>> Do you have some recent numbers or even footage that shows this?

> DvPlayer was not able to play a quite simple video at more than 15 FPS in
> fullscreen during the Alchimie. I do not know the used codecs or the exact
> resolution but it was looking like some sub-HD format. OTOH, the usually
> ultra slow and unusable GeekGadget-derivated X11 server was demonstrated
> and it was running a lot better than on older systems.

Thanks for reporting.

Zylesea,
Quote:

I don't believe it. A MPC8641D outperformances a 970 in almost every task.
On branchy scalar code and on pseudo-random access tasks it is killing the 970.
The PA6T has also an integrated memory controller and the FP-Unit is alot better as the MPC8641D is.
Requirement: the Nemo board has't any bugs ...

> A MPC8641D outperformances a 970 in almost every task. On branchy
> scalar code and on pseudo-random access tasks it is killing the 970.

On a per-clock basis this may be true. But I'm sure that's not how Zylesea's statement was meant. 2.5 GHz PPC970MP or 2.7 GHz PPC970FX definitely outperform a 1.5 GHz MPC8641D by far, there's no doubt about that, and I'm pretty sure they also outperform a 1.8 GHz PA6T.

What about north bridge, south bridge etc? The only speed reports I have heard from people at shows were that it is dog slow running applications (5fps Quake 3 or something).

If they are pushing a commerical product for sale and still hiding benchmarks and other info, something gives.

Yes, thats true. Clock by clock.
If I had a choice between PA6T 2GHz or a 970 2.5GHz I would definitely take a PA6T.
Would PA Semi even exist the chip today would be at 3GHz octacore at 25W for sure.

The buyout of PA in 2008 was IP for Intel ...

> What about north bridge, south bridge etc?

The X1000's Nemo board doesn't have a northbridge as its functionality is built into the PA6T chip. The southbridge on the Nemo board is the ATI/AMD SB600 chip.

> The only speed reports I have heard from people at shows were that
> it is dog slow running applications (5fps Quake 3 or something).

How old are those reports now?

Andreas got it precisely as I meant. Clock by clock comparison is rather void from a user's POV. Eventually it is the performance of the total system that counts.
I'll take the system with best performance at a sane price. I never claimed the PA6T would be poor, but it isn't a "killer". And there is yet no reliable benchmark data of a PA6T based system avaiable. It remains to be seen -Let's see how Nemo will be in comparison to the various Apple PowerMac G5s. But I guess Nemo will have a hard time...

> If I had a choice between PA6T 2GHz or a 970 2.5GHz I would
> definitely take a PA6T.

Me too, but definitely not for performance reasons (as PA6T would still be slower) but rather for power consumption reasons. Less power consumption means less active cooling, which in turn means less noise. The faster PowerMac G5 machines are known to be very noisy.

Right you are. Otherwise, whether 2GHz or 2.5GHz doesn't realy matter. In real world, the difference should be tiny small.
Neither a PA6T nor a 970 is a killer today. A killer would be a POWER7 light. IBM has only to open the drawer

Pre-order email notifications were sent earlier today (Wednesday, 11/30/2011) and I have completed filling out the form to order my X1000.

The form states that a 25% deposit will be asked for shortly and full payment will be due 10 days prior to shipment of each X1000 system.

I expect that they will start shipping shortly before, or shortly after the end of this year. Having it delivered in time for Christmas would be an unexpected, but very welcome surprise.

@amigadave
Surprised to see you getting an X1000, but good luck .

It's rather sad to see all the negativity (mostly with little factual basis or thought) spewed in OS4's direction, as you rarely (if ever) see that coming from OS4 fans towards MorphOS (even then usually only after provocation). As you say, it's merely going drive OS4 users away from even considering MorphOS.

Not to mention that if MorphOS is so superior, it shouldn't need to denigrate the competion to sell itself (it's superior attributes should be sufficient). e.g. Don't say "look how crap X is because it lacks Y", instead say "look how wonderful Z is because it has Y".

Oh well, going to crawl back under my rock!

Since David already has a G5 Mac, if he receives an X1000 he'll be able to give us unbiased comparisons between the two.
And, as he's already paid me for a modified FireGL X3 (which he will receive before I send anyone else one), he'll have an R400 video card on hand as well (in case we ever see support for those).

Frankly, I'm looking forward to hearing about his experiences with the X1000. I'd consider buying one myself if I had the disposable income.

How would you compare them?

Are we going to MorphOS on G5s in less that 2 years wait?

ChrisH,
Quote:
Where have you been during the last ten years with all the massive insane propaganda about MorphOS legality and all the technical bullshit to persuade as many users as possible it was completly retarded?
Quote:
Ah then that could explain :-)

@Chris,

I know there are exceptions from time to time, and it is obvious to me that due to each of our preferences, we see things differently, through colored glasses, as it were. 90% of the time I see that the worst comments toward OS4 from most of the MorphOS users are replies to attacks from OS4 users, or simply MorphOS haters and only 10% of the time these negative comments from MorphOS users toward OS4 are started by the few MorphOS users who enjoy kicking the OS4 users just to get a reaction out of them.

I see many OS4 users, or Classic users that happen to dislike MorphOS that continue to bad mouth MorphOS frequently. Mostly due to their lingering displeasure for long past fights from years ago, or for reasons that I cannot imagine, but certainly not as you see it as a response to bad behavior of most MorphOS users.

I really think that it has a lot to do with perception and will admit that I am most likely guilty of giving MorphOS users the benefit of doubt and not giving the same to most OS4 users.

It is really hard to be completely neutral and not have an opinion or preference when it comes to the OS4, MorphOS situation, but I try to stay out of the flame wars as much as I can. I am getting better at it recently and it must be months since I wrote anything really nasty about OS4 or it's users.

I do try to encourage other MorphOS users to refrain from writing negative comments about OS4 and promote cooperation between third party developers to support all Amiga inspired platforms when I can. But like I said, when I see things through my colored glasses, most times it looks like other MorphOS users defending themselves, or the MorphOS developers, or MorphOS itself from people that have incorrect information or beliefs toward them. From my point of view, there are many OS4 users that are bitter about the fact that MorphOS works better and faster than OS4 and mostly that MorphOS users try to educate everyone about those facts often.

OS4 users are understandably tired of reading this over and over again for years, and they see it as an attack on them and their choices, not as a defense of MorphOS and an attempt to educate other forum readers, that do NOT know all about OS4 and MorphOS, what the differences are between the two similar choices. In fact, recently I have seen OS4 users writing a different kind of reply to discourage MorphOS users from continuing any comparison of OS4 and MorphOS by stating that they are completely different things and NO comparison should be made between the two. I find this defense to be very strange and wishful thinking.

Anyway, I am getting way off topic here and will close with this; I agree with your statement that MorphOS users should not need to post negative comments about OS4 in order to promote MorphOS and should concentrate on the positive points about MorphOS instead. Of course completely removing any kind of comparison between the two Amiga inspired PPC Next Gen OSes is impossible, but I know what side of the fence you are on and why certain comparisons and comments would bother you. There is no easy answer, but all we can do is try to keep interactions civil and hope that the situation will continue to improve.

Lastly, if you are so high on OS4, why are you surprised that I am getting an X1000?

ChrisH,
Quote:

Citations needed please. Unless you mean legitimate questions are negativity, I think you are off base.

For the record, Jorkany is not a MOS user AFAIK.

amigadave,
Quote:

What annoys me most is mud slinging threads on amiga.org following a certain pattern. A thread starts on a.org with a subject related to OS4. Within the first 10 posts one or two MOS users or developer have to say something negative on OS4 and then the mud slinging can begin.

greets,
Staf.

@fats

Guys, we were not talking about OS4 here. AmigaOne X1000 is a hardware platform developed by A-eon company. OS4 is a software project from a Belgian company.

Can we keep talking about X1K, please?

> How would you compare them?

Running Linux for instance.

> Are we going to MorphOS on G5s in less that 2 years wait?

MorphOS on G5 vs. OS4 on PA6T wouldn't be a pure hardware comparison anyway.

i had the opportunity to try a few things on the X1000 at amiwest this year. based on the contents of this thread i don't think it will make any difference; some of you are looking for things to complain about that don't exist. but here are a few subjective notes:

* web browsing was very snappy, almost as snappy as using my GNU/linux setup on a much, much faster PC. timberwolf and OWB were used, with both being about the same in parsing performance. last year at amiwest 2010 the performance wasn't nearly as good.

* PDF viewing was slow. i don't know why, but amiPDF performance on all OS4 systems is terribly pokey. based on an older build of xpdf, i suspect the issue is with the application itself.

* video playback seemed fine to me, actually. using DVplayer the DivX files i threw at it never showed a skipped frame. unfortunately i didn't have anything HD to try.

* classic performance was great. imageFX was noticeably faster than my SAM (as should be expected). the few AGA games running in UAE didn't show any frame redraw issues or sound latency issues such as i occasionally see on my SAM.

* quake2 ran well, but in software mode. i didn't do a timedemo, which i wish i had done. it was very smooth, much better than the 'whopping' 21.4fps i get with miniGL on my 9250/SAM setup. the old yarn about poor quake2 performance dates back more than a year to it being shown at the essen amiga show. guys: it isn't like that any more.

i found the machine to be the fastest amiga NG system i have used to date. is that worth the money? i don't know: that is up to the individual. personally i am very much interested in seeing the new openGL stack up and running first.

frankly i don't know why some of you guys have such a visceral reaction to this machine. it's very enjoyable to use, very performant, and very 'amiga.' i hope dave enjoys it and lets us know his thoughts, both good and otherwise, once he receives his from amigakit and has a few days to play with it.

-- eliyahu

X1000 ist für den Preis eine Totgeburt! Wer kauft sich für über 1000 - 2000 € ein System das nicht annähernd so produktiv ist wie Macs oder gut ausgestattete PCs. Und als reines Hobby-System ist es unverschämt teuer.

In welchen Punkten ist denn ein Mac bitte produktiver?
In wich case a Mac is more produktive?

@ stephen_robinson,

Well we could always ask the developers to let David have another beta of MorphOS (this time for the G5).
After all, he is one of the few of us that has a copy of MorphOS 3.0.

AltiVeced,
Quote:
Im professionellen Bereich fehlen dem Amiga die aktuellen Programme. Und ich glaube nicht, dass sich das in absehbarer Zeit ändern wird. Das ist sehr schade, ich bin mit dem Amiga groß geworden (A500, A1200, A2000). Eine richtig geile Amiga Maschine würde ich mir wünschen, bleibt abzuwarten, wie sich der X1000 und weitere Rechner etablieren können. Ein Amiga OS 4 auf PPC Mac Hardware wäre interessant, MOS ist da eine sehr interessante Geschichte. Freue mich auf MOS 3 auf meinem MDD, MOS auf einen G5 Quad CPU mit 2,7 GHz wäre der Hammer. Und Amiga OS 4 auf gleicher Maschine wäre sicher effizienter als ein X1000. Na ja, wir werden sehen...

[ Editiert durch DanicaTalos 02.12.2011 - 19:32 ]

Ein Quad G5 mit 2.7GHz gibt es nicht
Und wegen den fehlenden Programmen, was nicht ist kann ja noch werden