Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6081 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Ports: 1024,5555, 6665-6669
SSL port: 6697
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

Who's Online
24 crawler(s) on-line.
 40 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 bison

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 bison:  41 secs ago
 Bosanac:  12 mins ago
 Gregor:  17 mins ago
 kolla:  24 mins ago
 BSzili:  34 mins ago
 portarinos:  58 mins ago
 BigD:  1 hr 1 min ago
 jacknife:  1 hr 39 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  1 hr 52 mins ago
 Karlos:  1 hr 54 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Alt Amiga OS
      /  Benchmarks
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )
PosterThread
Samwel 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 17-Jan-2006 13:48:27
#41 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 7-Apr-2004
Posts: 3404
From: Sweden

@Chain-Q

The GX is faster than 7447!! That's a fact you can't force two CPU's down
to 133MHz and say that one is faster in same circumstance.
They should be tested with optimal conditions. With the right north bridge
(200MHz bus, like TSi108) I'm quite sure it will out run 7447.
Again excluding altivec.

But of course I agree that a G4 or any model that has altivec is prefered
over the G3's.
It's a shame that Troika didn't choose a G4 for their board. The latest specs
and with a 7447/7447A @+1GHz would have been a really good OS4
motherboard IMHO.

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] A1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
itix 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 17-Jan-2006 15:52:33
#42 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 22-Dec-2004
Posts: 3398
From: Freedom world

@Samwel

Uhm, that is like saying 68060 is faster than G4 at 50MHz (8KB L1 caches, without L2 cache and same bus)... But until 68060 runs at 5000MHz it is irrelevant...

Anyhow how much faster GX is compared to G4 at same clock speed and same cache size? Is it just faster on some operations or in everything excluding Altivec?

Last edited by itix on 17-Jan-2006 at 03:55 PM.
Last edited by itix on 17-Jan-2006 at 03:53 PM.

_________________
Amiga Developer
Amiga 500, Efika, Mac Mini and PowerBook

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wegster 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 17-Jan-2006 16:39:20
#43 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Nov-2004
Posts: 8554
From: RTP, NC USA

@Samwel

Quote:
The GX is faster than 7447!! That's a fact you can't force two CPU's down
to 133MHz and say that one is faster in same circumstance.


A fact should then be borned out by benchmarks. I'd expect the larger cache of the FX to compensate for a bit of clock speed, anywhere that cache hits can be heavily used, but unsure regarding simple computations where the cache isn't used often.

Quote:
They should be tested with optimal conditions. With the right north bridge
(200MHz bus, like TSi108) I'm quite sure it will out run 7447.
Again excluding altivec.


Currently, a 200MHz bus isn't relevant, as we don't have systems with a 200MHz bus, only 133MHz. As this is Amiga and related content, it's much more interesting/useful/appropriate to 'test what we've got' IMO.

Quote:
But of course I agree that a G4 or any model that has altivec is prefered
over the G3's.
It's a shame that Troika didn't choose a G4 for their board. The latest specs
and with a 7447/7447A @+1GHz would have been a really good OS4
motherboard IMHO.


Yep, although it might have increased cost. Whatever the reason, hopefully the next version/model...

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-Jan-2006 1:02:24
#44 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1677
From: Melbourne, Australia

@Seehund

Quote:
OK, dnetc would be a benchmark then. How good or useful a benchmark I wouldn't know.


As a benchmark for emulation, it's about as useless as useless can be. Especially as a benchmark for recompiling (JIT, dynamic, call it what you want) emulation.

And even *if*, for some bizarre reason, one wanted to compare 68k emulations using 68k dnetc, for the love of deity, make sure you are at least running the same CODE! If one runs the 020 core, and one the 060 core, then the results are even more meaningless than usual...

Why is dnetc useless as an emulation benchmark? Well, speaking for RC5-64, the 040 core's main, inner loop

* Has 400+ instructions in a row, unbroken by any jump or conditional
* Does not have a single instruction that operates on anything smaller than 32 bit
* Does provably not examine any flags for the vast majority of those 400+ instructions,
meaning 68k flag generation can be suppressed.
* Has bugger all memory accesses, and those it has are nicely spaced to avoid any
chance of turnaround latency, and are perfectly naturally aligned

Normal application code, on average, has between 3 and 6 instructions before encountering a (usually conditional, or calculated), is heavy with partial register accesses, looks at flags all the time (or at least can't be proven not to look at flags), so while *some* flag generation can be avoided, a lot can't. Oh, and memory accesses are all over the place, non-aligned almost as often as aligned.

A 68k JIT emulator's Nirvana is code having the first three listed properties of the RC5-64 core. Where JIT emulators slow down is when having to deal with jumps and conditionals. On PPC, dealing with less-than-32-bit operations is also a pain, involving multiple instructions to do even the simplest thing. And generating 68k flags (which are no less irregular than x86 flags) on a PPC (which has a very simple, very regular flag generation scheme) will slow things right down. Especially for the rotate instructions used in RC5, for which the 68k flags are even more convoluted than the x86 ones....

If you insist on running dnetc as an "emulation benchmark", then at least force each machine to use the 020 core; That way, the JIT will use something a little(!) more like real application code...


Of course, the interpretive emulation can't reap most of those benefits, because it looks at one instruction at a time. It *ALWAYS* has to create flags. It *always* treats the address of the next instruction as an unknown surprise.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-Jan-2006 1:40:48
#45 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1677
From: Melbourne, Australia

@thread

As a suggestion --- 4.5 years ago, I published a list of benchmarks, then run on Amithlon, with detailed instruction on how to run them on the users' own machines. All of them are 68k, and all of them are freely available (and the descriptions mention where they can be obtained). And most of them are more sensible than running dnetc :)

I have just uploaded the textfile again, so if people are relly interested in comparing things (and especially if there is someone out there with Petunia running), it might be a good idea to try and reproduce as many of those as possible. Especially the bzip2 one is nice (replace the data file mentioned in the text with
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v1.0/linux-1.0.tar.bz2).

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
wegster 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-Jan-2006 1:58:12
#46 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 29-Nov-2004
Posts: 8554
From: RTP, NC USA

@umisef
Thanks for the insight, as well as the text file...I _have_ to laugh at this quote from it, though

(RE: dnetc)
Quote:
Yes, I *know* these are not benchmarks. I know these shouldn't even be
considered for benchmarking. But of course, some people *do* use them
for benchmarking (you know who you are!), so I will provide numbers. Unless
you feel an irresistible urge to compare machines based on their RC5 or
OGR scores, you should completely ignore this section!

_________________
Are we not done with the same silly arguments and flames yet??!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Samwel 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-Jan-2006 2:37:28
#47 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 7-Apr-2004
Posts: 3404
From: Sweden

@itix

That wasn't really what I meant.

I meant that you shouldn't compare a 200MHz FSB CPU @ 800MHz with a
167MHz FSB CPU @ 1GHz connected to DIFFERENT northbridges (and ram)
which runs @ 133MHz FSB. This seriously hurt the GX performance.
Also "calculating" up the speed from 800MHz to 1GHz while running @133MHz
also limits the gain GX would have made.

As I recall it most operations where faster (excluding altivec optimized
routines of course). Due to the MUCH larger cache of 1MB and the higher FSB.
But 7448 blows the GX away totally of course

* Note this is not applicable on the A1-C as it has the Articia S which only run
FSB @ 133MHz and not use the GX fully. Any PegasosII or A1-XE would be faster
than this implementation.

_________________
/Harry

[SOLD] A1-C - 750GX 800MHz - 512MB - Antec Aria case

Avatar by HNL_DK!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 8-Feb-2006 22:19:40
#48 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

@tomazkid

OS4-PR update 3
Quote:
dnetc v2.9010-495-CTR-05051421 for AmigaOS (OS 4.0pre, 68K).

[Jan 13 03:03:39 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Jan 13 03:03:39 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Jan 13 03:03:59 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:16.69 [41,970 keys/sec]
[Jan 13 03:03:59 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Jan 13 03:04:19 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:17.83 [186,412 nodes/sec]


and OS4-PR update 4

dnetc v2.9010-495-CTR-05051421 for AmigaOS (OS 4.0pre, 68K).
Please provide the *entire* version descriptor when submitting bug reports.
The distributed.net bug report pages are at http://www.distributed.net/bugs/

[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:17.07 [811,721 keys/sec]
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Feb 08 22:15:58 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:16.19 [2,414,877 nodes/sec]
5.RAM Disk:dnetc_68k>




To Rachy!

Last edited by tomazkid on 08-Feb-2006 at 10:20 PM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
umisef 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 9-Feb-2006 15:30:48
#49 ]
Super Member
Joined: 19-Jun-2005
Posts: 1677
From: Melbourne, Australia

@tomazkid

Quote:
[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:17.07 [811,721 keys/sec]
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Feb 08 22:15:58 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:16.19 [2,414,877 nodes/sec]


To be honest, I find this a rather disappointing result.

When a G4 emulating a 68k is not only slower than a 2001 Athlon emulating a 68k in absolute terms (812kkeys/s vs 2.2Mkeys/s), but also per clock cycle (just over 1 key per kilocycle, vs just over 1.5 keys per kilocycle), then that's a bit sad. Same for OGR (2.4Mnodes/s vs 3.47Mnodes/s, but at least here the per-MHz looks better --- 3 nodes per kilocycle, vs 2.6 nodes per kilocycle).

Of course, the 2001 figure were for much older clients, and running RC5-64 (which, however, as far as I can tell from statistics, runs at the same keyrate as rc5-72), so that, too, should be in the G4's favour (together with its 32 general purpose registers, and it being big-endian). Not to mention that the G4 doesn't have to emulate hardware, and the Athlon did.

Worse yet, on this particular RC5 "benchmark" (see my earlier posts :), Petunia on a G4/800 in task-based emulation seems to do a measly 10% better than my 333MHz iMac using my "3 month spare time hobby" PPC-JIT, and about 80% faster on OGR; In RC5, my JIT on a 600MHz G3 gets 60% *more* performance than Petunia on the G4/800, and almost exactly the same on OGR.

I would have expected more from an emulator that doesn't need to worry about hardware emulation, and runs on a nice RISC processor...

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 9-Feb-2006 15:39:37
#50 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

@umisef

The rc5-72 actually went to about 1,100,100 keys/sec when I used the cores for 060 and 040 instead of the 020/030 , and OGR improved a little as well, but not that much.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Zylesea 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 14-Feb-2006 10:04:47
#51 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 16-Mar-2004
Posts: 2241
From: Ostwestfalen, FRG

@Zylesea

Quote:

Zylesea wrote:
@tomazkid

I did some benches comparing Peg1, BlizzardPPC, WinUAE and 68040. Site is in German, but numbers and configs are clear anyway.

http://via.i-networx.de/bench_en.html (English)
http://via.i-networx.de/bench.html (German)

List is vey short, but gives a brief estimate between the 68k, MOS on the Blizzard and Peg and UAE.

edit: added english link


Now that update4 with JIT is out, anyone with an (u)A1 willing to share numbers on benoit and Cinema4D? All my test parameters are listed at the link. C4D Version is 1.6.1998 (the copy that was sold withteh German mag "Amiga spezial".

_________________
My programs: via.bckrs.de
MorphOS user since V0.4 (2001)

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Mr_Capehill 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 14-Feb-2006 11:38:35
#52 ]
Super Member
Joined: 15-Mar-2003
Posts: 1932
From: Yharnam

@umisef

I'm curios about what that IMac is running, is it "Amithlon PPC" or something like that? Haven't seen/heard before.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
spotUP 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 22-Feb-2006 16:29:16
#53 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 19-Aug-2003
Posts: 2896
From: Up Rough Demo Squad

@Chain-Q

hmmm.. my a1/xe/g3 renders that picture in 4-5 secs now. :)
(petunia upd4)

edit: uhm, what resolution did you use btw?

Last edited by spotUP on 22-Feb-2006 at 04:35 PM.

_________________
AOS4 Betatester, Peg2, G4@1ghz, Radeon 9250 256mb, 1gb RAM.

http://www.asciiarena.com
http://www.uprough.net

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 26-Dec-2006 3:29:30
#54 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

@tomazkid

with Update 3
Quote:


dnetc v2.9010-495-CTR-05051421 for AmigaOS (OS 4.0pre, 68K).

[Jan 13 03:03:39 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Jan 13 03:03:39 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Jan 13 03:03:59 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:16.69 [41,970 keys/sec]
[Jan 13 03:03:59 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Jan 13 03:04:19 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:17.83 [186,412 nodes/sec]

This with 7450/51 at 800 mhz.



With Update 4
Quote:
[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Feb 08 22:15:21 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:17.07 [811,721 keys/sec]
[Feb 08 22:15:40 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Feb 08 22:15:58 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:16.19 [2,414,877 nodes/sec]



OS4 final

dnetc v2.9010-495-CTR-05051421 for AmigaOS (OS 4.0pre, 68K).

[Dec 26 03:17:09 UTC] Automatic processor type detection found
a Motorola 68020 processor.
[Dec 26 03:17:09 UTC] RC5-72: using core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030).
[Dec 26 03:17:27 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #0 (MH 1-pipe 68020/030)
0.00:00:16.29 [827,822 keys/sec]
[Dec 26 03:17:27 UTC] RC5-72: using core #1 (MH 1-pipe 68000/040).
[Dec 26 03:17:46 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #1 (MH 1-pipe 68000/040)
0.00:00:16.13 [1,221,837 keys/sec]
[Dec 26 03:17:46 UTC] RC5-72: using core #2 (MH 2-pipe 68060).
[Dec 26 03:18:05 UTC] RC5-72: Benchmark for core #2 (MH 2-pipe 68060)
0.00:00:17.07 [1,325,471 keys/sec]
[Dec 26 03:18:05 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #0 (GARSP 6.0 68000).
[Dec 26 03:18:23 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #0 (GARSP 6.0 68000)
0.00:00:16.30 [2,080,608 nodes/sec]
[Dec 26 03:18:23 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020).
[Dec 26 03:18:42 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #1 (GARSP 6.0 68020)
0.00:00:16.40 [2,503,624 nodes/sec]
[Dec 26 03:18:42 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #2 (GARSP 6.0 68030).
[Dec 26 03:19:00 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #2 (GARSP 6.0 68030)
0.00:00:16.40 [2,503,689 nodes/sec]
[Dec 26 03:19:00 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #3 (GARSP 6.0 68040).
[Dec 26 03:19:20 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #3 (GARSP 6.0 68040)
0.00:00:16.91 [2,489,382 nodes/sec]
[Dec 26 03:19:20 UTC] OGR-P2: using core #4 (GARSP 6.0 68060).
[Dec 26 03:19:39 UTC] OGR-P2: Benchmark for core #4 (GARSP 6.0 68060)
0.00:00:16.94 [2,503,869 nodes/sec]

Last edited by tomazkid on 26-Dec-2006 at 03:37 AM.
Last edited by tomazkid on 26-Dec-2006 at 03:35 AM.
Last edited by tomazkid on 26-Dec-2006 at 03:32 AM.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 22-Jan-2008 15:33:24
#55 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

BUMP

Now when OS4 Classic is out, perhaps you OS4 Classic users could add some benchmarks ?

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-May-2008 13:32:47
#56 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

Bump!

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
DBAlex 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-May-2008 14:50:06
#57 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 23-Jul-2006
Posts: 756
From: UK

@tomazkid

Won't they just be the same as Morphos being used on a PPC classic machine?





_________________
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 !

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
tomazkid 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-May-2008 16:17:34
#58 ]
Team Member
Joined: 31-Jul-2003
Posts: 11694
From: Kristianstad, Sweden

@DBAlex

This is regarding 68k emulation mostly.

_________________
Site admins are people too..pooff!

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks
Posted on 19-May-2008 20:21:22
#59 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12344
From: Norway

@DBAlex

Nope it depends on Just In time compiler, what PowerPC assembler instructions it uses, to replace 670x0 instructions.

Petunia vs Trans.

Read about Petunia her:
http://www.amiga.hu/amigos/rachy/petunia.html

_________________
http://lifeofliveforit.blogspot.no/
Facebook::LiveForIt Software for AmigaOS

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 )

[ home ][ about us ][ privacy ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright (C) 2000 - 2019 Amigaworld.net.
Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle