Amiga.org
The "Not Quite Amiga but still computer related category" => Amiga Emulation => Topic started by: SHADES on February 16, 2005, 08:59:37 PM
-
Hi all,
Just playing around with WinUAE and I have found that it runs 80% faster on my work HP Pentium 4 2.0Gig CELERON computer with onboard Intel crap graphics Windows XP and 512 MB RAM than it does on my ATHLON 2400+ computer with ATI 8500/128 graphics card and also 512MB RAM Windows 2000.
How did I get 80%?? Well I ran AIBB tests on the PC at work as the PC at home seemed less responsive than the one at work. Things like beach ball tests etc. The work one gave 112% bigger than the one at home!!
JIT and all other stuff in enabled, infact I use the same config at home as to the one at work so I don't get it.
What's the go here! my Athlon computer is certainly the faster computer and the graphics hardware would be twice if not more the power of the crappy Intel chipset one.
Is it the fact I am running windows 2000 on the Athlon? I wouldn't have thought so, or is it because some bright spark compiled WinUAE for Pentium 4 specificly?
I'd sure like to run the program faster than at work, but not at the cost of buying a Pentium 4 or having to buy a CRAP Intel graphics card. :pissed:
-
I notice one has WinXP whereas the other has Win2K, perhaps it's using OS functions which have changed between the 2.
Have you tried it with XP on your home machine?
-
@minator
No, I run Windows 2k at home. I woudn't have thought it would be such a difference though, afterall, Windows XP is built on Windows 2000 and I have all the patches installed.
However if Windows XP has THAT much of a perfomance gain on Windows 2000, I'll buy it!!!
-
i think it's the pentium. i run my WinUAE on a P4 laptop (win2000). it runs just fine.
-
where as a pentium4 will kick nearly any cpu's arse at video encoding, due to long pipelines and no need for prediciton
An AMD 64 whoops its arse on games.
depending on the speeds,a pentium 4 will probably eb quicker than your athlon 2400+
run a benchmarking prog
or dp what i did last year, buy a xp2500+ with barton core, whap the fsb up to 400mhz and there u go super fast 2.2ghz amd with 400 mhz fsb on the cheap
-
Hum,
Onboard chip cache an operating system makes a huge difference...
And i suppose that the memory speed (FSB) would be also significant...er, as well as HD speed, and graphics card...
(Did i miss anything out?)
-
@ Blobrana
I thought P4 CELERON had a lot less CPU Cache than normal P4s??
Remember I did say p4 CELERON.
Surely my ATHLON 2400+ has more cache than the Celeron CPU.
:edit:
Sorry that may have sounded a bit harsh, I should have worded that differently :) and I do appreciate your effort helping. I'm at a loss to why one is so much faster than the other, well other than the creator compiled WinUAE only for P4 or something like that.
-
Surely my ATHLON 2400+ has more cache than the Celeron CPU.
Yes, though by how much depends which 2400+ you have.
The AMD Semperon 2400+ features 1.667ghz, 256k L2, 128k L1 and 333mhz FSB.
The AMD Mobile Athlon XP 2400+ features 1.8ghz, 512k L2, 128k L1 and 266mhz FSB.
The AMD Athlon XP 462 2400+ features 2.0ghz, 256k L2, 128k L1 and 266mhz FSB.
The Celeron 2.0ghz has 128k L2, 20k L1 and 400mhz FSB.
My guess might be that the Athlon is getting killed at the memory accessing. The emulation may not fit in the on-board cache of either processor, and the Celeron's faster front-side bus, improved memory bandwidth, and raw clock speed are giving it the edge.
You might want to benchmark in Windows, though. If the Celeron shows significantly faster for CPU scores, you may have a configuration error on your Athlon that is slowing it down. (Bad/outdated chipset drivers, perhaps?)
-
I believe the JIT compiler is designed to produce code optimized for Pentium processors.
Your display adapter shouldn't make much of a difference one way or the other.
Trev
-
@ illwrath
I don't know!, to me I would have thought the bigger on die Cache is going to have the greatest perfomance increase over FSB memory access speed in this case as it's where all the common instructions will execute from. the more cache, the mor instructions able to be accessed without the need to re-calculate.
All drivers are up to date for my mainboard including bios.
In all the examples above, no matter what Athlon chip is there, it still has a much bigger on die CPU cache like you said.
-
@ Trev
Well that's a real Plus for Intel. Gee I hope you are wrong, I don't like INTEL CPU's
That's nasty coding. Why not just optimize the JIT for standard x86 that is used by all x86 CPUs??
-
Hey SHADES,
SHADES wrote:
Hi all,
Just playing around with WinUAE and I have found that it runs 80% faster on my work HP Pentium 4 2.0Gig CELERON computer with onboard Intel crap graphics Windows XP and 512 MB RAM than it does on my ATHLON 2400+ computer with ATI 8500/128 graphics card and also 512MB RAM Windows 2000.
I would check your setup at home, because "all things being equal" your Athlon should be doing better. WinUAE smokes on my Athlon (Barton), 3.9 boots literally in 2.5 seconds, and benches roughly equivalent to a 1 GHz 68040 in processor benchmarks. I can't wait to try it on an Athlon 64.
Is your Athlon a mobile? What are the multiplier/FSB set to, and what is your RAM rated for? (Granted, your overall system config will have an effect..)
Is it the fact I am running windows 2000 on the Athlon? I wouldn't have thought so, or is it because some bright spark compiled WinUAE for Pentium 4 specificly?
I'd sure like to run the program faster than at work, but not at the cost of buying a Pentium 4 or having to buy a CRAP Intel graphics card. :pissed:
FWIW, WinUAE is *much* faster on XP than 98, haven't tried 2000. Don't bother with the graphics card, WinUAE 2D (especially RTG) is still slower than it could be, and I found absolutely no difference testing between a Radeon 9000 and Radeon 9800 XT on the same system. (Overall, 2D ops benched somewhat faster on my G3 Pegasos/Radeon 9000.) With a Radeon 8500, you'll get a much better performance boost by upgrading things other than your gfx card.
Also...I would highly suggest checking your chipset drivers, video drivers, and maybe giving XP a go...make sure you have a level testbed for comparison!! :-)
-
I find that a virus checker can dramatically influence the speed of WinUAE. When I had Trend's OfficeScan running in the background, WinUAE was running at a snail's pace. With it turned off it was super fast. Perhaps your home PC has a different virus checker?
- Mike
-
@SHADES
Well, it's not a conspiracy against AMD. And it's not necessarily the instructions themselves but how the processors work internally and how they handle certain types of operations.
One has to make a choice, and Intel still has the most market share. I suppose the JIT could have been designed without optimizations, but then it would just be slow on every processor, not just AMD's.
Of course, I could be talking out my ass. ;-) I don't really know anything about dynamic recompilation. But anyone with enough motivation should be able to pick up the WinUAE source code and figure out why it's slower on processor B than it is on processor A. :-) From the looks of it, the optimizations in the JIT are about replacing expensive function calls with inline code and making simple choices about which instructions to generate (e.g. a single atomic register swap instruction versus a series of three moves using the stack, a temporary register, or a combination of the two).
It may actually be a case of the Intel processor having extended functionality that the AMD processor just doesn't have.
EDIT: Glaucus has a good point. As the JIT is generating code, the virus scanner is most likely scanning and rescanning those regions of memory. The end result is a serious hit not only from the scanning itself, but from context switches and general operating system overhead (by overhead, I mean all the things the operating system does to make multitasking possible). Contrary to what most people believe, it *is* possible to tune the Windows NT kernel. If you can't find your bottleneck in hardware, it may be something the kernel is doing that it shouldn't be doing or vice versa. I highly recommend Windows Internals Fourth Edition by Russinovich and Solomon.
Trev
-
Those are definately good points...but personally I don't think this has anything to do with the processor,, I seriously doubt WinUAE uses SSE2, in fact a 1.8 GHz Barton "should" (setup properly) stomp a 2.0 GHz Celeron at WinUAE math/proc benchmarks.
And it certainly could be a background task conflicting with things...myself I don't run "ANY" virus checker in the background, just update and scan with AntiVir about once a week or after I've been surfing prOn...YMMV
--edit--
Please excuse the small wrapping in some of my posts (can't seem to fix it for some reason)...my monitor tanked a few weeks back, and I'm presently stuck using a 12 year old 14" at 640x480...:-(
-
One simple thing I did on my Windows XP setup to improve performance was to use a registry change to make XP aware of the Athlon 2500+'s 512k cache. Windows is by default set to use only 256k if I remember right. I dunno if the setting applies to Win2000 as well, but it is something to look into. Everything ran better once I changed this.
-
I found WindowsXP ran WinUAE faster on my old Athlon600, than Windows2k,
-
@JetFireDX:
And for those who wanted to know all about this little hack, visit this link (http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/116/). Thanks for the heads up, I'll make good use of it!
-
Cymric wrote:
@JetFireDX:
And for those who wanted to know all about this little hack, visit this link (http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/116/). Thanks for the heads up, I'll make good use of it!
From the link..
Note: This tweak is only useful for older processors with the cache located external to the CPU.
-
>Of course, I could be talking out my ass
:) You are ;)
If the JIT is optimized for anything, then it's for AMD and/or PentiumII/III CPUs.
There are a couple of workarounds (rather than optimizations) for the Pentium range of CPUs. They (or at least the PII/PIII core) have a nasty thing called "RAT stall" which causes long delays in some circumstances, so when a Pentium is detected, some code is done in a less-obvious-but-faster-in-the-face-of-RAT-stall way.
The other special treatment has to do with the PentiumIV being the first (and only) x86 CPU which, for a certain couple of instructions, actually treats a few flags which are supposedly "undefined" after those instructions as, indeed, undefined --- as opposed to previous CPUs, which simply left them unchanged (and thus the instruction was a good way to set just the ZERO flag). Much uglier code for P4 type processors there.
What I suspect is that, probably due to the OS difference, WinUAE on one machine manages to set up a 1:1 memory mapping (enabling the JIT code to simply access memory directly), whereas on the other, it probably fails and forces memory access to be handled through table lookups, wasting quite a few cycles each time.
-
@ all
Ok, hi people,
here's the reply..
Spec on my home PC
Sandra Specs on CPU
--start--
Generation : G7
Name : Duron M8 & Athlon MP/XP (Thoroughbred) 130nm 1.5-2.5GHz+ 1.5-1.65V
Revision/Stepping : 8 / 1 (0)
Stepping Mask : B0
Core Voltage Rating : 1.650V
Maximum Physical / Virtual Addressing : 34-bit / 32-bit
Native Page Size : 4kB
Chipset 1
Model : VIA Technologies Inc VT8366/A,VT8367 Apollo KT266/A,KT333 CPU to PCI Bridge
Bus(es) : ISA AGP PCI IMB USB FireWire/1394 i2c/SMBus
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 136MHz (272MHz data rate)
Maximum FSB Speed / Max Memory Speed : 2x 166MHz / 2x 166MHz
Width : 64-bit
IO Queue Depth : 4 request(s)
Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank 2 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank Interleave : 4-way
Speed : 2x 170MHz (340MHz data rate)
Multiplier : 5/4x
Width : 64-bit
Power Save Mode : No
Fixed Hole Present : No
--end--
Win 2k All updates
MSI KT3 Ultra 2 Pro
512MB DDR Memory
ATI 8500 /128 4X Graphics
AC97 Audio from VIA chipset (really noisy, but functional 5.1 Chan audio)
IBM Deskstar ATA 100 8MB buffer IDE
Latest Bios updates.
WinUAE is most certainly SLOWER on the ATHLON than the 2.0 CELERON p4 at work. I now think it's actually more than 112%.
I will compare a few Benchmarks with work tomorow on math etc using Sandra.
No virus killers or background intensive tasks are running on my system, I actually went in to task manager and made sure of that, I also turned off every unused system resource in the computer management section. it made no difference. Not that it should matter that much as I did noe of this on the XP Celeron at work and it has background tasks running all the time for network updates and it still kicks my 2400+ out to pasture.
If it is windows XP making this HUGE difference, it's one hell of an upgrade for the windows OS and I'm going to upgrade all my M$ PCs to XP. I seriously doubt that this is the case.
As for optimising code on the JIT side of things, I would think it would be easier to program optimised x86(global) instructions for JIT as opposed to writing for the P4 only.
you would know it would work on all Intel chips like Pentium 3 and below which have different execution techniques to the P4. Long Vs Short word instruction timing, needs to be done in a certain order or something like that. all changed with p4, which broke a lot of normal code. i think they call it sse2 coding or something.
-
just to nitpick, no such thinh as a pentium 4 celeron, pentium 4 and celeron are different processors
-
JJ wrote:
where as a pentium4 will kick nearly any cpu's arse at video encoding, due to long pipelines and no need for prediciton
An AMD 64 whoops its arse on games.
depending on the speeds,a pentium 4 will probably eb quicker than your athlon 2400+
My Athlon64 @2.0Ghz is faster at everything than my Pentium4 @3.06Ghz... Though I suspect the Athlon64's integrated dual channel memory controler to be the major force at play here.
-
@ all
Ok, set Cas to 2.0 not that i expected any real differences.
Re ran AIBB benchmark
EmuTest
Slower result than a 040 CPU. NASTY
This is on my Athlon 2400
The XP celeron benchmark pulls the 040 off the screen. There's something really wrong here.
As for Celeron CPU being differnt, yes, just as the Athlon is different to the Intel. i used p4 as the spec as it's the arcitecture of the latest celerons with some serious limitations like the hyperthreading gone and less cache.
Still, the Athlon should be able to beat the pants off the celeron with out a doubt.
Benchmarks on XP celeron box tomorrow.
-
SHADES wrote:
@ all
Ok, set Cas to 2.0 not that i expected any real differences.
Re ran AIBB benchmark
EmuTest
Slower result than a 040 CPU. NASTY
This is on my Athlon 2400
The XP celeron benchmark pulls the 040 off the screen. There's something really wrong here.
As for Celeron CPU being differnt, yes, just as the Athlon is different to the Intel. i used p4 as the spec as it's the arcitecture of the latest celerons with some serious limitations like the hyperthreading gone and less cache.
Still, the Athlon should be able to beat the pants off the celeron with out a doubt.
Benchmarks on XP celeron box tomorrow.
Then it has to be your WinUAE settings, as my old Athlon 600Mhz was flooring any real Amiga in all tests using AIBB!
-
Yeah possibly...
i would also suspect the chipset performance.
Check out my farcical attempt (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/database/topic.html) at building a computer...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/blobrana/simplystella.gif)
-
blobrana wrote:
Yeah possibly...
i would also suspect the chipset performance.
Check out my farcical attempt (http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/database/topic.html) at building a computer...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v328/blobrana/simplystella.gif)
I'm a Gigabyte convert, now! The nForce4 chipset rocks.
-
Me too...
i had so much fun building that last budget one, that i built another (http://www.geocities.com/goarana666/Gigabyte7VT600-L.htm) two using upmarket gigabyte mobos...(Gigabyte7VT600L & Gigabyte2004 RZ)
:-)
(i`ll soon be able to takeover the living room)
-
blobrana wrote:
Me too...
i had so much fun building that last budget one, that i built another (http://www.geocities.com/goarana666/Gigabyte7VT600-L.htm) two using upmarket gigabyte mobos...(Gigabyte7VT600L & Gigabyte2004 RZ)
:-)
(i`ll soon be able to takeover the living room)
I notice on your website none of your machines have pannels on the cases... I dread to think of the EM eminating from your room!! :-o Your house probably shows up on satelite images... or maybe that's your plan :lol:
-
none of your machines have pannels on the cases
uh-oh....is this wrong? :lol:
{it's the only way I have ever ran tower PCs}
-
@ All
OK people!
The information is in for those of you that are interested.
I used the exact same SiSoft Sandra for both PCs.
My 1st post will be the Athlon benchmarks and the second will be the celeron if you want to save and compare the two.
My test results show the Athlon beats the Celeron is just about everything. So now, I must think that the JIT or something is coded for P4 type CPUs only.
-
@ ALL
ATHLON BENCHMARK
MEMORY Athlon
--Start--
Benchmark Results
RAM Bandwidth Int Buffered aEMMX/aSSE : 2030MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buffered aEMMX/aSSE : 1935MB/s
Int Buffered aEMMX/aSSE (Integer STREAM) Results Breakdown
Assignment : 2036MB/s
Scaling : 2034MB/s
Addition : 2025MB/s
Triad : 2027MB/s
Data Item Size : 8-bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 93% (estimated)
Float Buffered aEMMX/aSSE (Float STREAM) Results Breakdown
Assignment : 2039MB/s
Scaling : 1957MB/s
Addition : 1885MB/s
Triad : 1860MB/s
Data Item Size : 8-bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 89% (estimated)
Performance Test Status
Run ID : ADS on Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 11:13:42 PM
Memory Used by Test : 256MB
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Chipset 1
Model : VIA Technologies Inc VT8366/A,VT8367 Apollo KT266/A,KT333 CPU to PCI Bridge
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 136MHz (272MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 2176MB/s (estimated)
Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank 2 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank Interleave : 4-way
Speed : 2x 170MHz (340MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 2720MB/s (estimated)
Features
MMX Technology : Yes
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : No
SSE3 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--End--
MATH Athlon
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 7738MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 3219MFLOPS
Performance Test Status
Run ID : ADS on Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 11:17:35 PM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Number of Runs : 64000 / 640
Processor
Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+
Speed : 2.05GHz
Model Number : 2400 (estimated)
Performance Rating : PR2965 (estimated)
Type : Standard
L2 On-board Cache : 256kB ECC Synchronous Write-Back (16-way, 64 byte line size)
Chipset 1
Model : VIA Technologies Inc VT8366/A,VT8367 Apollo KT266/A,KT333 CPU to PCI Bridge
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 136MHz (272MHz data rate)
Features
SSE2 Technology : No
SSE3 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--END--
Multi Media Athlon
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Integer aEMMX/aSSE : 19288it/s
Float aSSE : 20585it/s
Performance Test Status
Run ID : ADS on Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 11:18:54 PM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Rendered Image Size : 640x480
Processor
Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+
Speed : 2.05GHz
Model Number : 2400 (estimated)
Performance Rating : PR2965 (estimated)
Type : Standard
L2 On-board Cache : 256kB ECC Synchronous Write-Back (16-way, 64 byte line size)
Chipset 1
Model : VIA Technologies Inc VT8366/A,VT8367 Apollo KT266/A,KT333 CPU to PCI Bridge
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 136MHz (272MHz data rate)
Features
MMX Technology : Yes
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : No
SSE3 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
3DNow! Technology : Yes
Extended 3DNow! Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--End--
Cache/Mem/chipset
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Combined Index : 3130MB/s
Speed Factor : 23.5
2kB Blocks : 16750MB/s
4kB Blocks : 17666MB/s
8kB Blocks : 18155MB/s
16kB Blocks : 15285MB/s
32kB Blocks : 12690MB/s
64kB Blocks : 11823MB/s
128kB Blocks : 7819MB/s
256kB Blocks : 6453MB/s
512kB Blocks : 834MB/s
1MB Blocks : 775MB/s
4MB Blocks : 773MB/s
16MB Blocks : 772MB/s
64MB Blocks : 772MB/s
256MB Blocks : 771MB/s
Float SSE Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16-bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Performance Test Status
Run ID : ADS on Thursday, 17 February 2005 at 11:20:10 PM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Processor
Model : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2400+
Speed : 2.05GHz
Model Number : 2400 (estimated)
Performance Rating : PR2965 (estimated)
Type : Standard
Internal Data Cache : 64kB Synchronous Write-Back (2-way, 64 byte line size)
L2 On-board Cache : 256kB ECC Synchronous Write-Back (16-way, 64 byte line size)
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : No
SSE3 Technology : No
EMMX - Extended MMX Technology : Yes
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Chipset 1
Model : VIA Technologies Inc VT8366/A,VT8367 Apollo KT266/A,KT333 CPU to PCI Bridge
Front Side Bus Speed : 2x 136MHz (272MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 2176MB/s (estimated)
Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank 2 : 256MB DDR-SDRAM 2.5-3-3-7CL 1CMD
Bank Interleave : 4-way
Speed : 2x 170MHz (340MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 2720MB/s (estimated)
--END--
-
@ ALL
CELERON BENCHMARK
MEMORY CELERON
--Start--
Benchmark Results
RAM Bandwidth Int Buffered iSSE2 : 1954MB/s
RAM Bandwidth Float Buffered iSSE2 : 2325MB/s
Int Buffered iSSE2 (Integer STREAM) Results Breakdown
Assignment : 2093MB/s
Scaling : 2103MB/s
Addition : 1816MB/s
Triad : 1807MB/s
Data Item Size : 16-bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 74% (estimated)
Float Buffered iSSE2 (Float STREAM) Results Breakdown
Assignment : 2297MB/s
Scaling : 2286MB/s
Addition : 2366MB/s
Triad : 2354MB/s
Data Item Size : 16-bytes
Buffering Used : Yes
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Bandwidth Efficiency : 88% (estimated)
Performance Test Status
Run ID : H000AUB42304490 on Friday, 18 February 2005 at 7:53:42 AM
Memory Used by Test : 252MB
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Chipset 1
Model : Hewlett-Packard Company 82865G/PE/P, 82848P DRAM Controller / Host-Hub Interface
Front Side Bus Speed : 4x 100MHz (400MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 3200MB/s (estimated)
Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 512MB DDR-SDRAM 2.0-3-3-6CL 1CMD
Shared Memory : 8MB
Channels : 1
Speed : 2x 166MHz (332MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Performance Acceleration Technology : Yes
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 2656MB/s (estimated)
Features
MMX Technology : Yes
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--END--
MATH CELERON
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Dhrystone ALU : 6109MIPS
Whetstone FPU : 1739MFLOPS
Whetstone iSSE2 : 3206MFLOPS
Performance Test Status
Run ID : H000AUB42304490 on Friday, 18 February 2005 at 7:51:28 AM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Number of Runs : 64000 / 640
Processor
Model : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz
Speed : 2.39GHz
Performance Rating : PR2633 (estimated)
Type : Standard
L2 On-board Cache : 128kB ECC Synchronous ATC (2-way sectored, 64 byte line size)
Chipset 1
Model : Hewlett-Packard Company 82865G/PE/P, 82848P DRAM Controller / Host-Hub Interface
Front Side Bus Speed : 4x 100MHz (400MHz data rate)
Features
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--END--
Multimedia CELERON
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Integer iSSE2 : 14765it/s
Float iSSE2 : 18500it/s
Performance Test Status
Run ID : H000AUB42304490 on Friday, 18 February 2005 at 8:07:04 AM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Rendered Image Size : 640x480
Processor
Model : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz
Speed : 2.39GHz
Performance Rating : PR2633 (estimated)
Type : Standard
L2 On-board Cache : 128kB ECC Synchronous ATC (2-way sectored, 64 byte line size)
Chipset 1
Model : Hewlett-Packard Company 82865G/PE/P, 82848P DRAM Controller / Host-Hub Interface
Front Side Bus Speed : 4x 100MHz (400MHz data rate)
Features
MMX Technology : Yes
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
--END--
Cache/Mem/Chipset CELERON
--Start--
Benchmark Results
Combined Index : 4497MB/s
Speed Factor : 18.8
2kB Blocks : 25460MB/s
4kB Blocks : 25998MB/s
8kB Blocks : 21072MB/s
16kB Blocks : 18017MB/s
32kB Blocks : 18628MB/s
64kB Blocks : 18624MB/s
128kB Blocks : 14275MB/s
256kB Blocks : 1604MB/s
512kB Blocks : 1381MB/s
1MB Blocks : 1390MB/s
4MB Blocks : 1398MB/s
16MB Blocks : 1402MB/s
64MB Blocks : 1399MB/s
256MB Blocks : 1395MB/s
Float SSE2 Cache/Memory Results Breakdown
Data Item Size : 16-bytes
Buffering Used : No
Offset Displacement Used : Yes
Performance Test Status
Run ID : H000AUB42304490 on Friday, 18 February 2005 at 8:09:11 AM
NUMA Support : No
SMP Test : No
Total Test Threads : 1
SMT Test : No
Dynamic MP/MT Load Balance : No
Processor Affinity : No
Page Size : 4kB
Use Large Memory Pages : No
Processor
Model : Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.40GHz
Speed : 2.39GHz
Performance Rating : PR2633 (estimated)
Type : Standard
Internal Data Cache : 8kB Synchronous Write-Thru (4-way sectored, 64 byte line size)
L2 On-board Cache : 128kB ECC Synchronous ATC (2-way sectored, 64 byte line size)
Features
SSE Technology : Yes
SSE2 Technology : Yes
SSE3 Technology : No
HTT - Hyper-Threading Technology : No
Chipset 1
Model : Hewlett-Packard Company 82865G/PE/P, 82848P DRAM Controller / Host-Hub Interface
Front Side Bus Speed : 4x 100MHz (400MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Maximum Bus Bandwidth : 3200MB/s (estimated)
Logical/Chipset 1 Memory Banks
Bank 0 : 512MB DDR-SDRAM 2.0-3-3-6CL 1CMD
Shared Memory : 8MB
Channels : 1
Speed : 2x 166MHz (332MHz data rate)
Width : 64-bit
Performance Acceleration Technology : Yes
Maximum Memory Bus Bandwidth : 2656MB/s (estimated)
--END--
-
@ Bloodline
I'm sure I already have said that I am using exactly the same WinUAE settings from work at home.
I copied the entire WinUAE directory from the work PC and installed it as is on my home PC just to be sure!
It most certainly can not be WinUAE settings however you may be right with using that term settings as it could be my Windows settings. I have no idea if Windows XP is superior to Windows 2000 so you may be on to something.
The funny thing is, it's just such a HUGE difference in performance. It's almost like I have 4 CPUs working together in the work PC when I compare it to the home PC.
I wouldn't think that windows XP could make that kind of an improvement.
Well that settles it then, there seems to be only one thing left to do now.
Install Windows XP on the home PC and test it all over again.
I have to get a copy of the XP OS first, I never liked XP so I only ever bought 2000. I don't like being told what I can or can't upgrade on my computer and Windows XP has that protection to stop you upgrading key components like CPU etc. Wrong wrong wrong...Must kill M$
@ all
What do you all think??
-
Looks spot on to me. You should be decimating the Celeron, especially in the "math" test which is what is
going to matter for WinUAE. I would suspect something in the program configuration (are you sure JIT is enabled??)...might also try again after installing XP. Overclocking would definately give you a nice
performance boost (especially upping the FSB a little) but it seems you have a software problem somewhere.
-
@ D
Hi, ALL WinUAE settings are identicle for both PCs.
It is a direct copy of the work PCs WinUAE directory just to remove any doubt on my end.
I can't overclock the FSB too much, my tollerence for other components don't like to go too far and light overclocking on memory etc didn't show much improvement on AIBB benchmarks.
I agree in the software problem, just trying to find where that could be in Windows is beyond my knowledge. Windows is a pig.
-
Where can I download the AIBB benchmarks you ran? I'd be willing to clock my Athlon identical to yours, then run the benchies as per your instruction...that should give us a rough idea of where you should be after installing XP.
-
@umisef
>> Of course, I could be talking out my ass
>
> :) You are ;)
He he. Sometimes, it just won't stop flapping. :-P So much to learn! But it never hurts to try and reason things out on your own. I do, however, make a mean bowl of oatmeal, so at least I have that. :-)
By a 1:1 memory mapping, do you mean as done by the operating system's virtual memory manager? Or the JIT engine itself?
Slightly off topic, but how difficult would it be to modify the JIT to support (i.e. work around) the new no execute flag? A simple change in the OS-specific memory allocation flags?
Trev
-
@ D
Hmm.
I'll make some tonight, LHA em up and mail them to you if you like?
It will have to be when I get home as I'm at work now.
-
Sorry m8ey, I meant where can I download the AIBB program, I'd never tried it until now. :-)
I found it, downloaded and played around with it a bit, and although the results were significantly faster
than the machines included with the program (obviously), they were also very erratic, differing wildly with each run. Some of the tests using RTG modes were also way off.
I've had better luck in the past with SysSpeed, AmigaMark and maybe P96Speed (for graphics).
Here's to Thursday...only one more day to go this week ;)
:pint:
-
@ D
True, they would differ under emulation. Most things will as the JIT would cause havoc.
Even so, it dosen't explain why the work PC feels so much faster graphicaly than the PC at home, it's what made me try a few benchmarks in the first place, just to make sure I wasn't just feeling things.
In AIBB I run the default PAL 8 colour tests. No UAE native modes, just classic AMIGA modes for the testing. I do the same for both PCs.
Really, it's not going to be accurate however, it also should't deviate to the point of being unrealistic from similar speed PCs.
It gave me the opinion that something funny was indeed going on and that the PC at home (win2k PC) was most certainly seeming slower than the XP PC at work. That has lead me to this point. Testing with the help of others.
I'm not sure what's going on here, but the Celeron XP PC certainly seems to be faster than my Athlon, and the strange thing is, the Athlon is the faster PC.
-
It sounds like your JIT just isn't working...
I just tried AIBB on my WinUAE install (Athlon 1600+) - your machine should smoke this one.
Did an AIBB emutest with JIT enabled and it was waaaay faster than a real Amiga 4000 (scored about 250). Did the same without JIT and it was about 75% the speed of an A4000/040. Not surprising really, given that JIT is exactly what's needed for tight loops etc. (so don't go thinking that WinUAE with JIT or not is ever really 30 times the speed of an A4000 - it's not, unless your only use for WinUAE is to run benchmarks, anyway. :) )
Oh, I'm running Win2K Pro, 768MB RAM, latest version of WinUAE. Sounds like you have a software configuration problem somewhere....
-
@ ALL
Ok, this is really strange, but because i don't have a windows XP install disc, I resorted to re-installing windows 2000 from scratch.
After that and installing all the relevent patches, i re-installed WinUAE from the archive I had from the work PC and it is now functioning faster.
I'm not sure what was wrong in my windows setup, but there you have it, problem solved.
It just goes to show you how BAD windows really is and it's just another reason I now have to hope Hyperion hurry up a little and bring out OS4 because I no longer want to run this garbage.
Thanks to you all for your help here, it certainly was interesting to find out this fault.
-
It just goes to show you how BAD windows really is and it's just another reason I now have to hope Hyperion hurry up a little and bring out OS4 because I no longer want to run this garbage.
Not sure I see the logic in that. . . .