"New" amiga hardware

[biggun]

I think the little Vampire can do even better results if the CPU is properly setup.

What do you think about this value?

[som99]

I think the little Vampire can do even better results if the CPU is properly setup.

What do you think about this value?

I think that my A600 with Vampire 600 will put up some competition and my A1200 will cry a little with it's 030

[amiman99]

I think the little Vampire can do even better results if the CPU is properly setup.

What do you think about this value?

Phone me now!!!

[ElPolloDiabl]

You could beat some low end ARM chips. What do you think it means for the hobby overall?
More interest, more upgrades would be nice.
In the least there will be more games that can be ported.

[JimDrew]

Phone me now!!!

Ha!  I remember contacting Nic with that quote.  I was the first person to see the message (legitimately) and he wanted to immediately know what CPU I was using.  It was a prototype of the X-Calibur add-on for an overclocked A3640 in an A4000.

[amiman99]

Ha!  I remember contacting Nic with that quote.  I was the first person to see the message (legitimately) and he wanted to immediately know what CPU I was using.  It was a prototype of the X-Calibur add-on for an overclocked A3640 in an A4000.

I wonder what comment is after "Phone me now!!!"

I always envied those with 060s, the fastest I ever got was overclocked 040 to 33MHz.
but now, that speed could be affordable to everyone.

[Oldsmobile_Mike]

I always envied those with 060s, the fastest I ever got was overclocked 040 to 33MHz.
but now, that speed could be affordable to everyone.

Still not cheap if trying to do it with original hardware.  Emulation, on the other hand, sure, but I'm a bit of a purist.  

Makes me happy to run SysInfo on my A2000 and see it's faster than an A4000, haha.  

[amiman99]

Still not cheap if trying to do it with original hardware.  Emulation, on the other hand, sure, but I'm a bit of a purist.  

Makes me happy to run SysInfo on my A2000 and see it's faster than an A4000, haha.  

I'm not into Amiga emulation, sure I have WinUAE and Amiga Forever installed on my PC, but it's not the same, there is something missing.
I mostly use emulation for testing purposes, like using CD32 emulation to see if my game works w/o burning bunch of disks.

[NorthWay]

What do you think about this value?

I think this is great news, but I do question the validity of the values when it reports 3.17(or even 4.00) times the chipspeed of an A600.

Anything more than 1.xx from an accelerator does not make sense. A cache can eliminate the instruction fetch, and the non-bus using logic can be sped up, but the rest should be pure chipmem cycles of which you can't magically conjure any more than there already are.

(Well, I can see a possible trick in your implementation if you replace one write with a more recent one if the old hasn't yet gone out to the bus, but then we are in bad code territory and should find some other testing tool - which is interesting in itself of course.)

[amiman99]

/\
Sysinfo reports "Chip Speed vs A600" at 7.20 on my A1200 030 50MHz.
Is it because it's AGA?

[NorthWay]

/\
Sysinfo reports "Chip Speed vs A600" at 7.20 on my A1200 030 50MHz.
Is it because it's AGA?

Sysinfo was never my choice of testing tool - and for good reason it seems.
There are only two bandwidth speeds in Amigas produced by C=
1) (7,160,000 / 4) * 2 giving you 3.5 megabytes per second - OCS/ECS
2) (7,160,000 / 4) * 4 giving you 7 megabytes per second - AGA

The second one requires longword access, the first one word access. The bandwidth halves for each time you halve your access width (unless the cpu is clever enough to glue two accesses together if they are close enough in time - I don't think any of them are?).

So 7.20 might be a number to compare other machines with as long as they use a consistent scale, but taken as a measure of speed it is totally FUBAR.
If you want to check your speed I suggest bustest: http://aminet.net/util/moni/bustest.lha

[amiman99]

I would love to see 3D rendering times with software like Vista, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, etc. This will show real world speed compared to stock machines.

[biggun]

I think this is great news, but I do question the validity of the values when it reports 3.17(or even 4.00) times the chipspeed of an A600.

This is just the way Sysinfo calculates this,
And it makes sense if you think about it.

Look atr this code:

LOOP:
  MOVE (A0),D0
  DBF     D7,LOOP

What does it do?
It read 16bit of data in a loop
The code to do this is 6 bytes long.
This means 2 bytes data loaded and 6 bytes instruction loaded.

If you machine only has chipmem then all 8 bytes are loaded from the same bus.,
This means this AMIGA uses 25% of the bandwidth for data and 75% for instructions.

Now if your AMIGA has fastmem the instructions can come from fastmem.
Therefore your can up to 4 times the bandwidth of the chipmem.

This is in a nutshell how the calculation of SYSINFO works.

[NorthWay]

This is in a nutshell how the calculation of SYSINFO works.

Thanks.

So in other words it has very little to do with the chipmem speed at all really, it is a compound of cpu, cache, and chipmem speed - bad benchmark, bad!

[ElPolloDiabl]

You need at least a pentium II 233 to get good rendering speeds? I vaguely remember.
I'm personally impressed by the latest AMD chips, the shared architecture works well.

[mumule]

You need at least a pentium II 233 to get good rendering speeds? I vaguely remember.

Be carefull what you're comparing here. If you just say "rendering" it is also a function of the memory speed. And the phoenix/stratix/ddr3 has definitely higher bandwidth than the pentiumII/233 back than. And probably, if you twist Gunnars arm, he will probbaly add something into the phoenix core to shed some light on a triangle?
;-)