Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
6071 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
0 crawler(s) on-line.
 102 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 VooDoo

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 VooDoo:  3 mins ago
 mailman:  21 mins ago
 BillE:  24 mins ago
 matthey:  33 mins ago
 Hypex:  37 mins ago
 pixie:  1 hr 6 mins ago
 saimo:  1 hr 29 mins ago
 DiscreetFX:  1 hr 32 mins ago
 Lou:  1 hr 42 mins ago
 Frank:  1 hr 44 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga General Chat
      /  Benchmarks time 2018 Edition! ;-)
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 )
PosterThread
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:07:10
#81 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@recedent

Quote:

aFlopsWOS: Amiga Flops Benchmark (Double Precision),

MFLOPS(1) = 283.2340
MFLOPS(2) = 205.4596
MFLOPS(3) = 331.6121
MFLOPS(4) = 466.1064



What do these results mean?
How do you read this?

Does this mean 466 MFlops?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tuxedo 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:13:19
#82 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 28-Nov-2003
Posts: 2348
From: Perugia, ITALY

@Gunnar

Honestly wasnt the problem here what it means exactly...
The important thing was to have for everyone the same metric compaarison value...
So mflop tflop or picoflops dont cares...
The important thing was to use for eveyone the same bench tool, so to have comparable values.
No matter if wasnt good values for all the world...

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:15:29
#83 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12840
From: Norway

@Tuxedo

Maybe because there are only a few beta testers who own one.

also it does say "2018 Edition!" perhaps start new "2024 Edition"?

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 10-Mar-2024 at 10:16 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:18:53
#84 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@Tuxedo

But how do you read it?

Does this means 466 MFlops?
Or what?

Because if it means this ...
then it makes no sense ...

As the G4 values should be 3 times this number..
So I wonder what the bench measures of if the bench is broken?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:19:11
#85 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12840
From: Norway

@Tuxedo

Must be careful with tools that’s not native WarpOS, is perhaps PowerPC, but it can be misaligned.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tuxedo 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:23:58
#86 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 28-Nov-2003
Posts: 2348
From: Perugia, ITALY

@Gunnar

I honestly only wanted to compare results made with same program on different systems, no matter the number itself, but the result obtained on different systems that maybe comparable.

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:25:32
#87 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12840
From: Norway

@Gunnar

Can be many things, EClock was changed in AmigaOS4.1. it tricks too fast compared to Amiga1200.

Last edited by NutsAboutAmiga on 10-Mar-2024 at 10:28 AM.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tuxedo 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:25:38
#88 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 28-Nov-2003
Posts: 2348
From: Perugia, ITALY

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:

Maybe because there are only a few beta testers who own one.


No problem here...no hurry...

Quote:

also it does say "2018 Edition!" perhaps start new "2024 Edition"?


no have time to create a new post at all...and here we have already some values.

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tuxedo 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:27:31
#89 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 28-Nov-2003
Posts: 2348
From: Perugia, ITALY

@ALL

BTW....
That wasnt a thread to create flame or whaterver...
Just try to use the tool that can be used and see what happens...

For example simply use only tools (like lame for example) that have a native version and compare them...possibly with same version

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:34:15
#90 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@Tuxedo

Quote:
For example simply use only tools (like lame for example) that have a native version and compare them...possibly with same version


This makes a lot sense..

Of course as long the tools not broken by design.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 10:37:07
#91 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Quote:
Can be many things, EClock was changed in AmigaOS4.1. it tricks too fast compared to Amiga1200.


Is the source of the bench anywhere so download?

Maybe we can explain it then?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 11:17:27
#92 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12840
From: Norway

@Gunnar

No idea, the decompiles has improved I know, it perhaps get fixed, buy someone with the skills.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 11:20:57
#93 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@Tuxedo

Is this the source?

https://github.com/AMDmi3/flops

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
NutsAboutAmiga 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 11:25:58
#94 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 9-Jun-2004
Posts: 12840
From: Norway

@Gunnar

I always wanted something like MacOS7.x.x speedometer for AmigaOS, yep its pretty simple tool, but tells a lot about the difference aspect of system disk, io, math, etc..
the best thing about it is that easy to compare different systems. But I’m pretty sure its 680x0 only, so does give some misinformation about PowerPC machines, what’s good and what’s bad. The information is only relevant if a MacOS 68K program running on the hardware nothing else.

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

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 11:41:05
#95 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@NutsAboutAmiga

Yes I know what you mean.


I think measuring performance is very difficult.

A CPU has many different instructions and a coder has often many different ways to solve a problem.

The FPU benchmark code for example ... is not well coded.
FPU instructions have latency and the IBM and Motorola programmers manual explain you very clearly how to write reasonable FPU code. Looking at the source, this test is not written how coders should write FPU code.
This explains also the terrible score.

If you goal is to measure how fast the CPU can go with very bad written code...
Then the test does a perfect job.

It depends on what you want to measure.
If you want to measure how fast the CPU could go with good code, then you need to use another benchmark.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tuxedo 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 11:51:38
#96 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 28-Nov-2003
Posts: 2348
From: Perugia, ITALY

@Gunnar

dunno the source, I only downloaded the aMiga-like versions ready of the tools, maybe in the readme files was written...

_________________
Simone"Tuxedo"Monsignori, Perugia, ITALY.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
kolla 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 12:00:28
#97 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Aug-2003
Posts: 2962
From: Trondheim, Norway

@Gunnar

Quote:
If you goal is to measure how fast the CPU can go with very bad written code...


That's the typical real life scenario.

_________________
B5D6A1D019D5D45BCC56F4782AC220D8B3E2A6CC

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Gunnar 
Re: Benchmarks time 2018 Edition!
Posted on 10-Mar-2024 18:31:51
#98 ]
Cult Member
Joined: 25-Sep-2022
Posts: 511
From: Unknown

@kolla

Gunnar:
Quote:
If you goal is to measure how fast the CPU can go with very bad written code...


Kola:
Quote:
That's the typical real life scenario.



Maybe yes, maybe no.

I agree that some coder write bad code.

But with FPU code in general you very often have workloads where you have to bulk process a lot of data.
E.g. do matrix transformation over thousands of vertices for a 3D program.
These FPU workloads can often be written very good and optimal.
Also C Compiler like GCC can on do on such code pretty decent results.
And "good" CPU will allow to several FPU instruction parallel.

Now this benchmark code look relative bad written,
and the way its written will nullify many good features in good CPUs.

So not sure if its useful to run it.


When we you look at cars then typically you say that a good driver with free street can get this car can do max 280 KMH.

What value would have a sentence like:

This Porsche with a bad driver with some traffic jam might reach 50 KMH ?





 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 )

[ 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