@-Sam-

Quote:

Does that mean that updated drivers are just around the corner?!

Unfortunately I do not know when, that is not say no, just I do not know as they always say, they are done when they are . . . . .

_________________
Amiga 1000, 3000D Toaster, Checkmate A1500 Plus
http://www.checkmate1500plus.com/

@clusteruk

Quote:

as they always say, they are done when they are . . . . .

...ready.

It's plenty fast enough at the moment as I'm sure you know. The cool transparency effect that I have seen in OS4 videos where you click on a window and see underneath doesn't seem to work as standard. Is this a driver limitation or is there a way of switching this on?

_________________
Sam

@-Sam-

You have to enable it in the GuiPrefs I believe under 3d effects.

The good news is that now update 5 is released and that is what I am using, I can do a proper video about it.

Last edited by clusteruk on 01-Feb-2012 at 05:12 PM.

_________________
Amiga 1000, 3000D Toaster, Checkmate A1500 Plus
http://www.checkmate1500plus.com/

@clusteruk
we are all curios to see some X1000 videos with AmigaOS 4.1 Update 5

_________________
A1200/020+68882 - 6 MB RAM - AmigaOS 3.0

Home Recording Audio

@clusteruk

Quote:

You have to enable it in the GuiPrefs I believe under 3d effects

Okay - thanks - I'll have a look tonight.

_________________
Sam

What kind of improvments have been made to update 5? Are there any new features?

_________________
Amiga: A computer for the creative mind.

Sam440ep 667Mhz + OS4.1
Minimig (Home made)
A1200/030
A2000/030
A500 * 3

@clusteruk Quote:

Have to say that being under NDA sucks

Same here!
(He says, posting from his X1000...)

_________________
Author of the PortablE programming language.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue...

as it was already said, the memory throughtput looks good. the rest not so much. i expect the ragemem benchmark was always considered dependable so i think it applies in this situation as well but its main purpose is not cpu benchmarking i acknowledge, and besides its highly artificial. so how about something more saying?
blender benchmark like here:
http://www.amigans.net/modules/xforum/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=3569&viewmode=compact

if blender requires warp3d in place, use wazp, it shouldnt influence rendering time i think, since no gfx hardware is used in the process.

other ideas?

@wawa

Blender is good start. I would also suggest lame, ffmpeg and DosBox (how much CPU cycles it can reach).

There is Benchmarks time! thread with some ideas.

@pavlor

good find! i was thinking of that thread but couldnt find it. what is important to use benchmarks we already have enough reference for especially on different os4 hardware.
there also once was a 68k centric benchmark thread introduced by bernd rosch afair, it was ffmpeg or something like that. i cant seem to find it either, but as it is 68k and runs on other systems under emulation so it is less informative from standpoint of native performance. i am not insisting on it..

edit:typos

Last edited by wawa on 01-Feb-2012 at 08:45 PM.

@wawa and @pavlor

I already singaled my Benchmarks time thread to Sam in its previous thread regarding the X1000 shipment on last monday...
However nice that someone will remember it(I also updated it with some new benchs yesterday night) :)

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

@Tuxedo

Your G4 seems faster than X1000...

and i imagine the day, when Gallium will run on X1000...

_________________

@Seiya

where do you read that?
However I really think that if someone can do the ffmpeg lame and quake1 tests we can really see how much X1000 was faster than G4 atm(and thing s can only be better with future updates(AmigaOS4.2...).
Quake1 test duno but on ffmeg and lame I'm pretty sure that we get a value near to 3x faster than G4@1000 results...

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

@Tuxedo

i think quake timedemo can be only fair to compare x1k to other machines without 3d hardware acceleration. but thats interesting too if someone can make comparison between sam460 and x1k.

@Tuxedo

Quote:

Tuxedo wrote: @Seiya where do you read that? However I really think that if someone can do the ffmpeg lame and quake1 tests we can really see how much X1000 was faster than G4 atm(and thing s can only be better with future updates(AmigaOS4.2...). Quake1 test duno but on ffmeg and lame I'm pretty sure that we get a value near to 3x faster than G4@1000 results...

OK, here you go, first day - first test, Lame.
http://forum.amigaone.pl/topic65.html

Last edited by mr2 on 01-Feb-2012 at 11:30 PM.

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

@Ande

Quote:

What kind of improvments have been made to update 5? Are there any new features?

I'd love to tell you but I don't know! I haven't used any previous version and I don't have a change log so I cannot say. Also - I don't yet have a 4.1.5 CD.

_________________
Sam

@vox

Quote:

Well, this test would be rudimentary, since no GFX card will be used and CPU will be abused for everything.

Tried Blender with Wazp - just gurus I'm afraid.

_________________
Sam

Well side by side comparison with a G4 PowerMac @ 2 GHz is interestig.
Some numbers from Morphzone (obtained w/ Ragemem on OS4Emu):

Mac numbers--------------------------X1000 numbers
RAGEMEM v0.37 - compiled 11/06/2010 RAGEMEM v0.37 - compiled 11/06/2010

CPU: Unknown 0.0 @ 1999 Mhz ------ CPU: P.A. Semi PWRficient PA6T-1682M B1 @ 1800 Mhz
Caches Sizes: L1: 16 KB - L2: 1024 KB - L3: none -- Caches Sizes: L1: 64 KB - L2: 2048 KB - L3: none
Cache Line: 0 --------------------- Cache Line: 64

--- CPU ---
MAX MIPS: 5982 ------------------- MAX MIPS: 3084

--- L1 ---
READ32: 7606 MB/Sec ----------- READ32: 6851 MB/Sec
READ64: 15209 MB/Sec ---------- READ64: 13682 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 6518 MB/Sec ---------- WRITE32: 6851 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 5072 MB/Sec ---------- WRITE64: 13681 MB/Sec

--- L2 ---
READ32: 2166 MB/Sec ----------- READ32: 3276 MB/Sec
READ64: 2560 MB/Sec ----------- READ64: 4784 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 2445 MB/Sec ---------- WRITE32: 2531 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 3348 MB/Sec ---------- WRITE64: 4090 MB/Sec

--- RAM ---
READ32: 276 MB/Sec ------------ READ32: 2857 MB/Sec
READ64: 276 MB/Sec ------------ READ64: 4000 MB/Sec
WRITE32: 804 MB/Sec ----------- WRITE32: 2732 MB/Sec
WRITE64: 810 MB/Sec ----------- WRITE64: 3383 MB/Sec
WRITE: 752 MB/Sec (Tricky) ---- WRITE: 352 MB/Sec (Tricky)

--- VIDEO BUS ---
READ: 32 MB/Sec --------------- READ: 15 MB/Sec
WRITE: 180 MB/Sec ------------- WRITE: 161 MB/Sec

RAM access is faster on X1000, while cpu powerwise the PowerMac is leading, most cache things are close by each other. From those numbers it looks like both systems are probably more or less on par. The calculation intesive stuff will probably run faster on a PowerMac G4 while the throuput intensive stuff will be better off with an X1000.
Real world numbers will be interesting.

Last edited by Zylesea on 01-Feb-2012 at 11:54 PM.

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

@mr2

nice one!
So my 3x against G4@1000 was confirmed also in that beta stage :)
Only one question:

The lame version used on MacMini and X1000 was AltiVec enabled or not? If not plz try the AltiVec one also.

@zylesea

I think RageMem wasnt so significative...
Plz made lame test on that PowerMac to abotain valid test values...
However from MacMini values on the above test I think G4@2GHz was about around 25 secs, not better...

Last edited by Tuxedo on 02-Feb-2012 at 12:09 AM.

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

@-Sam-

Quote:

Tried Blender with Wazp - just gurus I'm afraid.

Maybe when next WazP 3D is released. Thanks!

No luck for all Blendermaniacs, even that result would be "fake"

_________________
Future Acube and MOS supporter, fi di good, nothing fi di unprofessionals. Learn it harder way!