From the Triple Z at Essen on 24th July 2010

X1000 Speed Tests

_________________

@AmigaOneProductions

Great!

"The Juggler" in realtime

_________________
A1200, 68060/64MB/1.2GB/WiFi/AGAtoCRT/OS3.9 Pegasos I, G3 600Mhz/512/9200SE/80GB WinUAE, Ryzen 5 2400G/Vega11, 8GB DDR4, 256GB SSD,Win 10 Pro x64 Amiga Forever !

Q2 timedemo performance seems comparable to a Pentium II or so.

@AmigaOneProductions

It's Quake2 ? 57 FPS for software rendering in 640x480 for 1.8ghz cpu, right ?

@Channel_Z
With HW acceleration or without ? Because with HW accelertion, even voodoo3 + celeron at 450mhz , give in 640x480 quake2 - 110FPS on win32. But that is HW accleration of Vodoo3. Trying to found software-rendering bencmarks, but still, feels slow all in all.

Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 08:39 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

Right, but it all plays on pure processing power with the mystical military 2ghz multucore. But now they are running at 1.8 ghz .. Could be really nice when it works together with PCIe graphics card. The future looks very bright. And Xmos, can it help with Physics calculations?

Last edited by shastar on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:05 PM.

Something is borked there, something with the q2 engine as written for AmigaOS, or something. 57FPS is not "too fast to be playable" (and I can get 57fps out of Q2 on my current system, but that's another story) - the framerate isn't what's doing that. Can't be. I've played older first person shooters at 60fps (and higher) and issues of game timing weren't as screwed up as they are in that first video.

_________________
The problem with AmigaOS on PPC isn't that PPC is big-endian. The problem with AmigaOS on PPC is that PPC is dead-endian.

@kas1e

The video obviously shows software rendering (CPU only). This is easily recognisible in Q2, even though the picture quality of the video is pretty bad, because the particle effects (blood and shots) are blocky and not round dots.
I remember getting close to 60fps in timedemo on a Pentium II at 640x480, so thats why I made the comparison.

@shastar

Quote:

shastar wrote: And Xmos, it can help with Physics calculations?

(no)

_________________
The problem with AmigaOS on PPC isn't that PPC is big-endian. The problem with AmigaOS on PPC is that PPC is dead-endian.

@TheDungeonDelver

Exactly. The video is shown Q2 running timedemo, which is a benchmark that TRIES to render as fast as possible. The timedemo is non-interactive, so the person who wrote "too fast to be playable" obviously does not know what he is talking about at all.

Anyone can found in the networks, software rendering benchmarks or q2 ? (only software rendering, not HW). I just for example found, that for , 800MHz cpu, q2 in 320x240 give , 48.2 fps , so, 640x480 will be about 20 for 800mhz -> about 60 for 1.8.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@Channel_Z

Quote:

The video obviously shows software rendering (CPU only). This is easily recognisible in Q2, even though the picture quality of the video is pretty bad, because the particle effects (blood and shots) are blocky and not round dots.

Indeed; I wish someone would think to hang a damn capture tool on one of these systems and get a proper video. This "Oh hey let me stand at a completely screwed up angle and shoot this with my shyte camera phone" nonsense is just that - nonsense. This is not how you build up enthusiasm for a new system, with ####ty videos.

Unless there's something to hide? Maybe the opening script for Q2 displays the SOOPER SEKRIT CPU?*



No, seriously, if you're going to keep doing this, put together a professional demo video. Like Jobs' demonstration of NeXTStep 3, from like '92 or thereabouts...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j02b8Fuz73A

(*=we all know it's a PA6T, guys)

_________________
The problem with AmigaOS on PPC isn't that PPC is big-endian. The problem with AmigaOS on PPC is that PPC is dead-endian.

@AmigaOneProductions

and to all involved.


@ asusual
Quote:

Q2 timedemo performance seems comparable to a Pentium II or so.

Kick, punch, tear down, put in the boot, 'mine's bigger than yours', sheesh!

@Channel_Z

Quote:

I remember getting close to 60fps in timedemo on a Pentium II at 640x480, so thats why I made the comparison.

But it was with HW mode for you, or also SW ? Imho for P2 it was with HW for you ?
(still trying to found normal benchmarks of Q2 in software rendering for win32).

Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 08:54 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

Ok, found here some Q2 software-rendering benchmarks:

Quote:

Quake2 Demo1 Software Renderer @ 640x480 Pentium 3 - 560 39.2 fps Pentium 3 - 500 37.2 fps Celeron - 550A 36.3 fps Pentium 2 - 500 36.4 fps Pentium 2 - 450 34.1 fps Pentium 2 - 400 32.2 fps Celeron - 333 30.8 fps

Follow to that benchmarks, for 1.8ghz q2 in 640x480 should be about 110-120 FPS. Right now it give us ~60 => result looks a bit "bad". But maybe it because "debug" version of aos4 with all that debug-kernles and p96 and alt ? It just again in twice slow, as it slow in twice when we compare opengl software beetwen os4 and morphos. Maybe P96 give all that problems ..

Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:14 PM.
Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:12 PM.
Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:10 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

Quake 2 certainly appeared to be software rendering. The most obvious indicator on the video there being the lack of coloured light maps.

Quote:

remember getting close to 60fps in timedemo on a Pentium II at 640x480, so thats why I made the comparison.

Another factor to consider is that the x86 releases both quake 1 and 2 made extensive use of hand-optimised assembler in their builds to improve performance. Builds for other architectures tend to be vanilla C.

Last edited by Karlos on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:17 PM.

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@Karlos

It's clear pointed in the video, that is software rendering. The question is: why it slowly in 2 times, in compare with win32 benchmarks ? (of the same, software rendering benchmarks of course).

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@kas1e

Is there a software only render benchmark at 1600x1200 for the win32 binary?

_________________
Doing stupid things for fun...

@kas1e

Just for the record, quake2 scores 35fps at 640x480 in software mode on a Pegasos 2, and 12fps at 1280x1024.
And the Mac mini scores 49fps in 640x480 and 18fps in 1280x1024.

(timedemo 1 / demomap demo1.dm2)

Last edited by Fab on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:25 PM.

@Karlos

Quote:

Is there a software only render benchmark at 1600x1200 for the win32 binary?

dunno (did't found), but for me 640x480 are enough to calculate :)

@fab
Quote:

Just for the record, quake2 scores 35fps at 640x480 in software mode on a Pegasos 2, and 12fps at 1280x1024.

So, looks more or less "right" then ? If 35fps on 1ghz, then having ~60fps on 1.8ghz it's more or less fine. From other side, if compare with win32 benchmarks, its still slow.

Last edited by kas1e on 24-Jul-2010 at 09:23 PM.

_________________
Join us to improve dopus5!
zerohero's mirror of os4/os3 crosscompiler suites

@Fab

Quote:

Just for the record, quake2 scores 35fps at 640x480 in software mode on a Pegasos 2, and 12fps at 1280x1024.

OS4 or MorphOS?