MorphOS on AmigaOne X5000?
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 666 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

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

    Link


    Useless numbers without the actual cards being listed.
  • »26.08.18 - 15:58
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    Trevor's Amiga Blog

    Quote:

    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.
  • »26.08.18 - 16:03
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 666 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    So in other words, Trevor has found out that integral graphics cards don't perform as well as external ones.

    Wonder what he'll do as an encore. Prove that spoons are less good at spreading butter but worse at cutting bread?
  • »26.08.18 - 16:18
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1339 from 2003/4/13
    Quote:

    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.


    LOL!! So comparing a gfx card released 15+ years ago with one that is current tech? 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.

    That's some Iraqi 'Ministry Of Propaganda' level stuff there by Trevor. He has stacks of AmigaOnes to sell I suppose, so pushing a sales pitch.
  • »26.08.18 - 16:31
    Profile
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 1893 from 2003/2/24
    Quote:

    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.



    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.
    --------------------- May the 4th be with you ------------------
    Mother Russia dance of the Zar, don't you know how lucky you are
  • »26.08.18 - 16:51
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1339 from 2003/4/13
    Quote:

    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.



    Fair enough. It's all about what works for them. Actually a G4 with Radeon 8500 does make the best setup possible for legacy software. My interest in running legacy software on MorphOS has waned in recent years. Now that I have an Amiga 500 with Vampire, I have even less concern for it.

    Overall, there is very little out there that would need more than a 9650 outside of benchmarks and bragging rights on either side of the fence. Why OS4 systems ever shipped with Radeon R9s that aren't anywhere near being fully supported I will never understand.
  • »26.08.18 - 18:07
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    @redrumloa

    Its been down to what cards dealers can get new in lots of 5 or so and upwards.
    I don't think that any R9 card configurations were the basic offering but an extra .
    R7-250X's may have been the top basic option.
    There has also not been any 3D benchmarks to see which card give a decent level of performance.

    Based on current Radeon SI cards that are available new in quantities you have following models for example

    Decent Performance
    X5000/20 Spencer Game : ASUS R7-250 (Cape Verde) = 52-55fps


    Basic Performance
    X5000/20 Spencer Game : ASUS R7-240 (Oland) = 22-23fps

    I thing that Amiga on the Lake have the following model. I am not sure of performance
    but DDR3 cards have lower performance

    HD7750 DDR3 Model

    [ Edited by Spectre660 26.08.2018 - 15:08 ]
  • »26.08.18 - 19:05
    Profile
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Andreas_Wolf
    Posts: 10542 from 2003/5/22
    From: Germany
    > Very few of us G5 owners have the original stock gfx card in use.

    Has there been a survey that I missed?
  • »26.08.18 - 23:25
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 666 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

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


    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.

    I have an R9 390X. It was a stupid purchase even for a Windows machine. It's insane, drawing more wattage than the rest of the i7 computer through two CPU-grade power leads and blowing it all out with three fans. I had to add a 1000W PSU to feed (my previous 800W one couldn't output enough on two rails!) and several more case fans to stop its massive heat outwash overheating the CPU. It runs almost everything in ultra mode and anything older that 2016 in 4K easily. It is not a card for pottering around watching YouTube videos.

    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.

    [ Edited by KennyR 27.08.2018 - 01:30 ]
  • »27.08.18 - 01:26
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    Get up to speed before you make these sweeping and incorrct statements.
    HDMI output works and certain codec 1080p video's work.

    Quote:

    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.




    [ Edited by Spectre660 26.08.2018 - 22:29 ]
  • »27.08.18 - 02:26
    Profile
  • Caterpillar
    Caterpillar
    outrun1978
    Posts: 22 from 2018/7/8
    Yep have to agree with Spectre660 here, my Radeon HD7750 which I was using previously on my X5000 can handle some 1080p playback and one thing I do miss when using MorphOS is HDMI output which OS4 handles with no problem and has been doing with a number of cards when I had my Sam 460 previously.

    The current Radeon X1650 Pro that I am using at the moment so I can use MorphOS on the X5000 is unable to display even DVI output in MorphOS so am stuck with VGA. Under OS 4 on the same card the DVI output works but under MorphOS the system hangs.
  • »27.08.18 - 08:14
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    KennyR
    Posts: 666 from 2003/3/4
    From: #AmigaZeux, Gu...
    Quote:

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


    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.
  • »27.08.18 - 16:10
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    You need to structure your points to be a bit clearer .
    I am using HDMI on a an R9-270X at 1080p and it works and is useful for me.
    Some people find it fun to attempt to push the so called limits.
    Some people seem to have a kind of "New hardware Phobia" .



    Quote:

    KennyR wrote:
    Quote:

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


    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.


  • »27.08.18 - 19:14
    Profile
  • vox
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    vox
    Posts: 433 from 2003/11/25
    From: Belgrade
    Quote:

    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.



    Hardware is everything. My problem is - AmigaOS does not use it (driver problem). My x1000 with SSD, Radeon 7770 1Ghz, 2GB DDR5, 2x2 MB DDR2 and Sound Blaster 5.1 performs like a different machine once its on modern Linux PPC. Internet is way faster via inbuild ethernet, CPU and disk and memory performance doubles amd RAM and gfx card are fully used (OK gfx card not so much due to infamous bug, but it was the case with original XFX Radeon HD 6870)

    Problem is that it turned out that any NG Amiga investment - be it faster gfx card, more RAM or gfx, simply (under AmigaOS) does not translate to performance increase. Only real "fly away" was an SSD.
    ------------------------------------------
    x1000 user, ASAP Vampire Standalone user, future MOS user
    YT: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdHl_msNWHEVPf229h_gijQ
  • »27.08.18 - 19:49
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1139 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

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

    Well, there are different approaches to "pushing limits".

    Some people put a brand new Porsche engine in a tractor to make it go 1kph faster. Others tweak the original "old" tractor engine to make it go 1kph faster.

    You appear to be a big fan of the first approach.

    Quote:

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

    That sounds like a misperception.

    Just because people do not happen to agree with your "new hardware euphoria", that does not mean they reject new hardware.

    In fact, I have seen far more people belittle the "old" hardware that MorphOS runs on. But, as Kenny and others have attempted to explain, there is no intrinsic end user value in just using a "modern" graphics card that has a release date within a specific range.

    That is, unless you have drivers that do enable a substantial (!) performance gain that is adequate relative to the improved hardware specifications or at least offer much more complex visual fidelity in 3d software. Both points have not been met at this stage. Maybe that will change. We will see. But until that happens, I really do not see what you could possibly be so excited about.
  • »27.08.18 - 20:24
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    @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 .
    Also the effort to support the old engines failed (Warp3D for Evergreen)so there was never any chance to tweak.
    The hedged option (Warp3D for SI) bore fruit and has continued to grow (Warp3DNova).

    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 .
  • »27.08.18 - 21:34
    Profile
  • ASiegel
    Posts: 1139 from 2003/2/15
    From: Central Europe
    Quote:

    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.

    You are visiting a MorphOS community website. This OS and its drivers are the point of reference for people who frequent this website.

    Quote:

    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, 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.

    Personally, I do not believe that telling people how bright that Porsche engine shines in the sunlight because it is so new is going to convince anybody to spend money on both a new tractor and a new engine that they do not have or could not possibly justify spending unless the cost / performance ratio was at least slightly comparable to their existing systems.

    Quote:

    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 .

    You were pretty vocal before Kenny showed up.

    Not everybody gets excited by how recent the manufacturing date on one of their computer's components is. That is actually normal, not a phobia.
  • »28.08.18 - 08:20
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    On the subject of old engines
    Morphos 3.11 on an X5000 works with an ATI Fire MV2260 pciex1 card.
    Card has RV620 chipset so Radeon HD3450/3470 family.


    [ Edited by Spectre660 28.08.2018 - 06:47 ]
  • »28.08.18 - 10:43
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    redrumloa
    Posts: 1339 from 2003/4/13
    Quote:

    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.



    I was out in the workshop tonight to do some more benchmarking. Talking to a freind I realized when I said everything "maxed out", I was slightly off. I had "Vertex" selected instead of "Lightmap" for the above numbers. I don't have that card installed ATM, but I do have an X1950pro (PC rom) that is now working tops in my G5. Here are a couple quick benches. I'll probably do more on my G5 2.7 with screenshots and/or video, but not tonight and probably in a more appropriate thread.

    Test system:
    PowerMac G5 @ 2.3Ghz
    Ati Radeon X1950pro

    1280x1024 with Vertex with EVERYTHING maxed out I got 206.5 fps

    1600x1200 with Lightmap and EVERYTHING maxed out I got 147.3 fps

    This X1950pro really, really lays the lumber! I'll probably try out Tower 57 soon to see how that handles it. I also look forward to pulling out my G5 2.7.
  • »29.08.18 - 01:48
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Doffo
    Posts: 412 from 2010/10/14
    From: Nevada
    I can't even get close to your 206.5 FPS on 1280x1024 on Vertex with the rest all the way set high and Texture detail all the way to the right. I only got a whopping 75.0 FPS on the Radeon 9600.
    -=-=-=-
    YUUUP!
  • »29.08.18 - 07:52
    Profile Visit Website
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    X500/20 Amiga OS 4.1FE

    "New engine" R9-270X and "Old engine" Warp3D SI

    Vertex 1600x1200 = 120.2 FPS
    Vertex 1280x1024 = 131.0 FPS

    Lightmap 1600x1200 = 95.6FPS

    Hope to have some "Even Newer Engine" Polaris and "New Engine" Warp3D Nova results soon.

    Interesting comments for Gl4es coder pitSeb

    Quote:

    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).


    Kas1e's Initial results :

    640x480

    q3_minigl_sdl1: 90.8 fps
    q3_minigl_sdl2: 86 fps
    q3_gl4es_sdl1: 74 fps

    800x600

    q3_minigl_sdl1: 87.5 fps
    q3_minigl_sdl2: 83.1 fps
    q3_gl4es_sdl1: 72.2 fps

    1024x768

    q3_minigl_sdl1: 82.2 fps
    q3_minigl_sdl2: 76.9 fps
    q3_gl4es_sdl1: 68.5 fps

    1600x1200

    q3_minigl_sdl1: 67.5 fps
    q3_minigl_sdl2: 68.9 fps
    q3_gl4es_sdl1: 60.2 fps

    [ Edited by Spectre660 29.08.2018 - 09:16 ]
  • »29.08.18 - 12:39
    Profile
  • Paladin of the Pegasos
    Paladin of the Pegasos
    Zylesea
    Posts: 1900 from 2003/6/4
    Quote:

    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.


    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)...
    --
    http://www.via-altera.de

    Whenever you're sad just remember the world is 4.543 billion years old and you somehow managed to exist at the same time as David Bowie.
    ...and Matthias , my friend - RIP
  • »29.08.18 - 13:50
    Profile Visit Website
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    Quote:

    Zylesea wrote:
    Quote:

    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.


    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)...



    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

    [ Edited by Spectre660 29.08.2018 - 11:31 ]
  • »29.08.18 - 15:13
    Profile
  • Jim
  • Yokemate of Keyboards
    Yokemate of Keyboards
    Jim
    Posts: 4856 from 2009/1/28
    From: Delaware, USA
    Quote:

    Spectre660 wrote:
    Quote:

    Zylesea wrote:
    Quote:

    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.


    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)...



    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


    Interesting, no power draw figures for the R7 240, but I'd expect that to be in line with the other low end cards.
    "Never attribute to malice what can more readily explained by incompetence"
  • »29.08.18 - 20:00
    Profile
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Spectre660
    Posts: 221 from 2015/6/30
    @Jim

    R7-240 : TDP = 30W
  • »29.08.18 - 20:06
    Profile