 2 core and is from 2005 and is kicking machine more younger
Bla bla bla bla bla Last edited by tlosm on 11-Dec-2015 at 06:19 PM. Last edited by tlosm on 11-Dec-2015 at 06:18 PM.
_________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
cdimauro
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:24:19
| | [ #92 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Oct-2012 Posts: 3621
From: Germany | | |
|
| @pavlor
Quote:
pavlor wrote: @cdimauro
Quote:
So, it's a small, albeit the most important, part of the entire o.s., |
Do you get it is ExecSG what makes OS4, well OS4.
|
So no RTG, Petunia, React, composition, etc., right? Only ExecSG. Quote:
Quote:
I made some stats and created a nice chart for you, hoping that your glasses don't make you fail again: |
I fear your own table fails you there:
PowerMac G5 2 GHz: Premiere6 render, Photoshop 50 MB image, Photoshop 150 MB image, Quake 1024x768, Quake 1600x1200 = all within 30 % margin I mentioned... so 5 tests from 8.
|
+25, +29, +27 versus +127, +138, +133, -56, and 45 makes 3 versus 5. Quote:
Note: Premiere6 QuickTime and both Word benchmarks have probably better optimalization on "x86" hardware
|
Premiere comes from Mac, and usually it's optimized for Macs first.
However, what kind of optimizations are you talking about? Quote:
and at least the first of them also highly depends on harddisk speed.
|
The number which I used and reported come from regular hard drives for all systems. Not RAID. Quote:
Quake 3 measures both CPU and GFX card (drivers...) performance, so it is not pure CPU benchmark.
|
If the GFX card is the same, it's the CPU (and memory, of course) which matters. Quote:
Quote:
Here you made a mistake which only a blind can do, since Quake 3 shows DOUBLE the performance, comparing the DUAL G5 with the single one: 294 vs 147 FPS is exactly 100% more performance of the former over the latter. |
Yes, I´m almost blind, but Quake 3 is SINGLE CORE ONLY benchmark - something other plays role there (GFX card, drivers, what I know...).
|
It's very well know that Quake 3 is an SMP application: http://fabiensanglard.net/quake3/renderer.php
And the numbers clearly shows that.
Of course, you cannot see it if you use it on an Amiga system. Quote:
Like history, interpreting benchmarks is not your strong side.
|
Well, spoken from someone which wasn't even able to read correctly the information, I take it as a greeting. Quote:
Quote:
Of course, WHDLoad solves such issues, but the problem is that, at the time, such software stopped working on 68060 systems. |
At that time? 68060 was introduced in 1994 (CyberStorm)/1995 (Blizzard1260) and buyed mostly for work, not games. Someone, who had enough money for CyberStorm had certainly second computer for old games. By 1997/1998 when peices of 68060 CPU cards fell, there were already HDInstalls for many games (eg. first WHDLoad version was introduced in 1996). |
Late, indeed. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
cdimauro
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:25:31
| | [ #93 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 29-Oct-2012 Posts: 3621
From: Germany | | |
|
| @tlosm
Quote:
tlosm wrote: @cdimauro
my bench 3689 is beating this
Mac (Mid 2007) Intel Core 2 Extreme X7900 2.8 GHz (2 cores) 3634
and was kicked by this only 180 points! Mac Pro (2008) Intel Xeon 5130 2.0 GHz (4 cores) 3855
Sorry Cdimauro explain me of much threads have this two machine for single core ?
The quad have 4 thread in totals on 2 core and is from 2005 and is kicking machine more younger
Bla bla bla bla bla |
Threads and cores are the same, right?
The fun continues. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:28:50
| | [ #94 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
There is a lent on the top of the image click on it and will explode in big screen .... more attention please ... look like you have an eagle eye only where you like
... i ask you how much thread had that machine for core ? dont try to play like is your usual ... for change the cards on table ... bla bla bla Last edited by tlosm on 11-Dec-2015 at 06:30 PM.
_________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:43:11
| | [ #95 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9578
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
It's very well know that Quake 3 is an SMP application: |
Well, yes Mac port has SMP by default. I must admit you got me... this time.
However, this doesn´t changes my point about Quake 3: both CPU and GFX speed are benchmarked.
Quote:
However, what kind of optimizations are you talking about? |
We don´t know what options were used during compilation. Different builds could give variable results (eg. look at ffmpeg being slower and slower with newer releases). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 18:51:00
| | [ #96 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @pavlor
the apple port of ioquake is not smp ppc and x86 too, i dont know if last are ... but not thing so ... in all my test only one core was used by quake3 on quad Last edited by tlosm on 11-Dec-2015 at 06:53 PM. Last edited by tlosm on 11-Dec-2015 at 06:52 PM.
_________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 19:09:20
| | [ #97 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9578
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @tlosm
Quote:
the apple port of ioquake is not smp ppc and x86 too |
Most newer ports for PCs are compiled with smp turned off (there were some problems with strange speed decrease), original Mac port had working SMP support:
Quake3 Tests in Mac OS 9.1 and Mac OS X
So yes, today we use Quake3 as single core benchmark, but it was not so in 2003. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tlosm
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 19:13:13
| | [ #98 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 28-Jul-2012 Posts: 2746
From: Amiga land | | |
|
| @pavlor
thanks pavlor , i was reading it on forums ... was curious to understand why i was going on single core ... in any way only one game i see is working in smp on quad and is quake 4 but i dont see much better performances pretty sure for have better performs will be needed only a better video board _________________ I love Amiga and new hope by AmigaNG A 500 + ; CDTV; CD32; PowerMac G5 Quad 8GB,SSD,SSHD,7800gtx,Radeon R5 230 2GB; MacBook Pro Retina I7 2.3ghz; #nomorea-eoninmyhome |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Tomppeli
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 22:43:25
| | [ #99 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 18-Jun-2004 Posts: 1652
From: Home land of Santa, sauna, sisu and salmiakki | | |
|
| @Sky7
Quote:
I have always wondered why AmigaOS 4.X was only developed for PowerPC based Amiga's and not for the Motorola 680xx Amiga's? |
Too little CPU speed, RAM and video RAM and so on._________________ Rock lobster bit me. My Workbench has always preferences. X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE "Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
iggy
| |
Re: Why was AmigaOS 4.X developed only for PowerPC? Posted on 11-Dec-2015 22:52:55
| | [ #100 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 20-Oct-2010 Posts: 1175
From: Bear, Delaware USA | | |
|
| @cdimauro
Quote:
Threads and cores are the same, right? |
Glad to see that you know how ridiculous these comparisons can get. Hard enough to compare similar architectures (like my Core2quad system vs an i5, which btw is still underwhelming) let alone across ISAs.
The thing that worries me is the a single G5 core doesn't compare that badly still.
We now rely on multiple cores and other trickery, but clock speed are only moderately faster.
BTW - I still want my 10GHz P4 intel. You said you'd scale it up for us.
The point in that little bit of flippery being that I wouldn't poke at the bear (IBM). If they hadn't relied on off the shelf parts for the PC, Intel would not be in the position they are now. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|