Poster | Thread |
OlafS25
| |
Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 18-Feb-2014 10:27:03
| | [ #1 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6341
From: Unknown | | |
|
| To not further "derail" threads I make this one to collect benchmarks to compare 68k to other platforms |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 18-Feb-2014 11:41:16
| | [ #2 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6341
From: Unknown | | |
|
| Results from Pavlor:
Now on Core i5-2500 (WinUAE): Lame 7.8558x (440EP 2100 MHz )
dnetc OGR-NG: 5,055,431 (440EP 525 MHz, 750GX 450 MHz ) RC5-72: 4,851,033 (440EP 1850 MHz, 750GX 1400 MHz )
Doom Benchmark (ADoom 1.3) 114 realtics (655.2 fps) For Comparison: Pegasos II G4 1 GHz ADoomPPC1.7, MorphOS - 97 realtics (770.0 FPS - WarpOS wrapper) A1-XE G4 1 GHz ADoomPPC1.7, AmigaOS4 - 175 realtics (426.8 FPS - WarpOS wrapper) A1-XE G4 1 GHz ADoom 1.3, AmigaOS4 - 486 realtics (153.7 FPS - 68k Petunia emulation)
Edit: Speedometer 4.0 (shapeShifter Mac emulation) CPU: 41.868 (= 68040 1.0 GHz) Dhrystone: 104.509 (= 68040 2.6 GHz)
Lame on WinUAE (Core2 Q6600 2.4 GHz): 4.0742x
Lame on Pegasos2 G4 1131 MHz (see OP in that thread) 10.304x (AltiVec?) 4.2741x (Non AltiVec?)
Lame on SAM440flex 800MHz (post 28) 2.9335x
Core i5-2500 in newer computer of my brother is cca 2x faster than old Q6600.
Edit: Another result for G4.
On notebook I use right now (Core i5-2430M 2.4 GHz): Lame 5.8853x
dnetc OGR-NG: 4,051,434 (lower than 440EP 666 MHz) RC5-72 3,867,526 (higher than 750GX 1000 MHz)
From OP in thread I listed:
2 - lame 3.98-2 test:
got the public mp3 file(the first I found):
http://www.maninblack.org/demos/WhereDoAllTheJunkiesComeFrom.mp3
decompessed with:
lame --decode to obtain wav file for the test.
than executed lame without args(simply "lame filename") and got:
Piru´s tests you linked use another wav file: http://sintonen.fi/temp/AKsack.wav
I got with this file: 7.2076x (38s CPU time; 33s REAL time)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Links from me:
http://www.amiga-news.de/en/news/AN-2012-02-00011-EN.html
Last edited by OlafS25 on 18-Feb-2014 at 11:43 AM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 18-Feb-2014 11:50:34
| | [ #3 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6341
From: Unknown | | |
|
| |
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 18-Feb-2014 16:09:28
| | [ #4 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Quote:
BTW is there anyone who could make a test on smartphones/tablets and on amithlon PCs? |
UAE on ARM CPUs doesn´t have JIT yet (it will be sloooooow).
For Amithlon: http://www.amigahistory.co.uk/emulators/amithlonbench.html
In some cases it reaches 1/3 of native performance (comparable to Petunia or Trance JIT in OS4/MotphOS)! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 19-Feb-2014 19:36:53
| | [ #5 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Any modern platform should support MMU for features like virtual memory addressing, memory protection or paging. Here are results of WinUAE on Core i5-2500 3.3 GHz with MMU enabled - JIT doesn´t work with MMU...
dnetc OGR-NG: 140,652 (68040 50 MHz) RC5-72: 60,117 (68040 66 MHz, PowerPC 601 33 MHz )
lame 0.1522x
Edit: lame finished, at last! Last edited by pavlor on 19-Feb-2014 at 08:10 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
itix
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 21-Feb-2014 13:46:09
| | [ #6 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 22-Dec-2004 Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Any comparisons to x86 or x64? _________________ Amiga Developer Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 21-Feb-2014 13:54:24
| | [ #7 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6341
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @itix
X86/X64 lame tests I have seen were about 6-9 seconds
AROS was 9 seconds if I remember right Last edited by OlafS25 on 21-Feb-2014 at 02:02 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
KimmoK
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 5-May-2015 10:12:44
| | [ #8 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2003 Posts: 5211
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Grouping some results from http://www.aros-platform.de/html/benchmarks.html
>Benchmarks (68k UAE in comparation to other platforms) >Aksack.wav + lame (different sources)
Amiga OS 4.x + native lame >X1000 PA6T 1.8 GHz 18s (altivec used? & one core). >Sam 460ex 1.15 GHz 47s >Sam 440 ep 800 MHz 1:15 min
Morph OS + native lame. >MacMini G4 1.56 GHz 33s (mit Altivec 16s) >Powerbook 5,6 1,67GHz 16s (altivec in use) >Dual G5 2.7 GHz 7s (altivec used & one core)?? >Efika 2min 20s
>Peg2 1131 23s (OS? g4? altivec?)
Assumingly WinUAE with JIT, single core in use. >i5-2500 (68k UAE) 38s >AMD Athlon II Dual Core 2.10 GHz (68k UAE) 1:09 min >Core2Duo 3 GHz system with Xubuntu (68k UAE) 46s (via WINE) >AMD A6-4400M 2.70 GHz (68k UAE) 45s
AROS + NATIVE LAME (SSE in use, single core, 32bit SW) ???? >AMD Athlon II Dual Core 2.10 GHz (64bit) 10s _________________ - KimmoK // For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA // // Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hillbillylitre
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 5-May-2015 12:34:02
| | [ #9 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 4-Apr-2015 Posts: 270
From: Unknown | | |
|
| Hellbillylitre AmigaTwox86x64x6000x AMD Phenom II x4 965 WinUAE (can't remember version, ca. aug. 2014)
_________________ Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Raffaele
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 5-May-2015 18:10:13
| | [ #10 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 7-Dec-2005 Posts: 1906
From: Naples, Italy | | |
|
| @Thread How to read benchmarks?
Lesser seconds mean machine more performant?
What does 2.9335x multiplier in the last column means for example?
Last edited by Raffaele on 05-May-2015 at 06:12 PM.
_________________ "When the Amiga came out, everyone [at Apple] was scared as hell." (J.L. Gassée, former CEO of Apple France and chief of devs of Mac II-fx, interviewed by Amazing Computing, Nov 1996). |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
OlafS25
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 5-May-2015 18:20:32
| | [ #11 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 12-May-2010 Posts: 6341
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @Raffaele
the system is faster when seconds are lower and the number before x is higher (both belongs together).
Lame converts the file so less seconds means faster running
the number before x are related to the lame test. I look what it exactly means Last edited by OlafS25 on 05-May-2015 at 06:21 PM.
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
wawa
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 5-May-2015 19:31:42
| | [ #12 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 21-Jan-2008 Posts: 6259
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @OlafS25
this thread really is an pretty example of a mess. if you want to have something informative then set up a database containing clean categories of benchmarks and systm descriptions. otherwise its no use and the whole effort may be simply skipped in favour of anything more important. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigGun
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 6-May-2015 7:48:48
| | [ #13 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Aug-2005 Posts: 438
From: Germany (Black Forest) | | |
|
| @OlafS25
Quote:
the system is faster when seconds are lower and the number before x is higher (both belongs together). Lame converts the file so less seconds means faster runnin |
While running something like LAME as comparison is in generally a great idea, you have to be very careful when selecting the right benchmark binaries. LAME like the LAME files from AMINET can be extremely misleading.
On Aminet are many several LAME binaries. Some of the binaries are compile with -O2 or -O3, some are compiled with -O0.
I've seen over 100% performance differences the different binaries on Aminet.
_________________ APOLLO the new 68K : www.apollo-core.com |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
tygre
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 6-May-2015 20:47:04
| | [ #14 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 23-Mar-2011 Posts: 279
From: Montreal, QC, Canada | | |
|
| @thread
Hi all!
For what they are worth, using SysInfo v4.0, here are numbers with three different configurations of my Amiga 1200 + Blizzard 68060:
- Without much patch and no special processor settings: MIPS: 49.04 FPU: 36.77 - With all the processor caches and superscalar enabled using the "Processor" patch of MCP: MIPS: 54.82 FPU: 39.25 - Finally, with all the processor caches and superscalar enabled + SystemPatch: MIPS: 55.32 FPU: 39.63
Processor configuration and SystemPatch make a difference!
Cheers! _________________ Tygre Scientific Progress Goes Boing! |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Seiya
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 1:03:27
| | [ #15 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 19-Aug-2006 Posts: 1474
From: Italia | | |
|
| and we can resume native lame like here:
_________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Hillbillylitre
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 2:31:59
| | [ #16 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 4-Apr-2015 Posts: 270
From: Unknown | | |
|
| The tread says clearly "Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) so here's my Amiga x86x64x6000x VS my real Amiga 1200
My real Amiga still beats my x86x64x6000x on AreaFill.
_________________ Using: One Commodore C64 - One Commodore Amiga 500 - One Commodore Amiga 1200 with BVision and Blizzard 68060 with PPC coprocessor running Amiga DOS - One Hellbillylitre Amigatwox86x64x6000x running Windows7 |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
BigGun
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 7:03:09
| | [ #17 ] |
|
|
|
Regular Member |
Joined: 9-Aug-2005 Posts: 438
From: Germany (Black Forest) | | |
|
| @Seiya
Lame on PEG2 @ 1.1 GHz is about 50% faster than Lame on MacMini @ 1.5 GHz ?
How can we explain this? _________________ APOLLO the new 68K : www.apollo-core.com |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
KimmoK
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 7:13:44
| | [ #18 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 14-Mar-2003 Posts: 5211
From: Ylikiiminki, Finland | | |
|
| @BigGun
Using a overclocked G3 on the PEG2 vs G4+Altivec on the mini? Or MacMini was running Moana & AOS4 version of LAME....? Or MacMini ran 68k version of the LAME binary? Last edited by KimmoK on 07-May-2015 at 07:15 AM.
_________________ - KimmoK // For freedom, for honor, for AMIGA // // Thing that I should find more time for: CC64 - 64bit Community Computer? |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
pavlor
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 16:48:31
| | [ #19 ] |
|
|
|
Elite Member |
Joined: 10-Jul-2005 Posts: 9588
From: Unknown | | |
|
| @BigGun
Quote:
Different lame versions (with and without AltiVec) I guess. That is why I ever give version numbers (and configuration) of applications I benchmarked. |
|
Status: Offline |
|
|
Seiya
| |
Re: Benchmarks of 68k (UAE, real hardware) Posted on 7-May-2015 20:02:14
| | [ #20 ] |
|
|
|
Super Member |
Joined: 19-Aug-2006 Posts: 1474
From: Italia | | |
|
| Peg 2@1,1 Ghz should run on MorphOS. in don't know if use Altivec or not _________________
|
|
Status: Offline |
|
|