A3640 V3.0 refuses to run speed test on SysInfo V3.24 ?!

[Kin-Hell]

Effy, the C= 040 card that crashes in Sysinfo is a v3.1

[Kin-Hell]

@ Piru

With all respect m8, there is nothing to get over here!
SysInfo v3.24 was available back in the early 90's & that programme worked flawlesly on my A4000D back then. Further, it was a C= A3640 3.1 card which I overclocked to 33Mhz using a 66Mhz Timing Crystal. She ran at 23.5Mips, which was 4.5Mips over-stock.
Sysinfo 3.24 never witheld the CPU's info on programme launch or crashed for it's speed test on that 040 Card!?

In the meantime, I've Emailed JJ B @ Amiga France, though I don't expect to hear from him until the New Year now.
As of New Years Eve, I won't be around till jan 14th anyway.
Thanks for all the feedback so far fellas, will yap some more in the New Year perhaps.
Happy New Year folks! :pint:

[Kin-Hell]

nasty wrote:
Thank you for taking the time to explain in detail, it now makes sence. I take it you cant get an LC or EC 060?

EC puppies here:
66Mhz 060 CPU's for Sale
Full puppies here:
50Mhz 060 CPU's for sale
 
However, if you're into Ray Tracing or suchlike, basically anything that uses an FPU, then stick to at least an LC chip. A 50Mhz LC CPU will blow a 66Mhz EC CPU out of the water on Flops (FPU) Calculations.
MMU's are also required to Soft-kick ROM Images into Ram as well as run Unix. :-D

[Kin-Hell]

Okay, so after a huge expanse of time, I finally get to the bottom of this isuue.....sort of!

After sliding the Heatsink off the CPU & cleaning the gallons of unecessary heat paste of the Cooler, CPU and daughter-card  :roll: I exposed the CPUs part number & reeled in horror!

It's an LC 040 CPU.

I've never owned an Amiga without an FPU (till now) & still can't understand SysInfo NOT showing the Clockspeed of the CPU at launch!?!?!?

Also, despite the fact the Card is labelled as a v3.1, the card is infact a v3.2. The U209 PAL chip ends with a -03, thereby making this card a v3.2. This could also be why SysInfo falls over & wont show the Speeds on launch!

I should know a bit more when I get a Full 040 CPU but when that will be, who knows!

Cheers for now.  

[Kin-Hell]

It's a good shout alexh, but whaddya think about SysInfo not showing the CPUs Speed or details when SysInfo launches first screen?
Its got me beat till I can get a Full 040 CPU for this card.
I'd know for sure then. :-?

[Kin-Hell]

At last, the concluding results to this mystery. Today, a
Motorola XC68040HRC25M arrived from this chap in Germany.
manshadow@onlinehome.de
Im sure he'll appreciate the enquiries.
This chip replaced a Motorola XC68LC040RC25B CPU which has an MMU but no FPU.
Oh yeah, & SysInfo....works like a dream, going to show my gut feelings about how these LC chips actually work, or DONT work. Maybe there are some patched libraries for these LC chips so things show & work right? At the same time, I doubt there are, as the LC chips were a late release in the 040 family. I would imagine they were re-marketed failures from soak tested batches.
Sys info now shows the CPU info, its speed, its fpu & mmu & speed tests correctly.
I can't find my 66Mhz crystal, but I have a 60 sat here begging to be socketed.
Thanks to Effy, he sold me the card orignally, not realising it was a v3.2 card. Its cost me another £25 to fund the card which releases an LC 040 CPU for sale.
Anyone wanting this CPU only has to pay the cost of postage & buy me a beer for the trip to the Post Office.
Cheers! :pint:

PS......er, keyring anyone?.........

[Kin-Hell]

by alexh on 2006/3/13 21:22:32

Quote:
A3640's V3.0 with the cut 'n' jump are almost good enough for most systems.
Unqote:

Not if you want to run SCSI without DMA issues.
I'd also like to add, 3.2 cards are not as common as 3.0 and 3.1's. Id also like to add that after cleaning the card up, Pal Chip U209 (ending -03 denoting the card to be a v3.2 despite the v3.1 on the PCB edge) is a re-worked chip.
I spect that was a "Wang" job back in 1992 when they had the repair & upgrade contract for Commodore. When I aquired my replacement 040 card from Wang, the Wang Engineer told me of DMA issues on SCSI access (not bs IDE-SCSI) when using a 3.0 card in an A3000/A4000, the 3.1 fixed the DMA SCSI issues for the A4000 but the 3.2 was needed to fix DMA issues with the A3000.
I was never aware of the incompatabilities you mentioned, so all these years on, it still goes to show you never stop learning!

Anyways, it kinda makes the v3.2 worth that little more than the 3.1 & if you are serious about your Amiga, you wont have ANYTHING else but SCSI. The IDE interface on the release of the A4000 series was a joke to any Serious Amigan. I remember coming real close to wang-ing my 9" angle grinder on the IDE header the day I fitted my 8Mb Octagon SCSI card. It was still under warranty so I shyed in face of.:mickeymouse:

No problems this end Effy. Thanks for the original card, it looks like Brand New since I cleaned it up & its now capable of running the Destop Toaster.
Hope you're well, have missed seeing your Amiga Photos on eBay of late. We need more Cleavage in the Amiga Section. ;-)
Thanks!  :-D

*Edit* yeah Effy, I know about the cards issues beyond 66Mhz. This XC chip sould be real sweet & nice'n'cool at 60.
Gotta get a socket first. :-D

[Kin-Hell]

alexh wrote:

Not if you want to run SCSI without DMA issues.

It's not SCSI related at all. It's local bus mastering related. I've got several SCSI cards that work fine on 3.0 cards with the cut n jump.

All 3.2 does over 3.1 is it saves upto 10 microseconds per DMA cycle.

With all respect m8, wtf do you think DMA is doing whilst trying to Master the Bus? The SCSI protocol relies on DMA calls being correct whilst acessing its bus in line with all other Amiga calls. Your Syncronous & Asyncronous SCSI calls will affect the performances across the SCSI bus if it can't utilise DMA correctly.
Modern PC boards Still have an Option for Bus MAstering in the Bios. This Call affects & is affected by DMA (Direct Memory Access) Watch your Hard drive speed at DOS levels slow up for Bus Mastering NOT being enabled.
Cut & jump is obviously a "work-around". Do you have a link with reference to the cut & jump procedure?
Thanks.  :-)

[Kin-Hell]

alexh;

It's really a matter of choice. Either you use Hardware that supports DMA or you don't.
Having used all sorts of Computer Platforms since the early 80's, if the Bus Device didn't utilise DMA, I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole.
Sure, some Bus devices dont actually require DMA to function, but believe me, DMA makes a difference.
DMA was an Industry standard, setup for all types of buses to use & SCSI controllers with their own onboard RAM usually performed better than those without.

With all respect, the cut & jump is a work around but far from being correct & the performance will suffer accordingly.
I'm sure DCE used DMA protocols on their PPC & Motorola accelerators with SCSI because they wanted Maximum performance possible.
Thanks for the info on A3640 cards, much appreciated, but you would be better off embracing as much DMA as you can.
Get and upgrade when you can.

I'd also like to add, some post'ees in this thread just Blamed SysInfo for being Buggy. Not the case....their Amigas just arn't set up correctly, or, they are using bs LC chips which obviously dont utilise the Library code correctly as the Full 040 does. Interesingly enough, EC CPU's dont crash out on SysInfo either so that would conclude the arcitecture of the LC chips not conforming to the Library drivers correctly. Don't also forget, this was tested on the SAME install of the OS.
To conclude this thread Effy started on my behalf, the card Effy sold me was fine. It was the cr^p LC chip that borked SysInfo up. It also amazes me why anyone serious about their Amiga would not want an FPU in the first place. :-?

[Kin-Hell]

motrucker wrote:
Why in the world is everyone beating their heads against the wall trying to get a proven crap program to work?!
Everyone in this neck of the woods calls it MisInfo, to make the point.....
SysInfo _may_ have worked OK back in the early days, with 68K up to 68030 CPUs, but some '030 systems would throw it for a loop.
As some one else said - use SysSpeed. It does work!, and works well with '040 & '060 systems.

SysInfo also works u muppet; Works fine on ALL Amigas I have ever owned & setup, & get Real, its only an "Info" program...not a friggin benchmark.
SysInfo doesn't Bomb out on my A4000T with PPC 604 @ 233 + 060 & 128Mb Ram with SCSI III.

The b*tch about the whole Scenario turned out to be a Bull Sh*t issue with a Cr^p LC version of an 040 CPU. I thought I was buying a Full 040 on the A3640. Infact, the Dork that ever Pulled the Original 040 CPU left Butchered marks on the Socket, but then, I might be imagining that as well eh!

FFS!....>Sometimes there is just "NO" telling anyone FACT is there! Almost as bad as alexh going on about DMA. :roll:

You will have to excuse the flaming I throw at you, but for crying out loud, at least try & show some respect for an Old Amiga User since the A500 was first released. I have owned & used every Amiga Since. My Beginner Status here on the Forums does not mean I am a Noob. I don't know everything there is to know about Amigas, no one ever could, but I dont talk about stuff I dont know anything about. Moreover, I never ever saw cr^p like this ever, till I ended up with an LC (low-cost) CPU.
Like I said earlier.....Key-Ring anyone!?!?!?!?

[Kin-Hell]

Piru wrote:
Did my quoting confuse someone?

No Piru, this thread is Just now getting out of hand. Everybody loves to have their 2 pennyworth & I admire fellas like you who can Pull Code apart to proove such events.
I must be honest, the 128Mb Ram on my PPC does not Show in the fast Ram Section,...take a 32Mb Stick out & it all shows, so sure, there are bugs. Even the SCSI LED stays on after a SCSI test but NEVER have I ever seen Sysinfo Crash (reset) to a GURU MEDITATION for doing a speed test.

My Point is that from my experience of Amigas & what I know, SysInfo as JUST an Info Tool is MORE than capable of standing up to 68000/020/030/040/060/PPC systems. My concern & why Effy started this thread was as to Why it would crash. Irrespective of SysInfo being full of bugs, it should not fall over on an 040 CPU. I was NOT aware it was an LC version of the 040 until I removed the Heatsink. Nor was I entirely sure that fitting a FULL 040 would stop it happening, as this was a Version 3.2 card despite the Silk Screening v3.1 & I have had no previous experience with a v3.2.

Forums are a hive of Information, but they are also one of the worst environments for Bad information when people talk about stuff they know sweet FA about.

Indeed, hats off to alexh for slating the Cretin in here earlier who was misleading innnocent people about the different CPU's. I read the thread after he had posted & was poised to state the same he did.

We appear to have gone thro DMA, Sysinfo...christ...even Code pulled apart & fair play to all remarks.

However, in my book as a Hardware Technician, DMA not being utilised properly means its a Fudge, resulting in lack of performance & thats the end of the matter for me.
DMA is a standard accross every computer platform known to man & please no comments about games consoles.

I have a result about my main concern after recieving the card from Effy in Belgium. I extend my thanks to him for starting the thread & being cool with me about resolving the issue.

I am now un-subscribing from this thread, my mailbox is a Junk shop for it.

Thanks to everyone who has had some valid input & those of you who know nothing about what you are talking about should go & study real hard! Forums lack facial expressions & words can appear harsh when read without the facial expressions that would normaly accompany conversation. Then it ends up a flaming match which I will not even waste my time retorting to. So far as respect goes to one "over-the-pond" postee, flaming in such manner scores you Zilch!
Maybe its just they want to get their post score upped!  :roll:

I expect some prat to retort to that as well!
Thats forums for ya!  :lol:

Extra special Thanks to Effy, alexh & Piru.
Oh yeah, & alexh, I use to have that old Sysinfo back in the 80's. Unfortunately, that went with all my Amiga gear back in 1996 when I sold out. If I ever come accross it, I'll post you a copy with pleasure.  :-)

[Kin-Hell]

motrucker wrote:
Allow me to apologize to you, Effy, Piru, and everyone else in this thread.
I didn't write the last two "posts" under my name, but they are still my fault, because I walked away from this computer while it was still logged into this thread.
The guys who wrote that are usually very nice people, when not in a drunken stupor.
My sincere apologies.
                          Eric
PS rest assured I will never again walk away from a computer that is still on line.

Eric;
No problems this end, but at the same time, OMG eh!  :-o
All the best.
Charlie