English Amiga Board


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Main > Amiga scene

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 17 January 2014, 00:41   #21
Reido
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dublin/Ireland
Posts: 231
Quote:
Originally Posted by NovaCoder View Post
Cool, we got there in the end

Now go play: AmiQuake, AmiQuake 2, ScummVM etc
So I've got 106 MIPS on SysSpeed, however Quake 2 is jerky (very playable tho) compared to the super smooth vids of play Nova posted on youtube. zDoom and Quake are both fast and smooth. Could this be my particular Quake 2 files that aren't right? I'm using RemApollo according to the startup sequence posted above and have registered HSMaths. Any ideas?

Last edited by Reido; 21 January 2014 at 14:15.
Reido is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 17 January 2014, 01:40   #22
stachu100
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Piaseczno/Poland
Posts: 286
Send a message via Skype™ to stachu100
@Reido,

You have Apollo 1260 060@80MHz RAM@40MHz, NovaCoder has Blizzard 1260 060@80MHz RAM@80MHz. So having FAST RAM two times slower than Nova, you will always get worse performance no matter what. Sorry.
stachu100 is offline  
Old 17 January 2014, 01:50   #23
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by stachu100 View Post
@Reido,

You have Apollo 1260 060@80MHz RAM@40MHz, NovaCoder has Blizzard 1260 060@80MHz RAM@80MHz. So having FAST RAM two times slower than Nova, you will always get worse performance no matter what. Sorry.
Hiya,

As you know, I've been lucky enough to own both

Yes the Blizzard is a little quicker than the Apollo for really demanding games but there's not much in it.

I wish I'd kept my Apollo, it would have been interesting to see if it could have gone all the way up to 100Mhz

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reido View Post
So I've got 106 MIPS on SysSpeed, however Quake 2 is jerky (playable tho) compared to the super smooth vids of play Nova posted on youtube. zDoom and Quake are both fast and smooth. Could this be my particular Quake 2 files that aren't right? I'm using RemApollo according to the startup sequence posted above and have registered HSMaths. Any ideas?
It could be your HD transfer rate, Quake 2 moves a lot of data around (even during the game). What kind of HD speed are you getting in SysSpeed?

You should download my 80Mhz Apollo SysSpeed module from AmiNet and do a comparison with your system to see what's different.

Update: Just had a thought, also check your AHI settings (see the AmiQuake 2 readme for details)

Last edited by NovaCoder; 20 January 2014 at 00:41.
NovaCoder is offline  
Old 17 January 2014, 08:26   #24
Reido
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Dublin/Ireland
Posts: 231
Ah, that clears it up thanks stachu100 and Nova. It was in the back of my mind that I wasn't doing something right.....now I can actually go off and enjoy all the benefits of the fast processor without worrying! Thanks again Stan for the work you did on my board, and Nova as usual for the amazing ports!

I'll have a look at SysSpeed and post the HD transfer rate.
Reido is offline  
Old 19 January 2014, 20:25   #25
Amicol
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hartlepool / England
Posts: 338
@NovaCoder
My MIPS are the same as yours, but when I compare the rest, your performance is far better than mine in the majority of tests. Is this due to the difference in Apollo Vs Blizzard architecture? Or does my system require further tweeking?
Or, does the Indivision 1200 AGA improve graphics performance?
Here is a vid of AmiQuake - poor FPS: [ Show youtube player ]
@stachu100
I will be posting my 'knackered' Apollo card to you soon. Hopefully you can revive it!

Last edited by Amicol; 19 January 2014 at 21:22.
Amicol is offline  
Old 19 January 2014, 22:56   #26
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amicol View Post
@NovaCoder
My MIPS are the same as yours, but when I compare the rest, your performance is far better than mine in the majority of tests. Is this due to the difference in Apollo Vs Blizzard architecture? Or does my system require further tweeking?
Or, does the Indivision 1200 AGA improve graphics performance?
Here is a vid of AmiQuake - poor FPS: [ Show youtube player ]
@stachu100
I will be posting my 'knackered' Apollo card to you soon. Hopefully you can revive it!
Yep that does look slow, it should be much better. I'd say it's something to do with your OS setup, my old Apollo ran it well.

I've uploaded both my Apollo and Blizzard SysSpeed modules to AmiNet.

Nope, the Indivision doesn't effect FPS.
NovaCoder is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 00:30   #27
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Without meaning to hijack this thread, I have been following it with interest and seem to have some funny looking results when compared to the ones on Aminet.
I think I am attaching my current system which is a blizzard 1260 @ 80 with 6mb ram running of an 8gb CF card.
Any thoughts/suggestions?

Cheers
C
Attached Files
File Type: zip crazycSysSpeedmod.zip (643 Bytes, 32 views)
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 00:51   #28
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyc View Post
Without meaning to hijack this thread, I have been following it with interest and seem to have some funny looking results when compared to the ones on Aminet.
I think I am attaching my current system which is a blizzard 1260 @ 80 with 6mb ram running of an 8gb CF card.
Any thoughts/suggestions?

Cheers
C
Which of your results look funny?
NovaCoder is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 01:04   #29
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
The stuff under fastmem as the comparators were similar to each other, in the 30s or 50s whereas I got 2s and 3s.
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 01:07   #30
Amicol
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hartlepool / England
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by NovaCoder View Post
Yep that does look slow, it should be much better. I'd say it's something to do with your OS setup, my old Apollo ran it well.

I've uploaded both my Apollo and Blizzard SysSpeed modules to AmiNet.

Nope, the Indivision doesn't effect FPS.
Cheers Nova, my system partition got corrupted since my last post. Didn't have a backup
I'll have to start from scratch with a new 3.9 installation. Might end up being a good thing, I'll keep in mind all the tips in this thread when tweaking...
Amicol is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 12:38   #31
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyc View Post
The stuff under fastmem as the comparators were similar to each other, in the 30s or 50s whereas I got 2s and 3s.
Hmm - re running this morning and the results are less spectacularly out - although my B1260@80 is being out performed on the memory test by both the 68060s running at 75 and 60 mhz.

Perhaps I need better memory? (well thats what the wife tells me anyway)
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 13:00   #32
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
I'll try it compare to my 80Mhz Blizzy right now...

Yep your system is very sick

Something very wrong there
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20140120_amiga.jpg
Views:	209
Size:	483.1 KB
ID:	38693   Click image for larger version

Name:	IMG_20140120_amiga2.jpg
Views:	199
Size:	482.0 KB
ID:	38694  

Last edited by NovaCoder; 20 January 2014 at 13:27.
NovaCoder is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 13:38   #33
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Hmm.

Will change the board back down to 66 and try my 128mb stick of ram and retest when I get a moment later.
Is there any other memory diagnostic stuff I could run?
Cheers
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 13:40   #34
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Also, I see my drive statistics are very slow - is this consistent with a CF 8gb drive? I am using PFS3?
Any hints on this?

Cheers
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 13:49   #35
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Hmmmm.

I recently setup a new CF card with PFS3 and cwb 28 on it. Perhaps I stuffed up somewhere because without making any hardware changes, I swapped back to my previous CF card with cwb v27 on it and now my FASTmemory stats are comparable to yours.
My drive statistics however remain unchanged. (today, on both cards they have been about 4x better than on the module I sent, but that is still way short of yours.)

Perhaps 2 different issues?
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 14:00   #36
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Another difference is the later version (the sick one) has the registered hsmathslibs on it that I got on the email yesterday.

Perhaps I should have chosen some different options on install - just went with the defaults.
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 14:00   #37
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazyc View Post
Hmmmm.

I recently setup a new CF card with PFS3 and cwb 28 on it. Perhaps I stuffed up somewhere because without making any hardware changes, I swapped back to my previous CF card with cwb v27 on it and now my FASTmemory stats are comparable to yours.
My drive statistics however remain unchanged. (today, on both cards they have been about 4x better than on the module I sent, but that is still way short of yours.)

Perhaps 2 different issues?
You won't get near to my transfer rate without an IdeFixExpress (or FastATA).

You should be getting about 2 MB/s.

I assume you're using Blizkick?

Last edited by NovaCoder; 20 January 2014 at 14:26.
NovaCoder is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 14:30   #38
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
Yes - he says confidently as he is sure he installed it back when first getting back into Amigas - but then checks and finds it is commented out in his startup.
Hmmmmmm.
Uncommenting causes an error on bootup (unknown command) but it seems to be installed in my programs folder?

Time to play.
crazyc is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 14:57   #39
NovaCoder
Registered User
NovaCoder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 3,444
Cool, you need to get it working well so that you can play [ Show youtube player ]

NovaCoder is offline  
Old 20 January 2014, 15:32   #40
crazyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Gravesend - UK
Posts: 408
OK - probably a stupid question here but....
To use blizkick to kick the rom, does the jumper have to be on or off the board itself?
The jumper is not on the board currently. (And I do not have it)
Cheers
C
crazyc is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Getting more performance out of my A1200 Devlin support.Hardware 4 18 December 2013 19:17
PSPUAE Performance tonyyeb support.OtherUAE 73 27 January 2011 17:45
performance issues in some games?! trydowave support.WinUAE 3 09 January 2011 20:22
How do I get the best WB performance? Rabbit80 support.Apps 27 01 July 2009 12:29
OS4 Speed Performance ? blade002 Amiga scene 42 13 November 2007 23:35

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 15:23.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.49755 seconds with 12 queries