MorphOS on AmigaOne X5000?
  • MorphOS Developer
    bigfoot
    Posts: 326 from 2003/4/11
    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 :)
    I rarely log in to MorphZone which means that I often miss private messages sent on here. If you wish to contact me, please email me at [username]@asgaard.morphos-team.net, where [username] is my username here on MorphZone.
  • »12.10.16 - 20:54
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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.
  • »12.10.16 - 22:12
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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?
  • »12.10.16 - 22:30
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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.
  • »12.10.16 - 22:40
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4883 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > 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.


    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? ;)
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »13.10.16 - 01:29
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 728 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > 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.


    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? ;)


    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.
  • »13.10.16 - 07:44
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    pampers
    Posts: 1058 from 2009/2/26
    From: Tczew, Poland
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    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, 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.
    MorphOS 3.x
  • »13.10.16 - 07:45
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> 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.
  • »13.10.16 - 08:04
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4883 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    pampers wrote:
    ...My one has logo removed...



    I disable that when its used in PC bios myself so that makes sense, and what was removed could even be replaced.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »13.10.16 - 11:01
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4883 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Jim wrote:
    Quote:

    pampers wrote:
    ...My one has logo removed...



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



    Quote:

    KennyR wrote:...
    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.


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



    [ Edited by Jim 13.10.2016 - 08:16 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »13.10.16 - 11:14
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4883 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    pampers wrote:
    ...My one has logo removed...



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

    Quote:

    KennyR wrote:...
    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.


    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 ]
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »13.10.16 - 11:20
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    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
  • »29.10.16 - 12:08
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1392 from 2003/4/13
    @Andreas_Wolf

    Excuse me for being thick, but with 1.00 being reference the high numbers are faster?
  • »29.10.16 - 17:10
    Profile
  • MorphOS Developer
    bigfoot
    Posts: 326 from 2003/4/11
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    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



    I'm also not entirely sure what these numbers are supposed to be, but you have "integer index" listed twice with two different values.
    I rarely log in to MorphZone which means that I often miss private messages sent on here. If you wish to contact me, please email me at [username]@asgaard.morphos-team.net, where [username] is my username here on MorphZone.
  • »29.10.16 - 17:45
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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.
  • »29.10.16 - 18:36
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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.
  • »29.10.16 - 19:32
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1392 from 2003/4/13
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > 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.


    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.
  • »29.10.16 - 19:41
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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.
  • »29.10.16 - 20:43
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    amigadave
    Posts: 2703 from 2006/3/21
    From: Lake Arrowhead...
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > 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.


    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?
    MorphOS - The best Next Gen Amiga choice.
  • »29.10.16 - 21:09
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1392 from 2003/4/13
    Quote:

    Andreas_Wolf wrote:
    > 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:

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



    Quote:

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


    Now you completely lost me. Have you been drinking? ;-)
  • »29.10.16 - 21:10
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > 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."
  • »29.10.16 - 21:38
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    >> 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.)
  • »29.10.16 - 22:03
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4883 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    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.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »30.10.16 - 02:34
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Yasu
    Posts: 1724 from 2012/3/22
    From: Stockholm, Sweden
    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.
    AMIGA FORUM - Hela Sveriges Amigatidning!
    AMIGA FORUM - Sweden's Amiga Magazine!

    My MorphOS blog
  • »30.10.16 - 08:51
    Profile Visit Website
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10931 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > It's faster yes

    ...for (non-SIMD) integer operations. For floating point and memory speed, it seems to be the other way round.
  • »30.10.16 - 09:54
    Profile