AmigaOS4 Petunia benchmarks

[Piru]

MorphOS 1.4 JIT on 603/240 system is several times faster than the Petunia on 604/180.

c2ptest is over 3.5 times faster, mandel over 2.5, demoeffect over 1.5 times faster.

Remember that CSPPC has twice as fast memory bus, too. The Petunia page describes the A4000 CSPPC test machine to run OS 4.0, so there is no more WarpOS overhead in the results(?).

So does this mean Trance is much faster, or did I miss something?

[Piru]

Just wait until the entire graphics subsystem runs PPC native and then compare again.

Excuse my ignorance but isn't the graphics subsystem JITted aswell?

And even if it wasn't:

mandel does no OS calls in innerloop. It has 4 exec calls, 2 intuition calls and 200 graphics calls.

c2ptest does no OS calls in innerloop. It has 4 exec calls, and two intuition calls. It does open graphics.library but does nothing with it.

demoeffect does no OS calls in innerloop. For CGFX it has 14 exec calls, 3 dos calls, 1 cybergraphics call, 2 intuition calls and 2 timer.device calls.

Could you please explain how graphics subsystem being 68k can have such an impact on the results?

[EDIT: Added exact number of OS calls]

[Piru]

@hnl_dk

@ Piru

MorphOS 1.4 JIT on 603/240 system is several times faster than the Petunia on 604/180.

Does MorphOS 1.4 run on anything else than the Pegasos??

Yes. It runs on CyberStorm PPC and Blizzard PPC boards. I performed the tests on my A1200+BPPC system.

If not, then why do you troll?

I don't.

[Piru]

Edit by Kees - Please solve this matter in private.

[Piru]

1. In every test emulation setup time calculated into the results. It takes 1.5 secs for a simple "RTS" program. (Later this time will be gone, eg. buliding jump tables take a lot of time, but it has to do only once.) So, I could decrease the running times with this value, but I want to be as correct as possible, and that vaules wouldn't be the ones what I actually measured.

The whole running time is included in the Trance results aswell, including the setup time.

Also, the Petunia website lets you believe the emulation is almost finished (just some tuning left). I'm sorry but I assumed the results were from the finished emulation. Sorry for my misinterpretation.

2. Emulation is highly clock-speed dependant.

I have found it not to be so. It's linear to CPU performance here, not to clock speed.

On a 604/233 system results were a lot better, than on 604/180 actually is. (I could have explanation for this, but it is not really interesting, rather technical.)

Well, DUH! It's hardly a rocket science to realize the same CPU with higher clockrate is faster, now is it?

Also, the busclock affects the memory access speed, as well as the memory speed settings. But, 604 has 64-bit access to memory whereas 603 has only 32-bit, so most memory related operations are faster on 604 regardless of bus speed. This definetely affects the benchmarks that work on memory (most of them do, mandel and julia are mostly compute bound).

I still find it interesting that Trance on 603/175 beats Petunia on 604/180, however. Must be the jumptable setup you go on about?

I had just no opportunity of getting such system right now. So, measuring the speed on a higher clocked system WILL imply better results.

3x and 2x better?

3. The tests are sort.

Short you mean?

This is true, but on some system these tests take AGES to run. At the beginning I had a slower machine, and the emulation was slower too, that is why I chose these tests.

Why not run the tests for specific time instead? Say 20 seconds. Should not be too hard to implement.

Also the tests should all include internal timer and result reporting.

(BTW, I don't know what is wrong with julia test, it is running just fine on AmigaOS3.x, AmigaOS4 and UAE. Except MorphOS. Where is the fault then? Just a joke, don't take too serious...)

Runs fine on my Pegasos, due to luck. The julia_fpu code has two serious bugs.

[Piru]

BTW, I don't know what is wrong with julia test, it is running just fine on AmigaOS3.x, AmigaOS4 and UAE. Except MorphOS. Where is the fault then?

In julia_fpu code. Read WriteChunkyPixels autodoc carefully and fix it. Hint: You depend on two side-effects, which both are against the programming guidelines.

[edit: more friendly, added hint]