I don't really want to comment in this thread, but here goes anyway...

Whoever it was who posted about that you shouldn't buy hardware for MorphOS until MorphOS is actually released with support for said hardware is absolutely right. You shouldn't. We do not and can not make any guarantees about the release date or hardware support of future MorphOS releases.

That being said, let's also kill some of the conspiracy theories. The X5000 firmware resides on a micro SD card, so unless you manage to break the micro SD slot on the motherboard, installing a new firmware on the X5000 is completely risk free.

We do have the X5000 firmware source code and should we ever need to, we can create our own firmware images for the X5000. No one can stop us from doing that, legally or otherwise.

For everything else, feel free to continue speculating :)

> Does Setpatch alter the kickstart ROM code? Did the author of
> BlizzKick require that source code?

You mean the MorphOS team has developed a *runtime* patch for the X5000 firmware? If yes, why should any "unsanctioned user intervention" be required as you say?

>>> then aeon went and released the unpatched version, meaning that
>>> mos won't run on it without unsanctioned user intervention.

>> So pampers has the patched version on his X5000? If so, how did it arrive there?

> Why don't you ask him? Why are you asking me these things?

Because you came here making these weird claims out of nowhere. But I'll ask him anyway.

> If you want details, ask the MorphOS development team.

Why should I ask *them* for details of claims *you* are making? That wouldn't make the slightest sense.

> I get it as right as "A1" and "OS4". Think about it.

Think about Jim's comment #580.

> The only thing I did to the motherboard was exchanging cpu fan as I have
> the oldest revision with quite crap and noisy fan, other than that - nothing.

In order to run MorphOS on your X5000:
- did you have to install a firmware binary patch, or
- does your X5000 have to execute a firmware runtime patch, or
- do you have to use another firmware than the one provided by A-Eon?

> We do have the X5000 firmware source code and should we ever need to,
> we can create our own firmware images for the X5000.

Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

Quote:

That is something.
I didn't think they'd need it, but "We do have the X5000 firmware source code...", hmm, sounds like someone is getting first rate support from the manufacturer.

I'm impressed.
So, uh, Kenny...how's that affect your theory? ;)

Quote:

It doesn't. The X5000 is still being sold to public with the original firmware, and so far nobody's commented on the legality of changing it.

Quote:

- No
- No
- No, but I requested modified firmware from Bigfoot and he was kind enough to make me one. My one has logo removed, removed double checking drives so it's much faster while booting.

>> In order to run MorphOS on your X5000:
>> - did you have to install a firmware binary patch, or
>> - does your X5000 have to execute a firmware runtime patch, or
>> - do you have to use another firmware than the one provided by A-Eon?

> - No
> - No
> - No

Thanks for the clear answer.

Quote:

I disable that when its used in PC bios myself so that makes sense, and what was removed could even be replaced.

Quote:

Quote:

I disable that when its used in PC bios myself so that makes sense, and what was removed could even be replaced.

Quote:

Obviously, if the source was supplied by the manufacturer, changing it is not an issue.

"feel free to continue speculating" :) +1!





[ Edited by Jim 13.10.2016 - 08:21 ]

Addendum:

>> dnetc: [...]
>> AmigaMARK: [...]
>> nbench: [...]
>> Stream: [...]

> I prepared a relative comparison with my 1.5 GHz Mac mini G4. The following list
> shows the performance of your 2.0 GHz X5000/Cyrus/P5020 compared to my
> 1.5 GHz Mac mini/MPC7447A (=1.00) at the leftmost position, then the scaled
> per-clock performance comparison, and the name of the specific test at last position.

Comparison of 2.0 GHz X5000/Cyrus/P5020 with my 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5/PPC970FX (=1.00):

dnetc

0.99 | 1.14 : KOGE 3.1 Scalar
1.05 | 1.20 : MH 2-pipe
0.98 | 1.13 : KKS 2-pipe
1.10 | 1.27 : KKS 604e
1.22 | 1.40 : MH 1-pipe
1.20 | 1.38 : MH 1-pipe 604e

AmigaMARK CPU

1.30 | 1.49 : BogoMIPS ppc-assembler inline
1.03 | 1.19 : Dhrystones
0.80 | 0.92 : 40th Fibonacci number
0.64 | 0.74 : FPU query [Double Precision] - Al Aburto
0.78 | 0.89 : LibJPEG - libjpeg [v6b]
0.95 | 1.10 : Mars chiper
1.34 | 1.55 : MD5 checksuming (RFC 1321) L. Peter Deutsch
1.10 | 1.26 : MP3 -> CDDA [mpega.library]
1.04 | 1.20 : Serpent chiper
0.74 | 0.85 : ZLib functions [v1.1.4]
0.94 | 1.08 : TOTAL CPU

AmigaMARK Memory

1.32 | 1.52 : Read CPU-Cache
0.31 | 0.36 : Read FAST byte [8]
0.30 | 0.35 : Read FAST word [16]
0.42 | 0.49 : Read FAST long [32]
0.35 | 0.40 : Write FAST byte [8]
0.36 | 0.42 : Write FAST word [16]
0.48 | 0.56 : Write FAST long [32]
0.43 | 0.50 : Copy FAST 2 FAST
0.76 | 0.87 : Allocate Memory FAST
1.30 | 1.50 : Initialize Memory FAST
0.60 | 0.69 : TOTAL MEM

nbench

1.35 | 1.55 : NUMERIC SORT
0.74 | 0.85 : STRING SORT
1.17 | 1.34 : BITFIELD
0.93 | 1.07 : FP EMULATION
0.74 | 0.86 : FOURIER
0.93 | 1.07 : ASSIGNMENT
1.25 | 1.44 : IDEA
1.04 | 1.19 : HUFFMAN
0.68 | 0.78 : NEURAL NET
0.55 | 0.63 : LU DECOMPOSITION
1.04 | 1.19 : INTEGER INDEX
0.65 | 0.75 : FLOATING-POINT INDEX
0.93 | 1.07 : MEMORY INDEX
1.13 | 1.30 : INTEGER INDEX

stream

0.56 | 0.65 : Copy
0.61 | 0.70 : Scale
0.74 | 0.85 : Add
0.73 | 0.84 : Triad

@Andreas_Wolf

Excuse me for being thick, but with 1.00 being reference the high numbers are faster?

Quote:

I'm also not entirely sure what these numbers are supposed to be, but you have "integer index" listed twice with two different values.

> with 1.00 being reference the high numbers are faster?

Yes, 1.00 being reference means that higher numbers are faster and lower numbers are slower.

> you have "integer index" listed twice with two different values.

Yes, nbench outputs two integer indexes and two floating-point indexes for the reason explained there:

http://serverfault.com/questions/254684/how-do-i-interpret-bytemark-nbench-results

The two floating-point indexes are proportional between compared machines, that's why I only list it once. That's however not the case for the two integer indexes, hence I list them both.

Quote:

Well that confirms my fears that the Cyrus/X5000 can't top a 12 year old PowerMac in speed, and that is not even taking the lack of Altivec into account. That seems to be the last chance for a PPC platform to beat a PowerMac, not happening. Looks like I'll be staying with my G5 2.7Ghz until the switch to MorphOS-NG.

> that confirms my fears that the Cyrus/X5000 can't top a 12 year old PowerMac in speed

To me, it confirms that overally it beats the 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5 in non-SIMD integer operations.

Quote:

I thought that the first numbers were for the X5000, and second numbers were for the 2.3GHz G5, making the results that the G5 is faster in all tests? Didn't your message list the X5000 first, then the G5, before the listing of all the test results?

Quote:

Quote:


Quote:

Now you completely lost me. Have you been drinking?

> I thought that the first numbers were for the X5000, and second numbers were
> for the 2.3GHz G5 [...]?

No, the G5 is, as I wrote, scaled to 1.00. To quote from my benchmark posting which in turn quotes from my January benchmark posting (with Mac mini G4 back then, updated results) that already used the same scheme:

"The following list shows the performance of your 2.0 GHz X5000/Cyrus/P5020 compared to my 1.5 GHz Mac mini/MPC7447A (=1.00) at the leftmost position, then the scaled per-clock performance comparison, and the name of the specific test at last position."

>> To me, it confirms that overally it beats the 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5 in
>> non-SIMD integer operations.

> Now you completely lost me.

Of the previously posted benchmarks, the following are CPU-bound integer ones (there're probably more, but those are the ones I'm sure of):

dnetc

0.99 | 1.14 : KOGE 3.1 Scalar
1.05 | 1.20 : MH 2-pipe
0.98 | 1.13 : KKS 2-pipe
1.10 | 1.27 : KKS 604e
1.22 | 1.40 : MH 1-pipe
1.20 | 1.38 : MH 1-pipe 604e

AmigaMARK CPU

1.30 | 1.49 : BogoMIPS ppc-assembler inline
1.03 | 1.19 : Dhrystones

nbench

1.35 | 1.55 : NUMERIC SORT
0.74 | 0.85 : STRING SORT
1.17 | 1.34 : BITFIELD
0.93 | 1.07 : FP EMULATION
0.93 | 1.07 : ASSIGNMENT
1.25 | 1.44 : IDEA
1.04 | 1.19 : HUFFMAN

As you can see, my 2.3 GHz PowerMac G5 is slower in 67% of cases. (And regarding per-clock non-SIMD integer performance, the PowerMac G5 is slower in 93% of cases.)

I feel comfortable enough with the benches to have decided to replace my G5s with a P5040 based X5000 (when available).
Enough that I have parted out my 2.7 GHz system.
I retained a 2.5 GHz quad core PCIe G5 for benchmark comparisons.
But even that will be closely matched by the previously mentioned X5000 while drawing a fraction of the power.

These WILL be good (if albiet expensive) systems to run MorphOS on.

Is it just me or does the benchmark differences not look all that impressive? It's faster yes, but for the most part not all that much.

> It's faster yes

...for (non-SIMD) integer operations. For floating point and memory speed, it seems to be the other way round.