Spectre660 wrote:
Only Tabor Benchmark released thus far was for Tower57 .

Link

As I have a few Next-Generation Amiga machines (*understatement*) I decided to perform some of my own Tower57 benchmarks. Although as I have often said, I'm not a great fan of benchmarks, it was good to be able to test the Amiga Next-Generation systems against mainstream computers. The results are quite remarkable. Unfortunately, I could not get the AROS version to run on my machine because I need to update my version of Icaros Desktop, a job I put aside for another day. Fortunately I have a good selection of AmigaOS and MorphOS machines to keep me busy. I used the full true colour version of Tower 57 rather than the reduced 16-bit version for lower powered machines for my benchmark comparisons. The model of graphic card also has an effect on the frames per second (fps) performance of Tower57. As you might expect, more powerful graphics cards produce better results. So in all of the tests with my AmigaOne machines, I used a middish-upper range passively cooled 1Gb Radeon HD7750 graphics card. All of the MorphOS based Apple machines used the standard built-in graphics cards they were supplied with.

As you might expect, more powerful graphics cards produce better results. So in all of the tests with my AmigaOne machines, I used a middish-upper range passively cooled 1Gb Radeon HD7750 graphics card. All of the MorphOS based Apple machines used the standard built-in graphics cards they were supplied with.

redrumloa wrote:
Very few of us G5 owners have the original stock gfx card in use. I have my Radeon 9650 on a shelf as a backup.

Kronos wrote:

Dunno, I upgraded the 9600 in my G5 to a 9650 for the sole purpose of having DualLink DVI and sometimes later I downgraded to a 9000 (not even "Pro") in a G4 with a sidedish of Voodoo.

Performance difference? Never noticed one.

redrumloa wrote:
Why OS4 systems ever shipped with Radeon R9s that aren't anywhere near being fully supported I will never understand.

KennyR wrote:
[Not all R9 cards are so impractical, but even so, to cram this kind of monster into a system where it can't even run a video in 1080p and have to use VGA or DVI output is the height of stupidity.

Spectre660 wrote:
Get up to speed before you make these sweeping and incorrct statements.
HDMI output works and certain codec 1080p video's work.

KennyR wrote:
Quote:

What use is HDMI on an R9? They're meant for 4k, and HDMI can only handle it at 15 Hz. With those cards you go DisplayPort or you go for a different card.

KennyR wrote:
Especially from a community that continues to pretend that "hardware isn't everything". Yet turn your back and they go run out and buy the highest end card they can get away with. A 2003-era Radeon 9000 like I had in my Peg-1 will still easily run almost everything available.

Spectre660 wrote:
Some people find it fun to attempt to push the so called limits.

Some people seem to have a kind of "New hardware Phobia".

Spectre660 wrote:
@ASiegel

The context of AmigaOS 4.1 3D is in a specific range (Radeon R7-240 - Radeon HD7730 - Radeon RX580) so yes there is a substantial performance gain in that range.
If you use a range outside of this then that is another issue.

I find it easier to source the new Porche engines to put in the new ish tractor than to find old tractor engines that survive to be tweaked.

Sure I am excited. I am more vocal though because of KennyR's and other's style of painting with what I consider to be too wide a brush .

redrumloa wrote:
I got a chance to go out to my workshop today and do a benchmark because of curiosity. Here's my setup on the desk.

PowerMac G5 @ 2.3Ghz
Ati Radeon X800

One thing I found out on this setup is in quake lower screen resolutions gave me lower FPS than higher resolutions. Go figure. Anyhow at 1600x1200 and EVERYTHING maxed out I got 114.9 fps.

Until (if?) GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE is handled by the hardware, using CPU to convert the data will introduce a slow down. As you see, the more HiRes (so more pressure on GPU, less on CPU), the less speed difference, so CPU used for Data conversion count here.
Also, minigl is, I guess, made for Quake3 in mind and is probably heavily optimize for this engine. I don't it's completly fair to expect gl4es to be faster here (even when GL_UNSIGNED_BYTE handled by hardware).
What gl4es will bring is more function, and faster speed when using advanced OpenGL functions (like TexGen or shaders), I don't think you'll see any speed advange of gl4es will using idTech3 based games, or simple game with low geometry and no complex opengl renderer.
Remember Neverball is much faster with gl4es (and this one use TexGen).
You may see also benefit from gl4es on SeriousEngine or maybe TORCS also (or SpeedDream too). Foobillard++ also should works better on gl4es (if it even works with minigl).

ASiegel schrieb:

Sure, if money is no concern, then buying a brand new Porsche engine is trivial. When you are rich, life is easy. If, however, your budget is restricted, that is a different story altogether.

Zylesea wrote:
Quote:

Plus, using the old existing kit for a task that it can handle just as well is way more eco friendly. I mean the ecological footprint of a gfx card may not be the highest, but still producing new kit consumes additional resources while keeping the old kit running, uses the already consumes recurces more intensively (of course if the new kit consumes significantly less energy the calculation may be different though)...

Spectre660 wrote:
Quote:

9600 PRO : TDP= 18W
X1950 PRO : TDP= 66W

HD6450 : TDP= 18W
HD5450 : TDP= 19W
HD4670 : TDP= 59W
HD6570 : TDP= 60W

RX 550 : TDP= 50W
HD 7750 : TDP= 55W
R7-250X : TDP= 65W
RX 560 : TDP= 75W
R9-270X : TDP=180W