NetSurf: CS 060 vs. Blizzard 1260 vs. PPC

[ciVic]

Hi all!

I've noticed big differences in the loading times of NetSurf on various platforms, so I decided to measure the time that is needed to load amiga.org. Here are the results:

CyberStormPPC using 060/50, RTG: 25.9s
CyberStormPPC using 060/50, AGA: 26.5s
CyberStormPPC using 604e/200, RTG: 14.2s
Blizzard 1260, 128 MB: 82.2s

Ok clearly the PPC is way faster, but why is the 1260 so incredibly slow? It seems to me that the whole system is slow compared to the CyberStorm.  

Some details of the platforms:

Amiga 4000D, CyberStormPPC 060/50, 604e 200, 128 MB RAM on CyberStorm, 16 MB on Motherboard, 2 MB Chip, IDE HD and CD-ROM, Mediator 4000Di with Radeon 9250 with 128 MB RAM, RTL 8029 PCI NIC

Amiga 1200, Blizzard 1260 with 128 MB RAM, IDE-HD, Orinoco Wifi

[ElPolloDiabl]

It's obviously just getting through the bus on the A1200. It must be much slower than the A4000.

[golem]

Your mediator will be making a big difference. Native AGA on a 1200 is the thing that holds the Blizzard back loading anything gfx.

[LaserBack]

Hi all!

I've noticed big differences in the loading times of NetSurf on various platforms, so I decided to measure the time that is needed to load amiga.org. Here are the results:

CyberStormPPC using 060/50, RTG: 25.9s
CyberStormPPC using 060/50, AGA: 26.5s
CyberStormPPC using 604e/200, RTG: 14.2s
Blizzard 1260, 128 MB: 82.2s

Ok clearly the PPC is way faster, but why is the 1260 so incredibly slow? It seems to me that the whole system is slow compared to the CyberStorm.  

Some details of the platforms:

Amiga 4000D, CyberStormPPC 060/50, 604e 200, 128 MB RAM on CyberStorm, 16 MB on Motherboard, 2 MB Chip, IDE HD and CD-ROM, Mediator 4000Di with Radeon 9250 with 128 MB RAM, RTL 8029 PCI NIC

Amiga 1200, Blizzard 1260 with 128 MB RAM, IDE-HD, Orinoco Wifi

cs 060 and b1260 perform idem
surely is related to the lower speed of the lan used in ur A1200
also pcmcia lan cards uses so much cpu time compared with zorro 3 lan in the A4000

[Lurch]

Apollo 1260 using 060/80, RTG: 18.1s

Amiga 1200T, Mediator TX, Voodoo 5 5500, Radeon 9200 (used for the 256MB RAM), 4xEIDE'99, 10/100 NIC......

Was faster with the FastATA 17.xxx or so :-)

[Lurch]

Disabled my Subway - 17.8s

[ciVic]

To check if my network card is the problem I downloaded the page including images with wget. Loading the page from disk with NetSurf still needs 76.9s.

[utri007]

Hi all!

I've noticed big differences in the loading times of NetSurf on various platforms, so I decided to measure the time that is needed to load amiga.org. Here are the results:

CyberStormPPC using 060/50, RTG: 25.9s
CyberStormPPC using 060/50, AGA: 26.5s
CyberStormPPC using 604e/200, RTG: 14.2s
Blizzard 1260, 128 MB: 82.2s

Ok clearly the PPC is way faster, but why is the 1260 so incredibly slow? It seems to me that the whole system is slow compared to the CyberStorm.  

Some details of the platforms:

Amiga 4000D, CyberStormPPC 060/50, 604e 200, 128 MB RAM on CyberStorm, 16 MB on Motherboard, 2 MB Chip, IDE HD and CD-ROM, Mediator 4000Di with Radeon 9250 with 128 MB RAM, RTL 8029 PCI NIC

Amiga 1200, Blizzard 1260 with 128 MB RAM, IDE-HD, Orinoco Wifi

You can google Netsurf Atari Falcon and find out that it load much faster with Atari. There is two possible reasons, Atari is so much better than Amiga or There is a proper port of Netsurf for Atari.

68k version is based of framebuffer version of netsurf, wich is meant to be used for debuggin or no gui systems. It also runs top of the SDL.

[Lurch]

If you are getting 82.2s with the Blizzard then something is wrong. As I've posted I'm getting 17.8s loading amiga.org using my Apollo 1260, although it's overclocked to 80MHz.

[chris]

You can google Netsurf Atari Falcon and find out that it load much faster with Atari. There is two possible reasons, Atari is so much better than Amiga or There is a proper port of Netsurf for Atari.

68k version is based of framebuffer version of netsurf, wich is meant to be used for debuggin or no gui systems. It also runs top of the SDL.

I get 6.6s on my 600MHz SAM440 with the native frontend.  To find out if framebuffer is the problem you'd need to run OS4 and the native frontend on the Amiga in question and see if the times improve. Although then you'd be changing *everything* so it might not be a worthwhile comparison.

It is actually not mentioned whether the PPC boards are running OS4 and native NetSurf - given that there is no horrid framebuffer build for PowerUP/WarpOS then the fact these boards are PPC would be irrelevant.

Possible reasons for slowness are CSS selection (a known problem, due to be improved for 3.2) or page rendering (this is what would cause a big difference between framebuffer/SDL and any native frontend - the OS4 one uses graphics.library directly), along with network (already mentioned).

[ciVic]

I now have checked the speed of my system. According to SysSpeed it's a normal A1200 with A1260. I saved the amiga.org start page to disk to check if the Wifi card is slow, same result. I also tried a different OS installation, same result. It's really curious.