PC still playing Amiga catchup

[adz]

@Karlos

Set your RAM:FSB ratio to 1:1 and then you'll be able to get some uber low latencies :cool:

[adz]

It is. The FSB is 1333. If I ever overclock, I have some headroom in the RAM.

Think base frequency, not QDR or DDR, your FSB has a base frequency of 333 (4 x 333 = ~1333) and your RAM has a base frequency of 667 (2 x 667 = ~1333), at the moment you are running 1:2, try underclocking the RAM to a base frequency of 333 and then drop your latencies.

[adz]

-edit-

Scratch that, it's already running at 333x8 (dual channel interleaved). DDR3 latencies, eh?

Eh? :lol:

Try running the CPU at 7 x 400 (QDR1600), that'll put you at 2.8GHz, you shouldn't need any voltage adjustments, then drop your RAM to 400MHz (DDR800) and theoretically you shouldn't have any troubles running your RAM latencies at 4-4-4-12. Or then again, you could just leave it all stock

[adz]

I'd like to see how long it takes an 060 (or even a 240MHz 603e) to open a 78MP (446MB) TIFF image, just for comparison, it took me 4 seconds

[adz]

That makes 6-6-6-21 (the current settings) look pretty good from here...

Yah, 6-6-6-21 is nothing to be sneezed at, now overclock that sucker!!!

[adz]

When the CPU is cheaper to replace, I'll do it :lol:

Chicken...buck-buck-buckaw! :lol:

[adz]

That settles it then...

No, just offering a real life example, not much point in only comparing boot times is there?


edit...Wonder how many negative points this thread will earn me :lol: :lol: :lol:

[adz]

One 14 mhz 020 boots faster than your 10,000 mhz of total CPU power machine.'  Nuff said.

And one 0.89MHz MOS 8501 boots faster than your 14MHz 020, 'nuff said

BTW...Still trying to load that 78MP TIFF image :lol:

[adz]

How much faster does the MOS 8501 boot?

What use would an average user have for a 78MP TIFF image?  How long will your PC take to finish the calculations that are done by IBM's network of supercomputers in one second?  Pointless argument..

As stated earlier in this thread a C16 boots in under a second, but to quote you, it's a "Pointless argument.."

The 78MP TIFF image is just an example, ripping a DVD, something that the average PC user does quite a lot of, is another example of something that would take a ridiculously long time on an Amiga.

[adz]

A realistic photo for someone who is doing more than just shooting family shots would be 12 to 14 MP Raw.  Not something you could edit on an Amiga.  This whole discussion entered never-never land a while ago, with one side mentioning DVDs, MP3s, Flashing, photos etc and the other side countering with some incomprehensible joystick argument.

It's called troll feeding and it's great fun :roflmao:

[adz]

Boot up with what you want to do with the system is a better way to look at it.  If I want to test a kernel mode driver on Windows XP which will cause many crashes during testing stage, the Amiga OS wins hands down in boot up time.  

As far as the 78MP TIFF image goes, you could tile the image and use a format that fits for the system at hand.  Just because PCs had ability to load into RAM (or virtual RAM), doesn't mean it can't be done on systems with less memory.  I have written software that can edit 600MB images using 16 MB of RAM.  It's nothing to do with the system.  It depends on the software.

What part of the word example don't you understand? Besides which, I never doubted that you could actually open a large image, my point was how long it would take to open said image.

[adz]

YAWN!!!! This thread still going :confused: I lost interest around a 1000 posts ago...