@thread

The world needs to compare this system with x86 systems using same graphics card.

Please test :

Linux Ubuntu on Tabor and i3 or i5 systems heavy Quake 3 or Quake 4 benchmark at 720p.

Its not in any way to discredit the system, just to know what software can be run. eg retroarch simulating high end game system.

It also helps know architecture differences, cpu DMIPS for AI, encode and decode of video.

A stable 720p at 30 or 60 FPS on some AAA games.

http://www.opengamebenchmarks.org/

Game benchmarks has some linux games at 1080p to compare linux performance.

Shame Dan not official presenter for new stuff, he is great on Youtube - we need more youtube videos that demo Amiga systems, even running linux !

How well does steam games run in linux ? Kodi ? Android ?

Lets pray for USB 3.

Hope for new UI/GUI this one is OLD.

check out Substance Designer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbGPWj6CkFk#t=379.07258

New Krita UI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZpA_VTbHTU

New Affinity software
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ3Og9cFgC8

Amiga is not the only market.

Last edited by asymetrix on 24-Jan-2017 at 05:42 PM.
Last edited by asymetrix on 24-Jan-2017 at 05:40 PM.

_________________
Download 499.26 Mbps, 659.94 Mbps Upload :)

@Seiya

640x480x8 software rendering

_________________
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

@asymetrix

We are not that far yet... (OS4 betatesting is about to start).

As of raw performance we know:
Integer: G3 1.0-1.2 GHz
FPU (native): G3 600 MHz
2 cores
PCIe 2.0 x4


Nearly 6 years old Core i5-2500K I use right now is probably 10 times faster in single core integer tasks.

I always start laughing, when I think about : It's not a big deal.

Min. 32:10


Steven Solie about the SPE

_________________
Sometimes we give people a lot of credit just because they’re writing nice sentences even if it isn’t adding up to much.

@kas1e

Quote:

kas1e wrote: :) that very naive :) I mean, no one will make "multiply binaries" (ok, maybe one or two, who will have that Tabor thing). See how much multiply binaries we have for altivec (which is doing things _better_, and it we didn't support it all the time, why anyone will support some slow, different cpu even if he dind't have it by hands ? For what reassons ?). Also not only Huno doing his ports, there is a loooot of different kind of stuff on os4depot, which is in binary form and _never_ will be recompiled as those who do it die, or left. But to be seen, what ones will just works, and what ones will not. I just do not know why that problem need it at all. I can understand if it was 10GHZ cpu, with all super ultrafast stuff, and "mostly" ppc , but "just" fpu problems. Ok, that can be reasonable to live with problems. But why need to spend developer's time, on making different binaries for some underpowered HW ? Sorry, i fail to see any logic and motivation here. Maybe only me.

No, it's not just you.

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

@Zylesea

But then, new hardware are needed that people can afford. It will offcourse be too expensive considering what you get but then it'll be the overall experience that matters and the SAM 460 is doing alright?

Yes, a lot more horsepower for less money is what we all want but since we won't get it this is the best that we can hope for.

I do agree however, I'd love for something more up to date to be available.

@pavlor

I was trying to figure out if PCIe x4 interface for Tabor is 1.0 or 2.0. In old documentation it says 1.0 for e500 v2. Now NXP site it says 2.0. Which one is it? The difference in speed is 2x.

I would also add here that Tabor has DDR3 800 MHz RAM and 400 MHz bus. What is the main bus speed on SAM460 and Eyetech AmigsOne models? I think that Tabor has an advantage here. I know that SAM460 uses DDR2 RAM.

-Dooz

Quote:

pavlor wrote: @asymetrix We are not that far yet... (OS4 betatesting is about to start). As of raw performance we know: Integer: G3 1.0-1.2 GHz FPU (native): G3 600 MHz 2 cores PCIe 2.0 x4 Nearly 6 years old Core i5-2500K I use right now is probably 10 times faster in single core integer tasks.

@Birbo

Quote:

I always start laughing, when I think about : It's not a big deal. Min. 32:10 Steven Solie about the SPE

Spokesperson has some 'alternative facts' ...

@BSzili

Quote:

BSzili wrote: @WolfpackN64 It's not that simple, the SPE FPU instructions effect the integer registers in an incompatible way. It's not like the Tabor was announced yesterday, we've went through this a thousand times.

Indeed. People should read up a bit. There is no need for such discussion, it's all well established already.

@TRIPOS

I read up and found technical information varying from what was discussed. We're all free to look this up and nothing on this forum that has been said in set in stone.

@Birbo

Quote:

Birbo wrote: I always start laughing, when I think about : It's not a big deal. Min. 32:10 Steven Solie about the SPE

Oh! My! God! Just when you thought you had seen it all in the amigaworld, and there he is once again, winning the cake!



"Someone on some... eh, internet forum, haha"



Remember "Bagdad Bob" from Iraqi television in the beginning of the second Gulf War? Claiming "everything is fine" while paintings behind him fell down from the walls because of the bombings? Picture Bagdad Bob in a Twilight Zone episode trying to sell you "Tabor Alternative Facts", and it will be more or less exactly what you can see 32:10 into that film.

@WolfpackN64

Quote:

WolfpackN64 wrote: nothing on this forum that has been said in set in stone.

"Facts may be that it's a sphere, but according to alternative facts it's clearly a cube"

And no, it's not just "on this forum". It's not even a matter of debate.

@TRIPOS

I've clearly laid out my arguments as to why the SPE can at least partially function as an FPU and the only awnser I got was "it doesn't work this way". That's not something I can content with.

@WolfpackN64

Thing is, all these issues - how big they will be eventually - could have been avoided if [the ones who ordered the Tabor boards] had thought about it before.
Gosh, the incompability about the different e500 cores is really nothing new, but discussed since ages.
It may work, but for what price: a mess (many different cpu optimized binaries) and additional work (and that in this Amiga micro cosmos that of course has überplenty development resources. It's a stupid decision to use an incompatible cpu. And there would have been alternatives.

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

@dooz

Quote:

What is the main bus speed on SAM460 and Eyetech AmigsOne models?

The AmigaOne models use SDR RAM and bus speed is 133Mhz although some have been clocked down to 100Mhz by the user. The AGP bus is 66Mhz but the RadeonHD (Still nobody seems to have tested a Southern Islands based card) cards only work in the 33Mhz PCI slots.

@WolfpackN64

don't listen to him, you do remember the idiotic statement that Comodore named the OS for Workbench?

_________________
nox's in the house!

@noXLar

Quote:

noXLar wrote: @WolfpackN64 don't listen to him, you do remember the idiotic statement that Comodore named the OS for Workbench?

1. Commodore themselves never sold a product called "Amiga OS". There were plans for a Village Tronic published 3.1 upgrade for existing Amigas that had "Amiga OS" printed on the box...



...but that one didn't make it during Commodore's life span. There was a batch already produced that someone spread to dealers, but they were considered stolen/pirated by the IP owner. Others (mostly those who resold it) didn't use such strong words, but more like "unofficial" or "unreleased".

2. The "Amiga OS" name was first used later by Escom, when they released an official 3.1 upgrade, and also by H&P for later versions. Today "AmigaOS" has de-facto became synonymous with Hyperion's OS4, since Hyperion has an exclusive license to use this name for this. Hence AmigaOS = OS4.

3. When Cloanto acquired all the copyrights to all Commodore materials up to the bankruptcy, they started selling slightly fixed versions of 1.3, 2.04 and 3.1, all under the trademark "Workbench". This is the product name. They are all available stand-alone today, as is Workbench 3.X (capital X - supposedly it can both be read as Roman number "10", as well as some "x"-factor variable of a moving target) through the Amiga Forever package.

So in essence, it was Workbench in the past, it is Workbench in the present, and the exception is the H&P historical parenthesis and Hyperion's OS4, which is a different product really.





Heck, with an exception of a "Classic AmigaOS" prefix in one headline, even Hyperion is using "Workbench" mark literally everywhere when they are selling their parallel Workbench 3.1 product:





"Workbench" is the name of the product, both from Commodore, from Cloanto and from Hyperion!

De-facto:

Workbench is for Amiga computers, old or new, real or FPGA, hardware or emulated.
AmigaOS4 is for Amigaone computers (and the PowerUP platform, emulated or not).

Quote:

TRIPOS wrote: @noXLar Quote: noXLar wrote: @WolfpackN64 don't listen to him, you do remember the idiotic statement that Comodore named the OS for Workbench? I can't accept the fact that Amiga OS4.x is the legitimate successor to previous releases and I'll deny that it is until I'm blue in the face.

Did Commodore themselves ever refer to the operating system as whole, as Workbench?


[img]https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0878/7028/products/57_d6df2bc1-868f-4caf-acad-70ea09ae7d23_1024x1024.jpg?v=1472576929[/img]

@Rob

Get back on topic this was original about Tabor board

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

@Rob

Quote:

Did Commodore themselves ever refer to the operating system

My recollection (and I lived through the whole Commodore era from Vic20/64) was that Commodore - as well as most others - rarely spoke in terms of Operating Systems at all back then, though of course it happened, since the OS was part of the package (and I never meant to claim different). But what they sold was the "Amiga". And this is what people bought. And sometimes you could see someone asking "does this program work with Workbench 2.04?" and the reply could be "No, it requires Workbench 3.0 so you should upgrade". This was a time when people bought a computer and "Operating System" was something that came along with it, but you didn't think much of it by itself. Not even Mac users. I'd say that when Apple started to separate their OS into a separate product, calling it Mac OS, that's about when Commodore started to think the same.

Commodore however never got to sell any product branded "Amiga OS". But Escom did.

The process of turning the OS into its own product with its own merits (and with its own trade mark) also involved cleaning up the source code, rewriting chunks of it from whatever original sources into GCC, rethinking stuff making things more easily portable, etc, but with the 3.1 API as a guiding star. The "3.1 sources v.2" if you will. These sources is what later "Amiga OS" developments used.

"Amiga OS" also marks the beginning of the focus shift from the Commodore era, where the H/W had been completely in the center and the OS simply some (grossly under-prioritized) appendix that made the H/W usable, into the new deal where the OS would get all the attention and the H/W much less prioritized. Look what happened thereafter. Sure, there was some lame attempt at new H/W (the Walker), which was a sorry piece of gear that didn't bring much new to the table (so it doesn't really matter it never happened), especially not considering how the world had already started to move on. But the OS side of things got a lot more attention after the "Amiga OS" turning point, first from H&P, then from Hyperion's contractors.

But looking at it from today's perspective, the "Amiga OS" series of developments turned out to be more of a fork perhaps. Because people are still using Amiga computers, the brand new Commodore A1200 Reloaded is coming, various new FPGA stuff is coming etc, we have the UAE users, and then the collectors, preservation- and retro enthusiasts, and they all still want Workbench!

And in my picture above you can see the direct lineage from Commodore's Workbench to Cloanto's Workbench:

The "Checkmark Workbench" (Cloanto's) in the picture is essentially the same binaries as once delivered by Commodore, with only minor fixes applied. Thus it's perfect for retro enthusiasts and preservation enthusiasts that wants "the original thing". And for this reason, Cloanto markets all three major versions of the Commodore Workbench.

The "Boing Ball Workbench" (Hyperion's) is based on the "3.1 sources v.2" that once also was the base for the "Amiga OS" development branch/fork, presumably what OS4 used as a foundation. Many/most binaries are probably not identical to the Commodore/Cloanto Workbench, but the 3.1 API is the common denominator for both. And as noted above, it's also sold and marketed as "Workbench" (as an obvious aggression towards Cloanto, the owner of the Workbench trade mark).

These two "Workbenches" are marketed today in parallel. They are current products, like it or not. They are still published, and you can order them new!

Besides those two, you have the three "NG" options; AROS, MorphOS and AmigaOS4, that all shares the same 3.1 API as a common denominator, but has taken things much further. They don't run very well on Amiga computers though, they either need "NG" H/W or Amiga emulators at fast PC's to reach bearable speeds.

I know, Rob, that in your world there is only one "legit" OS, the "Amiga OS 4", and that you view this not as a fork, but as the latest instance in the long "Amiga OS" lineage. But truth is there are de-facto currently 5 (five!) options very much alive and available. All with their differences, all with their respective pros/cons, all targeting different customer needs and wants. And among them is actually Workbench (or rather two of them )!




@g01df1sh

Quote:

g01df1sh wrote: @Rob Get back on topic this was original about Tabor board

Good idea!

This was my last post on this side-track!

Back to the marvelous Tabor now!