Difference '030@50MHZ and '040@50MHZ

[LaserBack]

yes they are bad cpu benchmarks

but that's the real-life diference I think


bye

[Piru]

Sure. But in other more CPU bound tasks 060 runs circles around 040.

[Argus]

And when doing benchmarks, don't forget the speed advantage (or disadvantage) of the RAM bus speed.  It makes all the difference in the world.  Even between 68030 boards, faster memory access makes for a much more responsive machine.  Of course the most obvious historic example was when people switched from C='s A3640 board with the slow as molasses m/b memory to a WarpEngine040 with direct processor/memory access on-board the cpu card.  This difference is not so noticeable between different brands of 68060 cards.  Phase 5's were generally the slowest with respect to fast ram speed/timing (which is/was good for overclocking), but they also had built in logic to speed up the cpu card to chip ram access speed (mimicking as closely as possible 68030 cycles, iirc) so it was a wash overall no matter which card you chose to buy.

[Amithony]

I reckon we should do a raytracing test to a stopwatch, without graphics accelerators.

[shoggoth]

LaserBack wrote:
if anyone here believe that the 060 is 2 times faster than a 040 is because never had both cpus to compare

Not true at all. The 060 is twice a fast at the same clock speed. And yes, I've had both to compare.

for example...quake on a 040 about 14 fps...on a 060  maybe 15 fps
alien breed 3d 2 ...on a 040 18fps...on a 060 19fps

What you're referring to is the main bottleneck of the system; chipram bandwidth. The CPU is a lot faster, but the RAM is the limit there. Doesn't matter if the CPU is twice as fast - the data still can't get stuffed into chipram faster. You're simply using the wrong kind of benchmarks.

The 2x times faster comparison was done years ago on magazines..it was a lie for marketing purpose
[/quote]

Not.

[Vulture]

As I've always tested the accelerators I've had with ifx, c4d and lw, here are some numbers, all progs used the same scenes/images with all cpus, highest rendering modes for c4d/lw, gaussian blur for ifx, progs are latest versions, oxypatcher used for 040 and 060:

030@50

c4d: 28m 9s
lw: 23m 55s
ifx: 7m 15s

040@40

c4d: 11m 13s
lw: 9m 44s
ifx: 2m 58s

060@50

c4d: 6m 38s
lw: 5m 29s
ifx: 1m 40s

060@80

c4d: 4m 22s
lw: 3m 41s
ifx: 1m 2s

ifx times are approximate as ifx provides no time feedback and I had to calculate them with a stop watch.

[Kin-Hell]

I have an 040 Warp Engine card running @ 40Mhz with 128Mb of 60ns Ram. It`s definately faster around the Desktop than a MkII 50Mhz 060 Cyberstorm. However, this doesn`t mean it`s a faster CPU.
As Amithony said above, a real test would be to Raytrace but dont also forget, the 030 doesn`t have an FPU built in as most 040 & 060 CPU's have. Sure, some of these were LC versions & yardy yah yah yah, but if you want to Raytrace on an Amiga, you have got to have an FPU backing up the CPU or you will be waiting like you`re waiting for paint to dry whilst the Render finishes!
The 040 is a HOT chip @ 40Mhz but is floors the 030 @ 50Mhz even with an FPU alongside also @ 50Mhz.
An 060 @ 50Mhz wallops the 040 @ 40Mhz an 060 @ 80mhz just trashes the 50Mhz.
The 060 needed Dual FPU's, then it would have really rocked!  
 ;-)

[Amithony]

I think an 060 looks like it handles all of them fairly amicably.

[Effy]

Now a question that some of you will definitely not like,
what about an MC68LC060/75 without fpu Does the lack of fpu justify the higher speed ??

[shoggoth]

Effy wrote:
Now a question that some of you will definitely not like,
what about an MC68LC060/75 without fpu Does the lack of fpu justify the higher speed ??

IMO - a 060 w.o. FPU is kind of pointless. The FPU in the 060 is really fast, which means it's used quite a lot in 060 demos/apps. Later incarnations of the chip can run at 75Mhz (or even 100Mhz), and includes an FPU.

[cantido]

Raytracing etc isn't going to benchmark the CPU. Instead you'll be benchmarking CPU + Amiga hardware + OS + Misc software. To benchmark the CPU opposed to "the system" you'd need to write a benchmark that takes over the CPU and runs from memory that doesn't need any waitstates.

[Effy]

The reason for using an 68060/75 without fpu is not to use 68060 software but 68020 optimized ... does that make sense  :-?

[Crumb]

@bloodline

MIPS = Meaningless Information Processor Speed.

But yes, a 040 is much faster than a 030 (If you don't use a crappy cbm 3640 because it will have slow mem access).

040/25 is usually at least as fast as a 030/50, but usually much faster. With a 040/40 the difference is huge! and a 060 is great.

[Crumb]

@Kin-Hell

overclock your MKII 060 to something higher than 56Mhz (e.g. 60Mhz) and you will notice it a lot faster (I've heard it's due to the fact that the turbocard will synchronize better the motherboard)

[cantido]

Crumb wrote:
@bloodline

MIPS = Meaningless Information Processor Speed.

I don't see why it's "meaning less". It shows how many instructions can be executed per second. If those instructions are of equal value the processor with the highest value will be "faster". It'd be silly to compare two totally different processors of course.

[shoggoth]

Effy wrote:
The reason for using an 68060/75 without fpu is not to use 68060 software but 68020 optimized ... does that make sense  :-?

Nah, you'll just miss the whole point and want to upgrade to a "full" CPU later on. Take my word for it - I did just like you said (albeit at another platform - Atari).