dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (05/08/91)
I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. My dealer just put 2.03 on the machine, if that might have anything to do with it. Perhaps there is something I haven't set up correctly. Anyway, I am almost positive the machines on display at my dealer seemed much faster. Also, is DPaint III written to take advantage of the A3000's power? The DPaint III at the store seemed MUCH faster than DPaint II here on my 3000. Anyone know? -- dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Kentucky
rblewitt@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (Richard Blewitt) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > > I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working >great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly >fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. > Also, is DPaint III written to take advantage of the A3000's power? The >DPaint III at the store seemed MUCH faster than DPaint II here on my 3000. One word sums up your problem: RAM. With Kickstart sucking up 1/2 meg of fast ram, and Workbench and any utilities you run taking up the other 1/2 meg, you have no fast ram left. I highly recomend that you add 4 megs worth of 1Mx4 SC ZIPS. The speed increase is amazing. Rick _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________.sig____________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ The generic .sig Rick Blewitt rblewitt@ucsd.edu
zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > > I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working >great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly >fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. How much memory do you presently have in it? If you have just the 2 megabytes that came with it, that's the reason. Between Kickstart (512K) and Workbench (maybe 200K), there's not much fast memory left, so your programs run out of chip memory. Programs run MUCH slower from chip memory on the 3000, since fast memory on the motherboard is right on the CPU bus. I added 4 megs to get 6 (2 chip, 4 fast). I ran some before/after benchmarks. I don't remember the exact numbers, but certain programs ran MUCH faster with the extra memory, since they could run completely out of fast memory. You don't need to add this much memory. If you add just one more megabyte, you will have substantially more fast memory, since you have so little now. Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
snork@iastate.edu (Schuler Rodney Arnold) (05/09/91)
Try putting
CPU burst cache
in your startup sequence. When my A3000/16/50 booted up with the default 2.0
startup-sequence it had the 68030's data cache disabled. The perfromance
increase when I enabled the data cache was remarkable.
Rodney Schuler snork@iastate.edu
Graduate Student
Nuclear Engineering One JUST ONE thermonuclear device
-- barrett@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Dan Barrett) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > Also, is DPaint III written to take advantage of the A3000's power? The >DPaint III at the store seemed MUCH faster than DPaint II here on my 3000. DPaint III is faster than DPaint II anyway. Try a few area fills and see the difference. Dan //////////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ | Dan Barrett, Department of Computer Science Johns Hopkins University | | INTERNET: barrett@cs.jhu.edu | | | COMPUSERVE: >internet:barrett@cs.jhu.edu | UUCP: barrett@jhunix.UUCP | \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\/////////////////////////////////////
dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) (05/09/91)
In article <8934@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >> >> I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working >>great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly >>fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. > >How much memory do you presently have in it? If you have just the 2 >megabytes that came with it, that's the reason. Between Kickstart >(512K) and Workbench (maybe 200K), there's not much fast memory left, >so your programs run out of chip memory. Programs run MUCH slower >from chip memory on the 3000, since fast memory on the motherboard is >right on the CPU bus. > Is this because CHIP-ram is busy with other things than running programs or is the CHIP ram clocked at 3.58 Mhz even on a 3000?? /$DR.HEX$
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May9.085003.20421@cs.umu.se> dvljrt@cs.umu.se (Joakim Rosqvist) writes: >In article <8934@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) writes: >>In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >>> I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working >>>great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly >>>fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. >>How much memory do you presently have in it? If you have just the 2 >>megabytes that came with it, that's the reason. >Is this because CHIP-ram is busy with other things than running programs >or is the CHIP ram clocked at 3.58 Mhz even on a 3000?? Both, actually. Chip RAM on an A3000 runs the same type of cycle as on an A2000, this enforced synchronous memory cycle controlled by Agnus. The memory is 32 bits wide, so it's effectively twice as fast as on an A2000, but still slow. It might help to look at numbers. While the custom chips can Chip RAM every 280ns, the CPU only gets every other cycle, at best, so its cycle time to Chip RAM is 560ns. On a 25MHz A3000, the same 32 bit access runs in 200ns. With static column DRAMs and burst, that's reduced to an effective 110ns per longword. So that makes Fast RAM somewhere between 3x and 5x faster than Chip RAM, even when Chip RAM isn't loaded down with lots of video fetch, blitter, or copper activity. And Fast RAM, of course, never gets loaded down. So, basically, you want Fast RAM in your A3000 for anything that doesn't absolutely have to live in Chip RAM. This is really the same on practically every computer, they just don't make their "Chip RAM" flexible enough to contain anything but a video display. You wouldn't, for example, run programs out of the display buffer in a VGA card on a PC Clone. This will always be the case on Amigas. Even with faster systems way in the future, Chip RAM will always be optimized for the needs of the video chips, while the Fast RAM will always be optimized for the needs of the processor bus (CPU, FPU, DMA for SCSI, whatever else lives here). -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
billsey@nesbbx.UUCP (Bill Seymour) (05/10/91)
In article <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp>, Dean Brooks writes: > I just bought my Amiga 3000 25MHZ 50MB, and everything seems to be working > great. The only thing is that I was expecting many program to be BLAZINGly > fast. It seems to be a bit on the slow side, especially for a 25MHZ version. > > My dealer just put 2.03 on the machine, if that might have anything to > do with it. Perhaps there is something I haven't set up correctly. Anyway, > I am almost positive the machines on display at my dealer seemed much > faster. > > Also, is DPaint III written to take advantage of the A3000's power? The > DPaint III at the store seemed MUCH faster than DPaint II here on my 3000. > > Anyone know? Sounds like the system your dealer has set up has more fast ram than yours does. Remember that on your system (1M chip mem, 1M fast mem) with 2.0 loaded, you use almost all of your fast ram. Kickstart uses 512K, the rest of your system uses some more... Move those chips for the 1M of fast to the chip ram sockets and drop 4M of the 1Mx4 SCRAMs in. You'll see a sensational improvement in speed. I've had several people on my BBS lately buy the eight chips needed to bring your system up to 4M of fast ram, and the going price seems to be about $28/chip, or $224 total. > dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) > Copper Electronics, Inc. > Louisville, Kentucky Bill -Bill Seymour nesbbx!billsey@agora.uucp or nesbbx!billsey@agora.rain.com ***** American People/Link Amiga Zone Hardware Specialist NES*BILL ***** Bejed, Inc. NES, Inc. NAG BBS NES BBX BBS Home Sometimes (503)281-8153 (503)246-9311 (503)656-7393 (503)640-9337 (503) 640-0842
kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) (05/14/91)
From article <21451@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie): > per longword. So that makes Fast RAM somewhere between 3x and 5x faster than > Chip RAM, even when Chip RAM isn't loaded down with lots of video fetch, > blitter, or copper activity. And Fast RAM, of course, never gets loaded down. > So, basically, you want Fast RAM in your A3000 for anything that doesn't > absolutely have to live in Chip RAM. > > This is really the same on practically every computer, they just don't make > their "Chip RAM" flexible enough to contain anything but a video display. You > wouldn't, for example, run programs out of the display buffer in a VGA card > on a PC Clone. This will always be the case on Amigas. Even with faster ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > systems way in the future, Chip RAM will always be optimized for the needs of > the video chips, while the Fast RAM will always be optimized for the needs of > the processor bus (CPU, FPU, DMA for SCSI, whatever else lives here). > But it *was* not always true for the Amiga. I think the way the CPU/DMA CHIP RAM access is timed on a 68000 based Amiga was *the* unique feature of the Amiga hardware. Well, it would have been rather expensive to reimplement this "perfect" bus timing in a similar way on a 68030 based system. -- /<ilian -- Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 UUCP: kilian@cinnet.com or {uceng.uc.edu, ukma!spca6, uunet!sdrc}!cinnet!kilian
daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie) (05/16/91)
In article <1991May13.201603.1388@cinnet.com> kilian@cinnet.com (Kilian Jacob) writes: >From article <21451@cbmvax.commodore.com>, by daveh@cbmvax.commodore.com (Dave Haynie): >> This will always be the case on Amigas. Even with faster >> systems way in the future, Chip RAM will always be optimized for the needs of >> the video chips, while the Fast RAM will always be optimized for the needs of >> the processor bus (CPU, FPU, DMA for SCSI, whatever else lives here). >But it *was* not always true for the Amiga. Sure it was. The Chip bus has always been optimized for Agnus. Heck, it can kick the 68000 out for very long periods of time, should you crank display and blitter activity way up. Sure, when this activity was way down, you could interleave 68000 and Chip bus activity, but that's hardly a "feature", simply an indication of how slow the 68000 was. >I think the way the CPU/DMA CHIP RAM access is timed on a 68000 based Amiga >was *the* unique feature of the Amiga hardware. No it wasn't. Systems with "interleaved" video memory, in which the CPU and the video processor alternate cycles are very plentiful. They include the Atari ST, the Atari 800, the C64, C128, VIC-20, Apple II, etc. That method arose from the need to restrict the amount of memory in a system and still get video. It was realizable because memory was so much faster than either video or CPU requirements that a full speed video and CPU cycle could alternate and still not exceed the speed of the memory. Though even before the Amiga, this was already on the way out. The C128, for instance, could kick up to 2MHz mode, but that required switching off the memory shared video (VIC chip) and using only a register-based video controller with it's own private memory (the if 8563). There was plenty of uniqueness about the Amiga's video hardware, and for the most part, there still is. Most other system still don't provide anything like the Amiga bimmer or copper, nor do that provide slot driven DMA channels like the Amiga's. But the actual interleave of CPU and video subsystems was "old hat" in 1985, and like all other such systems, the Amiga's was optimized for video access. And it has to be -- you don't want your microprocessor to take a wait state, but it can. Any delay at all in video, audio, floppy, or copper fetch and it doesn't just get slower, it fails completely. >Well, it would have been rather expensive to reimplement this "perfect" bus >timing in a similar way on a 68030 based system. I think "impossible" might better describe it. Consider that, for a perfectly interleaved system, you need memory that cycles in half the cycle time of your video and CPU. A 25MHz 68030 cycles in 80ns, minimum. Assume you have a new, advanced, video processor that does likewise. That means you need memory that cycles in 40ns, possibly even faster. Typical DRAM cycles in just under twice its access time. So we're talking about 20ns DRAM here. If you have lots of money to spend, you can get 60ns DRAM, maybe 50ns in small quantities. 20ns is fast for even expensive SRAM. >Kilian Jacob - Cincinnati, Ohio - VOICE: (513)-489-1891 -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga (Amiga 3000) "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: hazy BIX: hazy "That's me in the corner, that's me in the spotlight" -R.E.M.
sjk@aura.nbn.com (Scott J. Kramer) (05/22/91)
In article <snork.673734049@du248-04.cc.iastate.edu> snork@iastate.edu (Schuler Rodney Arnold) writes:
From: snork@iastate.edu (Schuler Rodney Arnold)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.hardware
Date: 8 May 91 20:20:49 GMT
References: <1991May8.022802.19449@coplex.uucp> <8934@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Try putting
CPU burst cache
in your startup sequence. When my A3000/16/50 booted up with the default 2.0
startup-sequence it had the 68030's data cache disabled. The perfromance
increase when I enabled the data cache was remarkable.
On my A3000/25, the data cache is enabled, but data burst mode is off.
Are there any possible negative side effects of enabling it?
--
Scott J. Kramer UUCP: {sun,ucbvax}!pixar!aura!sjk
P.O. Box 3392 Internet: sjk@aura.nbn.com
San Rafael, CA 94912