PC still playing Amiga catchup

[Daedalus]

@DonnyEMU
Well, I've no delusions about the many weaknesses of the Amiga, but to be honest, I do like the fact that I can boot it up, do a quick Google and shut it down again before my Windows system has become responsive. That's a positive asset for me, in a real situation. Don't get me wrong, the PC is probably used more than the Amiga in my world, but it takes so long for the PC to boot that I don't really use it for looking up something quickly. Hell, fiddling about on my phone's browser is usually faster, and I don't have to go upstairs

I don't like having computers turned on all the time; they generate heat and use electricity. And those hardware guys should have been able to tell you, that hibernating a computer is pretty much the same as a full shut down/start up as far as the PSU and hard drives are concerned. Sleeping might be a little less harsh on the PSU, but I'd be far more worried about the starting/stopping of the mechanical hard drives. And that's the same whether you sleep or shut down a system.

[stefcep2]

t?

Boot times are not a metric for computer performance. Boot times are dominated by waiting, be it waiting for initialisation of hardware, software, synchronisation between processes or a myriad of other things. The more processes that are started, the more conflated this becomes.

All computers wait at exactly the same speed. Even a factor of a million CPU clockspeed difference cannot make a half second device initialisation go any faster. a 4GHz CPU cannot negotiate an IP address with your router any quicker than the router wants to talk to it.

Lets ignore my A1200 that you label a "toy". And ignore yours that I label a "frankenstein".
A big box Amiga with third party hardware in its standardised Zorro slots is a good comparison machine as PC's often have lots of third party hardware in their slots.  My A4000 has an 68060 CPU card that needs to be initialised, with RAM on it that needs to be initialised, a scsi adaptor, a CV64, an elbox fast serial/fast parallel port card, and a Tocatta, CDRW, and Octagon SCSI, plus keyboard, mouse.  It boots OS 3.1 in under 10 seconds, and that includes several OS software enhancements, CGX, sound drivers, fast port drivers, and whatever is in the ROMS of the cards.  (OS 3.9 is slower because of the reset, but to be fair if Escom didn't go broke i think we would have had 1 meg ROMS that would've avoided the reset.  Anyway OS 3.1 is functionally equivalent to OS 3.9 on *this* system).  The PC also has to initialise its CPU, RAM, Video card, DVD, Sound system, USB ports, keyboard, mouse, hard drive. All of these components have functional equivalents on the A4000.

FWIW Karlos I AGREE that  much of the delay in booting on the PC is due to the hardware initialiasation that occurs when the PC is booted. And yes no number of CPU, ghz, RAM, hard drive speed will change that part of the boot-up process, because it happens before software processes begin.  Integral to the PC architecture is waiting for hardware to initialise. Its part and parcel of the PC hardware design.  It seems that the *way* the Amiga  initialises and then configures its hardware during the boot process is more efficient.  That would seem to be an architectural issue.

[Karlos]

Duly noted.  Even though you have transplanted an additional foreign brain from a totally different species and likewise a foreign display system, all communicating with the original carcass over transplanted foreign busses.

They share the same bus into memory. Logic on the board handles any differences between m68K and PPC's local buses.

Having both a PPC and 68k, would describing at as having a multiple-personality disorder be more appropriate? That might explain why it slows down every now and then: the two CPU's are fighting over who will be the dominant personality.

This is what caches are for. When you read from memory and you get a cache hit, no actual bus activity need occur. When you write to memory and you have copyback enabled, no actual bus activity need occur at that instant either. It'll get done some time later when the CPU decides it's the right time. When that happens, each CPU will spend most of it's time performing whole cache line transfers.

The worst performance hit in these systems are forced cache flushes on context switches. That is painfully slow. However, when you are performing a complex operation, such as decoding a datatype, one or  two of those is totally hidden in the speedup you get from doing the work on a 3-digit clockspeed CPU compared to a 2-digit one.

Now, talking about actual bus contention, you have to look no further than a 68K machine without fast ram.

The original 68000 can only access memory once in every two cycles. The custom chips get it every other cycle ideally. However, bump up the screen size, number of sprites etc and before long the DMA starts to eat into the bandwidth available for the CPU. And the custom chips will always win, slowing the CPU down. In fact, the CPU is forbidden alltogether from performing certain atomic operations on Chip RAM by the architecture.

On a 68020+, the situation is significantly worse since these CPU's can access memory every cycle. This is why a bare A1200 dies on it's arse compared to one with (pref zero wait state) fast ram fitted.

[GadgetMaster]

That's subjective.  If you take the objective approach, PCs do in fact need catching up in some areas that make the Amiga unique in those cases.  And this topic was not to fulfill your needs but hope for an objective discussion.

Let's, just for arguments sake, accept that there are some unique features left in the architecture that have not yet been surpassed it still does not mean that the PC is still playing catchup. I meant slight differences in the way hardware is initialised ir how a joystick is polled is quite irrellevant and hardly a showstopper in the PC world.

The more significant aspects of compatibility, convenience, accessibility and usability, that the Amiga needs mad invesment for  before it even comes close to touching the current PC platform, is much more significant. I doubt such investment will ever materialise so unfortunately the Amiga cannot catchup with PC. It lost the race quite a while back and no amount of denial is ever going to change that.

>(1) Oh crap my TV boots up instantly. tell the PC using world that they need to catch up :eek:
>It makes no frigging difference in the Real World. It's how useful it is after boot up that matters to most sane people.

See, now if I make this subjective like you did, I would it makes a HUGE difference in boot-up time because I test low-level drivers which cause frequent crashes in XP.  You decrease your life span by the amount of time you wait for your system to boot.  It all adds up if you have to do it often.

So I'll die quicker by using PC's instead of using Amigas daily. Hmm.. Now  that is a killer feature. Why didn't anyone tell me about it sooner. :confused:

>Wake up and smell the coffee. The world moves on. Accept change or change the world yourself. Don't just sit there miserably lying to yourself that the world is really much more different than it is. That is self delusion and it can lead to irrational behaviour.

Nobody stated PC is inferior.  It's inferior in some aspects; that's a fact.  Even if you use it for hobbies/games, why not use a PC?  

You may be able to speak for yourself but I don't think you should be confident enough to speak for others. Some peple arguing on this thread do seem to think the modern day PC is inferior to a retro computer and that the Amiga is perfect beyond criticism and has no catching up to do with the PC at all. Try telling them that.

You didn't reply to my message.

Happy now?

[stefcep2]

They share the same bus into memory. Logic on the board handles any differences between m68K and PPC's local buses.



.

I thought the ppc has no cache?

[stefcep2]

Let's, just for arguments sake, accept that there are some unique features left in the architecture that have not yet been surpassed it still does not mean that the PC is still playing catchup.

surely thats a contradiction isn't it? If the PC can't yet do it then it still hasn't caught up to the Amiga?

 Some peple arguing on this thread do seem to think the modern day PC is inferior to a retro computer and that the Amiga is perfect beyond criticism and has no catching up to do with the PC at all. Try telling them that.

Actually from another POV its been the reverse: my impression is that some pro-PC people believe the *PC* is perfect and any flaws regarding its hardware eg joystick polling, hardware initialisation and boot times and shut downs, user-interface slow downs, propensity for malware, registry clogging, hard drive fragmentation, hardware incompatibility (Linux), etc have not been accepted as the flaws that they are but rather have been excused for various reasons (the PC does more, it can crunch number faster, the PC has industry standard software compatibility, more people use a PC), despite the Amiga being superior at many of these things.

[stefcep2]

This is what caches are for.

I thought the PPC has no caches.

[Karlos]

I thought the PPC has no caches.

Nope, the 603e, for example has 16KiB instruction and 16KiB data. IIRC, the 604e doubles this.

What you are probably thinking of is L2 cache. There isn't any of that on the Blizzard/Cyberstorm. Then again, as far as I know, no amiga accelerator has L2 cache.

[meega]

BTW does anyone know WHY Windows and linux need a swapfile even if they use so little available RAM?  I know you can force the swap file size to zero in Windows, but I suspect it still uses a swap file.  And AFAIK Linux won't install without a swap file partition.

Maybe you should try finding out.

[GadgetMaster]

PFFFT.

I'm glad you agree. :lol:

Can you READ?

The fact that I am responding to your post might be an indication, even to a half wit, that it is quite obvious that I can read.

What does:"3. PC =x86 hardware running Windows for anywhere between 90 and 95% of the worlds computers." mean to you?

It means you are comparing apples to oranges. A hardware platform is a hardware platform. The IBM PC and compatibles are not an OS and are capable of running the Amiga OS as well as any other OS you decide to compile for them.

The sooner you can seperate the difference between hardware and software in your mind the sooner things will suddenly start becoming clearer to you.

Go on humour me, try it. It won't use too much of your brain power up. honestly, trust me.

I see, so its now a question of grammar. Maybe we could ..blah"

Maybe we could. Maybe it would be better to put a question mark at the end instead. It's a statement and judging by the original thread starter it's exactly what he meant it to be.

If you decide to twist the statement into something else than you have to be delusional as well as approaching the whole argument in a manipulative and dishonest way as can only be acheived by those blinded by irrational zealotry.

Surely you are not one of those?

translation:"couldn't be arsed.. blah"

I think that's called projection in some circles. You are trying to project your inadequacies onto others. I almost feel pity for you.

PC hardware without software does nothing. It's pointless separating the two.

And Amiga hardware is different exactly how? You still need to grasp the difference between a hardware platform and an OS. Come back and argue when you have that one figured out.

Because it only takes ONE to show the PC is still playing catchup

Oooh! Is that so. I bet all the engineers that work on PC architecture are have sleepless night about it all around the world. I mean It's really something on all their minds isn't it. "OMG how the heck do I catch up with the Amiga. My life depends on it. We really need to catchup.dammit. Catch up.":nervous:

Do you even have an inkling how pathetic your argument sounds?

YOU might. The user examples I gave don't, some people who need to quickly sample a music riff in the middle of the night.. blah

So you admit that the Amiga is a nice hobby home computer? Glad to see some sense creep into your arguments. Just don't wander off into those delusional pastures again. You know the ones wher you think it is a serious contender to the established platforms in every conceivable computing avenue.

And I bet you can't do gene sequencing/process nuclear physics data/analyse climate models as fast as Big Blue with your XP network either.  Whats your point?

Oh I can you know. Ever heard of cloud computing running (PC architecture based) blade servers? Who said anything about an XP network?

Distributed computing is the future. I've seen it.

Besides the Amiga can't do that either so your point is moot.

1. Never had to write 10,000 words

Good for you. So you accept you have limited experience of the business world.

2. Even a cardigan-wearing gronk would know to SAVE his file before he switches off his computer..blah

So you are now calling all Amiga users cardigan-wearing gronks? That wasn't nice of you at all. :rolleyes:

What is interesting is that you admit data loss is almost always down to user error and gronks or not, Amiga users are no different to PC users in that regard so being able to shut your Amiga down from a switch is hardly a useful feature that the P world are screaming out to catch up with.  

Never said anything about not having shutdown safely being anything to YOUR f'en servers. ...blah

Again it depends on what OS you are running. that's no shortcoming of the PC hardware architecture.  If Icaros etc. is running on it you can do the same thing.

See it still boils down to your mis-comprehensions about the difference between hardware and software. Try researching the concepts a little. It might suddenly dawn upon you, but you won't catch me holding my breath over it.

You're work in a server-client environment.  Many people at home don't, many people shut down their PC's daily, to them it matters..Its a feature that many PC user would be glad to have..

Again, I'm really glad you are beginning to see where the Amiga really fits in. A nice comfy fun home computer. It's when you start to have megalomaniacal fantacies for it of conquering the whole computing world is when I start worrying about your health.

I'm sure i couldn't give a toss about serving DHTML on an A1200

Sure! That's what we've been trying to tell you all along. You can give your pernicious tosses to more relevant things like viewing Pr0n on Ibrowse on your unexpanded A1200. Go knock yourself out. Just don't start thinking your A1200 currently has many practical uses outside of that home retro computing sphere.

If you disagree then if you convince even one blue chip company to abandon all it's PCs in favour of Amigas and I will gladly eat my hat, live on webcam if you prefer. :hat:

VERY good luck to them: it cost them a few hundred dollars and no tech support costs.  An equivalent PC set up would cost many $1000's for the dentist, and tens of thousands for the aged-care facility to achieve the same.

Niche installations in small local businesses , so yes good luck to them. Just don't tell me that is what the PC has to catch up with. If you do I'll just laugh publicly. :lol:

Really?  you can run a public touch screen /multi screen display from your phone?  Which phone?  which software? which screens?

Oh dear oh dear! You really need to catch up on mobile phone technology as well. It gets better and better. :laughing:

Try engadget.com for a look at what amazing technologies exist outside of your closed sphere. You might be qite surprised you know.

The Amiga needs billions of dollars of investment to be a serious contender and catch up with to the established platforms.

And this is relevant because......?

because the Amig platform just doesn't have these resources so it can't catch up. Clearer now?

i highlighted linux's hardware recognition/configuration issues which simply don't exist to anywhere near the same degree with classic Amiga. That's all thats is needed in the context..

Is it? What context is your discussion? You don't really make yourself clear at all. One minute you claim the Amiga is a super, untouchable, all singing, all dancing super computer that the world needs to catch up with and when challenged you restrict its capabilities to nice home computing or Small business niche. Do you even comprehend the concept of contextualisation?

provided you installed from original operating system disks then you had defective ie broken hardware.

I don't even kno what you are talking about here so I can't comment. You don't make much sense tbh.
 

I think you boarded the plane a long time ago..
 
good for you.

On second thougt I don't really want to go and wallow on your clouds of denial. I'm qute happy in the real world.

It matters to Microsoft who are highlighting Win 7's improved boot and shut down times, ..blah

Software : Hardware :rtfm:

So your argument is:  yeah Amiga's boot faster, but i run from a server, I never shut down, i can do more than an Amiga so i don't care.  Good for you.  

Yeah good for me. Thank you for understanding.

But none of that makes  your PC boot any faster.  And admit it you'd really like a PC that boots in 5 seconds and shuts down instantly, wouldn't you?  And admit it your pC can't do this.

but.. but. I thought we already established I don't care and you already said it was good for me. why would I all of a sudden really like that? Don't contradict yourself man. You are providing too much entertainment. I don't think the crowds are going to be able to keep their internal organs confined to their torso due to their sides splitting so heavily. Have some Mercy ! :rofl:

Anyway, my PC can do this if I want it to. You are trying to creep the OS argument in here again. Already covered umpteen times. Move along now. nothing to see here.

CRAZY but thats REALITY:  I can get on the net, open all sorts of malicous email.. blah.

The PC can. Live with it.

On my A1200, i get far less wait-cursers, ..blah

That won't help me in my day to day work at all I'm sorry you can't sway me to use a hobby home computer in a professional environment for my daily work. Cursors or no cursors, I get my work done without any hassle because the machines are capable of performing the tasks at hand and an Amiga can't. Live with because none of your blathering on is going to make the slightest bit of difference. My Amiga is sitting nicely at home where it belongs as a nice retro hobby machine.

Agreed.  And sometimes my Amiga is still the better tool for some jobs that I-and others- want to do.

Good for you. I'm afraid the rest of the world is still not convinced. Maybe you are not evangelising it enough. Hmm.. Yeah.. Maybe thats it. You are really letting your side down you know.

Well NOW your plane to LaLaLand has landed on the tarmac.

I didn't see a friendly welcoming party so I jetted off back to the real world. Pity really, I would have had a great laugh at your expense. I'm sure. :lol:

[Karlos]

Originally Posted by stefcep2  View Post
BTW does anyone know WHY Windows and linux need a swapfile even if they use so little available RAM? I know you can force the swap file size to zero in Windows, but I suspect it still uses a swap file. And AFAIK Linux won't install without a swap file partition.

First of all, they don't use a little amount of ram. They use as much of it as possible at any given instant since the paradigm they follow is that unused RAM is needlessly wasteful. Instead it's used for caches, buffers and so on:

The memory utilisation of my machine at work here a moment ago was as follows:

Code: [Select]

Mem:   1032208k total,   956012k used,    76196k free,   103616k buffers
Swap:  4610612k total,    31520k used,  4579092k free,   299596k cached


As you can see, most of the physical memory is in use. What you will also note is that most of the swap is not in use. It is possible to run without a swap file, but why would you want to? It's only used when you are trying to do more than can be reasonably accomplished within the confines of your physical memory. Think of it as a safety net. Better to run a  bit slower when paging kicks in than simply stop running and fail in some fashion.

Furthermore, modern memory allocation strategies don't actually have to allocate the memory all at once. Physical allocation need only occur when a page within that allocation space is accessed for the first time. It's not uncommon for large allocations at compile time to turn out to be oversized at runtime. This way, only the amount of memory actually required at runtime (as opposed to what the program thinks it required) gets allocated.

-edit-

My machine at home isn't using any swap:

Code: [Select]

Mem:   4053804k total,  3404668k used,   649136k free,   900776k buffers
Swap: 20000884k total,        0k used, 20000884k free,  1871376k cached


[AmigaHeretic]

My 800MHz G4 A1XE takes around half the time of my A1200T to boot. It has 32x the CPU speed, 5x the bus speed, 10x the sustainable hard disk transfer rate, yada etc.

It's running AmigaOS so on that hardware, surely it should boot in a flat second. Dear me, whatever could be wrong with it?

Boot times are not a metric for computer performance. Boot times are dominated by waiting, be it waiting for initialisation of hardware, software, synchronisation between processes or a myriad of other things. The more processes that are started, the more conflated this becomes.

All computers wait at exactly the same speed. Even a factor of a million CPU clockspeed difference cannot make a half second device initialisation go any faster. a 4GHz CPU cannot negotiate an IP address with your router any quicker than the router wants to talk to it.

The only valid indication of performance of a system is once it has booted up, not how long it takes to get there. My A1200* has a longish from cold boot time for an Amiga classic, but once up, it's pretty quick and capable, much moreso than a 7 second boot-from-cold bare OS3.1 install.

*FYI an accelerator card and graphics card as the sole internal expansion cards in a system do not make it a Frankenstein machine.

I don't really think it has anything to do with driver initalization though.  There are plenty of examples of OSes that can boot in a few seconds, have sound, ethernet ready, etc etc.  People in this very thread claim to have boot times in the "seconds" range, so I really don't think it is an issue of hardware/hardware initialization... That is unless it the slow way Windows does it guess.

Boot times aren't a metric of CPU performance, but it is a metric of "performance".   If I had two identical computers boxes next to me and the 'only' difference was one booted in 10 seconds and one booted in a minute, then you'd obviously buy the 10 second box. (Assuming all other things equal).  So yes, the performance of how fast a system boots is a metric.  Now it's not the main metric I would ever look at when buying a computer, but it's almost 2010, I dare say it seems odd.

[Karlos]

I don't really think it has anything to do with driver initalization though.

Have you seen typical driver sets for things like graphics cards these days?

Thanks to direct support for CUDA, PhysX, OpenGL1.0 - 3.0, Direct X (up to v10), Pure Video etc, the drivers for my card alone weigh in at around 100 MB, not including tweaking tools.

The linux drivers aren't much smaller.

[the_leander]

Have you seen typical driver sets for things like graphics cards these days?

Thanks to direct support for CUDA, PhysX, OpenGL1.0 - 3.0, Direct X (up to v10), Pure Video etc, the drivers for my card alone weigh in at around 100 MB, not including tweaking tools.

The linux drivers aren't much smaller.

And thats mostly down to not having so many user definable options to adjust and things like real time previews of setting alterations. Either relying on the distro's own configuration menus or simply not allowing the options.

In a lot of cases it is litterally only a few megs either way.

[Karlos]

And thats mostly down to not having so many user definable options to adjust and things like real time previews of setting alterations. Either relying on the distro's own configuration menus or simply not allowing the options.

In a lot of cases it is litterally only a few megs either way.

True, though quite oddly, the linux driver does have an X Server Settings GUI that grants access to various options I don't see in the Windows version.

[amigaksi]

That hasn't quite answered the question. Does River Raid sample at 1kHz?

Don't have the source code to tell, but if I record the joystick data as fast as possible and do a "replay", the fact that the lower the recording rate the more off the replay is shows that sampling rate of joystick should be really high.  Take into account the fact that the actual joystick motion requires millisecond sampling since data reflects those times.  Here's data from River Raid (similar results for Vyper Amiga game).  I used river raid since it uses fixed patterns for intial levels so I can test Reply mode.  The following data will automatically finish Bridge 1 without dieing (first byte is joystick data where bit 0 = forward, bit 1 = back, bit 2 = left, bit 3 = right, bit 4 = trigger):

255 492.011992 ms
239 193.551497 ms
255 102.613160 ms
239 169.355474 ms
255 212.145701 ms
247 577.819620 ms
231 82.070541 ms
239 63.292001 ms
235 17.194553 ms
251 742.122450 ms
235 45.433999 ms
239 0.011948 ms
235 0.428292 ms
239 0.023143 ms
235 0.237284 ms
239 99.513307 ms
255 49.932682 ms
247 11.206606 ms
255 0.011948 ms
247 380.715926 ms
255 1.470111 ms
247 1.934836 ms
255 5.022607 ms
239 249.192435 ms
255 138.805327 ms
251 505.806763 ms
235 75.794901 ms
239 66.561437 ms
231 19.253496 ms
247 374.931845 ms
255 2.567959 ms
247 1.448165 ms
255 11.873767 ms
239 170.120274 ms
255 84.725221 ms
247 305.335075 ms
255 32.394828 ms
251 566.892716 ms
235 41.297094 ms
239 44.859821 ms
231 8.054205 ms
230 12.307901 ms
231 0.012093 ms
230 15.734817 ms
231 27.877147 ms
247 862.149214 ms
231 82.911276 ms
239 0.011960 ms
231 0.677802 ms
239 0.011827 ms
231 6.334053 ms
239 0.011827 ms
231 0.012192 ms
239 0.011827 ms
231 0.023066 ms
239 56.721352 ms
235 350.176663 ms
251 421.029415 ms
255 38.664893 ms
239 5.328367 ms
231 0.045222 ms
230 0.836479 ms
238 0.012093 ms
230 5.734592 ms
231 25.773636 ms
239 0.011960 ms
231 116.353143 ms
239 0.011960 ms
231 0.012237 ms
239 0.450360 ms
231 0.045355 ms
239 0.033917 ms
231 0.158012 ms
239 0.034183 ms
231 0.011827 ms
239 0.011782 ms
231 0.034382 ms
239 0.745502 ms
231 0.565145 ms
239 0.012093 ms
231 0.881712 ms
239 6.550044 ms
255 0.011827 ms
239 1.774851 ms
255 38.831827 ms
247 365.889257 ms
231 158.959145 ms
247 0.011948 ms
231 0.226255 ms
247 247.729640 ms
255 0.599051 ms
247 8.032414 ms
255 73.691257 ms
239 102.764111 ms
235 49.886784 ms
251 64.230773 ms
255 38.148894 ms
239 104.014240 ms
255 31.979304 ms
247 2.499194 ms
255 4.027175 ms
247 13.166736 ms
255 0.012093 ms
247 13.437925 ms
255 0.111925 ms
247 92.455577 ms
255 0.034039 ms
247 8.121784 ms
255 0.226377 ms
247 0.474435 ms
255 46.157965 ms
251 471.010511 ms
235 150.837494 ms
251 0.011948 ms
235 0.100697 ms
251 9.163358 ms
255 130.177054 ms
251 327.273709 ms
235 119.984878 ms
234 2.579386 ms
238 10.422133 ms
254 46.738007 ms
246 45.275178 ms
247 677.737134 ms
231 29.894558 ms
229 16.877754 ms
237 0.011948 ms
229 13.506435 ms
237 0.012181 ms
229 9.991790 ms
237 0.802673 ms
239 37.390446 ms
235 137.930531 ms
239 70.181079 ms
255 0.011948 ms
239 2.147802 ms
255 0.045488 ms
239 3.110892 ms
255 73.307278 ms
251 847.801656 ms
235 12.624313 ms
239 127.058847 ms
255 38.491718 ms
247 613.906313 ms
231 137.009327 ms
239 0.090433 ms
231 0.067434 ms
239 0.057459 ms
231 1.254785 ms
239 0.023143 ms
231 0.271600 ms
239 0.055996 ms
231 0.023143 ms
239 0.045355 ms
231 0.011827 ms
239 8.286867 ms
255 0.012359 ms
239 0.271334 ms
255 0.011827 ms
239 0.417386 ms
255 386.192064 ms
247 19.196558 ms
231 200.935127 ms
239 0.011960 ms
231 4.377115 ms
239 0.350871 ms
231 0.033917 ms
239 0.044956 ms
231 0.045355 ms
239 0.090045 ms
231 0.147637 ms
239 0.452489 ms
231 0.023143 ms
239 0.949401 ms
231 0.611165 ms
239 36.892857 ms
255 0.012170 ms
239 1.503163 ms
255 0.011827 ms
239 0.949545 ms
255 223.152276 ms
251 628.032148 ms
255 27.326333 ms
239 152.454201 ms
255 116.829695 ms
247 16.594029 ms
255 0.012093 ms
247 0.169063 ms
255 0.391705 ms
247 316.154100 ms
231 2.488676 ms
239 0.350871 ms
231 0.113854 ms
239 0.349674 ms
231 0.034183 ms
239 122.315963 ms
255 0.012303 ms
239 1.649737 ms
255 933.725144 ms
239 302.371610 ms
255 912.454647 ms
247 102.990222 ms
231 19.616083 ms
239 0.022866 ms
231 0.565278 ms
239 0.033917 ms
231 0.237550 ms
239 154.648544 ms
255 572.020930 ms
251 797.851018 ms
235 15.316622 ms
239 174.151571 ms
255 253.714007 ms
247 63.774948 ms
231 109.837404 ms
239 0.011948 ms
231 0.012192 ms
239 0.023054 ms
231 0.011838 ms
239 0.125436 ms
231 0.045222 ms
239 0.215205 ms
231 0.758404 ms
239 124.109425 ms
255 27.082000 ms
239 101.504284 ms
231 138.721920 ms
239 435.550413 ms
235 27.367443 ms
239 26.851511 ms
238 10.871141 ms
239 0.068110 ms
238 12.545063 ms
230 0.995411 ms
231 0.011827 ms
230 3.800010 ms
231 0.090711 ms
230 2.760153 ms
231 0.204032 ms
230 3.585859 ms
231 51.779756 ms
239 0.101606 ms
231 2.353009 ms
239 0.011982 ms
231 1.085057 ms
239 0.237960 ms
231 0.848172 ms
239 0.622349 ms
231 0.012314 ms
239 0.011971 ms
231 0.168298 ms
239 14.822790 ms
237 8.054360 ms
233 16.138769 ms
235 0.011960 ms
233 0.949257 ms
235 0.023420 ms
233 57.981589 ms
235 0.226233 ms
233 0.215072 ms
235 338.698723 ms
239 0.012226 ms
235 0.745901 ms
239 159.747752 ms
255 0.012824 ms
239 0.291750 ms
255 209.284208 ms
247 709.275521 ms
255 0.012303 ms
247 0.643275 ms
255 0.068498 ms
247 0.022877 ms