> That has been the only remaining issue with X5000/1000 users that
> the video cards aren't compatible with linux/AOS/MOS. With the new
> driver support they won't need to swap cards anymore I guess.

No. The planned 3D drivers won't go higher than the already 2D-supported TeraScale 2 generation, which is still older than what OS4 supports as oldest generation (GCN1) in terms of PCIe GPUs. Besides, card swapping has not been necessary since MorphOS 3.17, which incorporated a bug fix to allow MorphOS running with two Radeon cards installed in X5000.

> I would guess a lower level card that is currently supported
> by boxes is available now for testing.

Yes, the comparison has been possible for as long as MorphOS has supported the X5000.

> in terms of compute anything G5 is still king.

Just to add that in pure integer performance, e5500/X5000 trumps equally clocked PPC970/G5.

> If you want the top in GPU X and PCIe PMAC_G5s are on the same level.

It's PCIe v2 vs. v1 but I'm not sure about the real-world impact on MorphOS.

> any hope for mos or aos going smp?

Regarding OS4, latest info from AmiWest 2022:

"a version of the kernel with multi-core support already exists. The operating system always runs on the first core, while other tasks are currently randomly assigned to one of the available cores - in later versions, a scheduler will of course always select the currently least utilized core. However, the multi-core variant of the kernel is still very prone to crashing and is difficult to debug. A demonstration of the multi-core kernel can be seen at A-EON's AmiWest booth, but Solie describes it as "not very exciting because it keeps crashing"."
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2022-10-00104-EN.html

> i heard that os4 use two processor

It doesn't.

> a graphics card more recent (quake 4 for example)
> morphos
> only 1 processor
> old graphic card (Doom 3 )

Considering that Doom 3 is from 2004 and Quake 4 is from 2005, and the latter uses just a slightly enhanced version of the former's engine, I'm not sure those examples really convey what you intended ;-)

ok, so morph can use the 2nd cpu.
so if i still had my old g5 2.3ghz it would utilize both cpus?
how long has this been available?
i remember getting my g5 the moment they were supported


[ Edited by bash64 16.05.2023 - 20:07 ]

Quote:

No, it can not.
As for the "multicore" support - what Andreas wrote is about OS4 (info from AmiWest 2022).

ok, its for os4 and the x5000, if they ever start producing them again

Quote:
My experience:

G5 ID 11,2: supported Linux + MorphOS ( partial official support, in real all important works )
- CPU with SIMD (AltiVec), 2 - 4 cores, 2.0-2.5 GHz, 1.9 MIPS/MHz/core
- RAM max 16 GB DDR2
- 4x PCIe v1.0: x16, x4, x8, x4
- 2x Sata 150, 1x ATA 100 for DVD
- this Mac is very fast, very power hungry and often picky with PCIe cards. Installation of linux is much more difficult there ( not base system, but proper booting )

AmigaOne X1000: supported Linux + AmigaOS
- CPU with SIMD (AltiVec), 2 cores, 1.8 GHz, 2.2 MIPS/MHz/core
- RAM max 16 GB DDR2
- 5x PCIe v1.0: x16, (or x8 +x8 ), x1, x1, x1
- 2x PCI
- 4x Sata 300, 1x ATA 133
- X1000 is fast, but slower than G5. Has much lower power consumption. My X1000 has problems with compatibility of RAMs. I can place only one stick per channel, i.e. my RAM capacity is halved. Even if CFE firmware has many flaws, is much more variable and friendly than Mac OF.

I have no experience:
AmigaOne X5000: supported Linux + AmigaOS + MorphOS
- CPU no SIMD, 2-4 cores, 2.0 - 2.2 GHz, 3.0 MIPS/MHz/core
- RAM max 64 GB DDR3
- 5x PCIe v2.0: x4, x4*, x1*, x1*, x1*
*) total 4 lanes shared via PCIe switch
- 2x PCI
- 2x Sata 300
- According to specs, she is probably very fast in non-SIMD tasks and you can use three OSes. Only PCIe switch causes some latency on bus.

In 2020 I made some performance comparison here.
This comparison is obsolete now, we have many new drivers. And also have in mind, that MorphOS is in most cases more effective than AmigaOS, and it is reflected in the benchmarks.

My general opinion is that Powermac G5 2.5 GHz is faster than needed for MorpOS, iMac G5 is not good and X1000 is fine (but not for MorphOS, of course).


[ Edited by sailor 17.05.2023 - 12:06 ]

powermac g5 is better yes than x5000
but perhaps morphos come to amd processor and they stop ppc
so morphos become more faster then

> ok, its for os4 and the x5000, if they ever start producing them again

Not just X5000. This is how the quote continues:

"work is currently being done on porting the multi-core variant to A1222 plus, after which an adaptation to the AmigaOne X1000 is being planned. Solie hopes that porting the multi-core kernel to the other systems will provide new insights, since other processors are used there."

> G5 ID 11,2: [...] 1.9 MIPS/MHz/core

This should be 2.9.

> AmigaOne X5000: [...] 3.0 MIPS/MHz/core

Some newer Freescale/NXP docs say it's 3.3 (32-bit) and 3.4 (64-bit).

> probably very fast in non-SIMD tasks

...and non-FP tasks.

Quote:

Very probably correct value is 1.9 MIPS/MHz/core - I have to search original source, but fact is, that G4 is faster on same frequency than G5. And G4 has 2.3 MIPS/MHz/core

Quote:

NXP QorlQ sheets for P5010, P5020, P5021 and P5040 (QP5020FS REV 6 and P50405021FS REV 4 ) says 3 DMIPS/MHz per core - i.e core e5500.
Of course, different document revisions can have different values, but a little.

e6500 core has 3.4 MIPS/MHz/core, but in single-thread mode, and 3.0 MIPS/MHz/thread ( 6.0 per core ) in dual-thread mode. This core is dual-thread capable and has SIMD (AltiVec), e5500 not. Unfortunately, we have no MorphOS computer with e6500 core yet.
For this numbers I don't know document nr, it is from NXP Community TechSupport. FactSheets for different e6500 CPUs gives slightly different values.



[ Edited by sailor 17.05.2023 - 13:20 ]

P.S.:
PowerPC architecture inside Amiga and AmigaNG
In Czech language, there still can be some erros, but majority of details is verified.

Some graphs are in the end.

[ Edited by sailor 17.05.2023 - 13:29 ]

>>> G5 ID 11,2: [...] 1.9 MIPS/MHz/core

>> This should be 2.9.

> Very probably correct value is 1.9 MIPS/MHz/core -
> I have to search original source

Please link the source if you find it. I'll spare you sources for 2.9 because the web is full of it ;-)

> fact is, that G4 is faster on same frequency than G5.

I doubt it as a general statement of fact. It is true for AltiVec/VMX code and for binaries using instructions the PPC970 lacks and has to emulate (for instance mcrxr which makes a PPC970-specific E-UAE binary necessary to make it faster on G5 than on G4), though.

https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=8762&start=58
https://morph.zone/modules/newbb_plus/viewtopic.php?forum=3&topic_id=8762&start=61

>>> AmigaOne X5000: [...] 3.0 MIPS/MHz/core

>> Some newer Freescale/NXP docs say it's 3.3 (32-bit) and 3.4 (64-bit).

> NXP QorlQ sheets [...] says 3 DMIPS/MHz per core - i.e core e5500.

Yes, I know. That's why I was referring to newer docs (as recent as 2017, referenced in the linked comment of mine) that mention higher figures for e5500. That's not to say that one is more true than another, just that there's been inconsistent data around from Freescale/NXP.

> e6500 core has 3.4 MIPS/MHz/core, but in single-thread mode,
> and 3.0 MIPS/MHz/thread ( 6.0 per core ) in dual-thread mode.

As referenced in my linked comment, also the DMIPS figures for the e6500 have been inconsistently given by Freescale/NXP. Figures range from 5.4 to 7 dual-threaded, i.e. 2.7 to 3.5 per thread, and from 3.3 to 3.5 (non-SIMD) single-threaded.

> This core is dual-thread capable and has SIMD (AltiVec), e5500 not.

I'm well aware of this, of course.

Quote:

Great writeup with differences!

I do disagree a 2.5 GHz 11,2 Mac isn't powerful enough. For most things you're 100% right but:
1. For certain websites Wayfarer still is too slow.
2. For certain video files like 4k, even the mighty 2.7 has trouble.

The application set for MorphOS is becoming brilliant where you can use it for so much now, but when you need real cpu and bus grunt to get the job done even the 2.5 is too slow.

I would get a single processor 11,2 (2.0 or 2.3 GHz) and put a single 2.5 in it. Runs MUCH cooler and quieter with 0% performance hit.

> PowerPC architecture inside Amiga and AmigaNG
> [...] majority of details is verified. Some graphs are in the end.

I can see the 1.9 figure mentioned in your article and also the graphs, but no reference to any source.

I checked my "archives" and also not found direct original source. Respective I found notes with links to IBM pages, but links not works now and IBM is wayback-machine very unfriendly.
So I have only indirect comparisons like these:
BBN, Military+Aerospace Design
Second link has mosty Acces denied, but sometimes it can open.

Anyway it is not so much important. Important are real results.
Real speed of G5 970 CPU on the same frequency is lower than G4 and G3 and these two had 2.3 MIPS/MHz for sure.
Also all sources ( unfortunately there no original PA-Semi document ) says, PA6T-1682M has 2.2 MIPS/MHz/core, and in real life AmigaOne X1000 with 1.8 GHz is equal or faster than iMac 2.1 GHz.

So, I cannot say for sure what is exact value of G5 MIPS and I appologize if I misinformed somebody. But real-life comparisons says 1.9 is much closer to real number than 2.9.

If you wanted to take the time and found a real source from IBM, I will be be glad. And even I also like to be precise, I don't want to spend time on it.


[ Edited by sailor 18.05.2023 - 10:59 ]

Quote:

That would correspond with the fact that a 1,8 GHz Power Mac G5 running on one CPU (MorphOS) is roughly on par with PowerBook G4 @1,67 GHz.

So if I overclocked the G4 1.67 to 1.8GHz, it would be similarly efficient as the G5 2.1GHz in the iMac G5.

Quote:

Which is contradicted by the fact such a PowerBook did easily crush the X1000 in real world test back in the days.

-> Meaningless Instruction Per Second

There is also much more to performance then just the CPU running code in it's cache.

G4s can't make use of DDR(2) and even on old SDRAM they barely get to use the full performance
Pegasos G4 is even worse
X1000 doesn't do good as it should

G5 seems to be the only one with a proper RAM interface.

End result is that real performance of G5 (high clocked) G4 and X1000/5000 is so close with each having it's own minor strong point that performance just shouldn't be a deciding factor which to get.

Quote:

Yes something like that
We can do many real tests, but never will be absolutely fair.
- MorphOS is more efficient than AmigaOS 4
- AmigaOS 4 can use better graphics cards
- linux utilize all cores
- only common platform for all these computers is Debian 8 or similar distro with single-thread test. Newer distros have no support for exotics like Pegasos 2 and AmigaOne XE.
- if we use linux for testing, here is big disadvantage for Mac Mini and similar, since R100/R200 graphics drivers are poor.
- and has no sense made test with linux, as we want to use MorphOS

So best way is to use impressions and feeling with using of our computers.
And of course, time-to-time do some real benchmark, but we must have in mind, that benchmark is big simplification. Benchmark is simple answer for question which has no simple answer.


[ Edited by sailor 18.05.2023 - 13:27 ]

> Real speed of G5 970 CPU on the same frequency is lower than G4 and G3

As I wrote, for a fair comparison it's important that the binaries executed by the PPC970 do not contain instructions that the G5 lacks, else what you're actually measuring is how fast the G5 can emulate certain portions of the G3/G4. Ideally, binaries come in at least two fashions, one for pre-G5 (which could be two because of AltiVec) and one for G5. Except for E-UAE, I'm not aware of G5-specific binaries for MorphOS (and I doubt there are G5-specific code paths in the binaries). So considering that the very same MorphOS binaries do run on G2 (Efika) to G5 (as well as several Book III-E microarchitectures), what the G5 is actually running is generic PPC code not adapted to the peculiarities of the PPC970 instructions and microarchitecture, including missing instructions it has to emulate. As a result, I'm sure MorphOS programs on G5 could be even faster with binaries compiled for 32-bit PPC970.
I wrote about these things 3 years ago in another thread (comments #2 and #4).

> I cannot say for sure what is exact value of G5 MIPS

Just to make sure we're not talking past each other: What l'm referring to is not just MIPS (which is really meaningless) but Dhrystone 2.1 MIPS (DMIPS). Dhrystone 2.1 is a specific version of a specific benchmark algorithm.

> If you wanted to take the time and found a real source from IBM, I will be be glad.

At your service:

https://bunniestudios.com/blog/images/efuse3.pdf (p. 1, 6)
http://datasheet.digchip.com/205/205-00367-0-970.pdf (p. 13, 14)

> G5 seems to be the only one with a proper RAM interface.

According to RAGEMEM results, PA6T's memory bandwidth outperforms that of PPC970FX+CPC925. Would be interesting to know the RAGEMEM results of PPC970MP+CPC945. Can someone with PowerMac11,2 please do this (or link to results if already done)?

> So if I overclocked the G4 1.67 to 1.8GHz, it would be
> similarly efficient as the G5 2.1GHz in the iMac G5.

Efficiency means performance per watt, doesn't it? That opens quite another can of worms…

Quote:

In pure computing this would be true. But throughput of the g5 systems is way better. I.e. browsing and video replay on a G5 is quite better on my g5 than a G4, while things like jpg decoding is worse.

Comparing the myiMac G5 2.1 with my Powerbook (5.6) 1.67 shows that browsing on the iMac is a good tad smoother, and video replay works with higher resolutions w/o frame dropping, but decoding a jpg in showcase is faster on the Powerbook.

It's also noteworthy that (surprisingly) the SATA ssd on the G5 does not yield (significantly) higher speeds than the PATA/mSATA adadtper SSD package on the Powerbook.

In contrast to @sailor I think the iMac is a pretty nice system: It's not the fastest of all, but still conveniently fast while not bulky, relatively energy efficient and rather silent.