[net.micro.amiga] Memory board timings

gibson@unc.UUCP (Bill Gibson) (07/17/86)

>In article <737@Navajo.ARPA> rokicki@Navajo.UUCP writes:
	(CardCo board:)
>>
>>	512K machine, 1.1		988 dhrystones
>>	1536K machine, 1.1		674 dhrystones
>>		Loss			 31.8%
>>	512K machine, 1.2 beta II	983 dhrystones
>>	1536K machine, 1.2 beta II	664 dhrystones
>>		Loss			 32.5%
>>
In article <435@oscvax.UUCP> rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani) writes:
	(Comspec board:)
>
>    512K machine, 1.1		975.04 dhrys/sec = 51.28 secs for 50000 cycles
>    2.5M machine, 1.1		967.49 dhrys/sec = 51.68 secs for 50000 cycles
>    Comparison:  99.23% of top speed = 0.77% Loss
>
>    512K machine, 1.2 Beta II	976.56 dhrys/sec = 51.20 secs for 50000 cycles
>    2.5M machine, 1.2 Beta II	963.58 dhrys/sec = 51.89 secs for 50000 cycles
>    Comparison:  98.67% of top speed = 1.33% Loss

Were these tests run with the benchmarks *located* in the extra memory,
or were they just run with the extra memory attached? Of course, I would
assume the memory was being used, but I would like to see this explicitly 
stated.

I don't know how the Amiga's wait states are generated; is timing the same
for all memory, or can one have slow expander memory and fast factory-installed
memory?

Bill Gibson
gibson@unc                   ...[akgua,decvax,philabs]!mcnc!unc!gibson

rico@oscvax.UUCP (07/20/86)

In article <25@unc.unc.UUCP> gibson@unc.UUCP writes:
>>In article <737@Navajo.ARPA> rokicki@Navajo.UUCP writes:
>	(CardCo board:)
>>>
>>>	512K machine, 1.1		988 dhrystones
>>>	1536K machine, 1.1		674 dhrystones
>>>		Loss			 31.8%
>>>	512K machine, 1.2 beta II	983 dhrystones
>>>	1536K machine, 1.2 beta II	664 dhrystones
>>>		Loss			 32.5%
>>>
>In article <435@oscvax.UUCP> rico@oscvax.UUCP (Rico Mariani) writes:
>	(Comspec board:)
>>
>>    512K machine, 1.1		975.04 dhrys/sec = 51.28 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    2.5M machine, 1.1		967.49 dhrys/sec = 51.68 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    Comparison:  99.23% of top speed = 0.77% Loss
>>
>>    512K machine, 1.2 Beta II	976.56 dhrys/sec = 51.20 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    2.5M machine, 1.2 Beta II	963.58 dhrys/sec = 51.89 secs for 50000 cycles
>>    Comparison:  98.67% of top speed = 1.33% Loss
>
>Were these tests run with the benchmarks *located* in the extra memory,
>or were they just run with the extra memory attached? Of course, I would
>assume the memory was being used, but I would like to see this explicitly 
>stated.
>

I can't speak for the CARDCO tests, but the tests I did were with the
benchmark program actually running in the "fast" ram.

	That's all
	 -Rico

	...{ihnp4|allegra|decvax|watmath|linus}!utzoo!oscvax!rico

rokicki@navajo.UUCP (07/20/86)

[-] Postnews Window ===================================================[=][=]

> >Were these tests run with the benchmarks *located* in the extra memory,
> >or were they just run with the extra memory attached? Of course, I would
> >assume the memory was being used, but I would like to see this explicitly 
> >stated.
> I can't speak for the CARDCO tests, but the tests I did were with the
> benchmark program actually running in the "fast" ram.

In the CardCo tests, they were run with the benchmarks located in the fast
RAM.  As soon as I get to my office with my soldering iron, I'll let you
know how fast a fixed CardCo board runs.

-tom

rokicki@navajo.UUCP (07/21/86)

CardCo, with strapping problem:
>>
>>	512K machine, 1.1		988 dhrystones
>>	1536K machine, 1.1		674 dhrystones
>>		Loss			 31.8%
>>	512K machine, 1.2 beta II	983 dhrystones
>>	1536K machine, 1.2 beta II	664 dhrystones
>>		Loss			 32.5%
>>
Comspec board:
>    512K machine, 1.1		975.04 dhrys/sec = 51.28 secs for 50000 cycles
>    2.5M machine, 1.1		967.49 dhrys/sec = 51.68 secs for 50000 cycles
>    Comparison:  99.23% of top speed = 0.77% Loss
>
>    512K machine, 1.2 Beta II	976.56 dhrys/sec = 51.20 secs for 50000 cycles
>    2.5M machine, 1.2 Beta II	963.58 dhrys/sec = 51.89 secs for 50000 cycles
>    Comparison:  98.67% of top speed = 1.33% Loss

I just fixed my CardCo board (my soldering iron is still hot), and these are
the new updated timings:

512K machine, 1.1            988 dhrystones
1.5M machine, 1.1            938 dhrystones
   94.9% of top speed = 5.1% loss

512K machine, 1.2 Beta II    983 dhrystones
1.5M machine, 1.2 Beta II    933 dhrystones
   94.9% of top speed = 5.1% loss

So, it's taking about 5% away; sounds like refresh delays.  I suspect that
this 5% will come back with interest on normal applications which access
the disk and therefore use the coprocessors, though.  I also decided to run
the Mandlebrot set and see what improvement I noticed there.  Here are the
timings for mse (from the Fish disks) on a 640x200x4 screen, when the reset
both window and region menu option is selected, for one scan of the window:

512K machine, 1.1    56m 4s
1.5M machine, 1.1    31m13s
   Speedup:  1.796 (79.6%)

Not bad!

-tom