English Amiga Board Amiga Lore


Go Back   English Amiga Board > Support > support.WinUAE

 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03 August 2014, 01:06   #1
Snake79
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 168
A1200, 030 VS 040, 8x, CE, Speed Comparison

Hi there. I have done some tests (winuae_2820b8) and speed comparisons (using SysInfo) between Quickstart A1200 with 030 8x CE 8MB fast VS 040 8x CE 8MB fast (with FPU, because without it SysInfo is crashing). Results are confusing because the 030 config perform better and not only in synthetic benchmarks but in visual too (in using Workbench fe.) ;/ ? Is that normal ? (pics: 1a,1b 030 and 2a,2b 040).
EDIT: when using these configs without CE (Cycle exact = off) 040 is slightly faster then (see: 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b).
Are we allowed to use CE on 030/040 finally or not?
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	1a).030_8x.png
Views:	108
Size:	243.6 KB
ID:	40786   Click image for larger version

Name:	1b).030_8x.jpg
Views:	103
Size:	210.3 KB
ID:	40787   Click image for larger version

Name:	2a).040_fpu_8x.png
Views:	107
Size:	244.0 KB
ID:	40788   Click image for larger version

Name:	2b).040_fpu_8x.jpg
Views:	99
Size:	210.9 KB
ID:	40789   Click image for larger version

Name:	3a)030_CEoff.png
Views:	95
Size:	243.1 KB
ID:	40791  

Click image for larger version

Name:	3b)030_CEoff.jpg
Views:	90
Size:	210.3 KB
ID:	40792   Click image for larger version

Name:	4a)040_CEoff.png
Views:	82
Size:	244.0 KB
ID:	40793   Click image for larger version

Name:	4b)040_CEoff.jpg
Views:	86
Size:	211.2 KB
ID:	40794  

Last edited by Snake79; 03 August 2014 at 14:07.
Snake79 is offline  
AdSense AdSense  
Old 03 August 2014, 14:41   #2
Snake79
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 168
Second test (030 VS 040) using PowerMeter application:
If i am not wrong then less (s) is better.
Pics: 1-3 with CE on; 4-6 with CE off.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	030_8x_CE.png
Views:	99
Size:	172.4 KB
ID:	40796   Click image for larger version

Name:	040_8x_CE.png
Views:	87
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	40797   Click image for larger version

Name:	040_fpu_8x_CE.png
Views:	97
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	40798   Click image for larger version

Name:	030_8x_CEoff.png
Views:	79
Size:	172.8 KB
ID:	40799   Click image for larger version

Name:	040_8x_CEoff.png
Views:	86
Size:	173.2 KB
ID:	40800  

Click image for larger version

Name:	040_fpu_8x_CEoff.png
Views:	77
Size:	173.0 KB
ID:	40801  

Last edited by Snake79; 03 August 2014 at 14:53.
Snake79 is offline  
Old 03 August 2014, 15:29   #3
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 42
Posts: 19,561
You are mostly wasting your time to test new beta features that are not even supposed to be finished yet.
Toni Wilen is online now  
Old 03 August 2014, 15:38   #4
Snake79
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Wilen View Post
You are mostly wasting your time to test new beta features that are not even supposed to be finished yet.
So i understand that it is not recommended to use above configs as they are not yet optimized enough (and with CE especially)?

Last edited by Snake79; 03 August 2014 at 16:00.
Snake79 is offline  
Old 03 August 2014, 16:00   #5
Snake79
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 168
My point was to find optimal config (as much fast and compatible as it can be like) and now i think its A1200 030 8x CE 8MB fast for me (have problems with 040).
PS. Thanks for your hard work!

Last edited by Snake79; 03 August 2014 at 17:12.
Snake79 is offline  
Old 03 August 2014, 19:18   #6
Toni Wilen
WinUAE developer
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Hämeenlinna/Finland
Age: 42
Posts: 19,561
68040+ speed will be higher in future betas. 68020/030 probably does not change during this beta series, but 68030 data cache will be re-enabled. (Unless there is some other obvious bugs)
Toni Wilen is online now  
Old 03 August 2014, 20:12   #7
Snake79
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toni Wilen View Post
68040+ speed will be higher in future betas. 68020/030 probably does not change during this beta series, but 68030 data cache will be re-enabled. (Unless there is some other obvious bugs)
That's Great! For now i am very happy with 030 in terms of performance and compatibility (with CE enabled!). Thanks again Guru
Snake79 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
CF card speed comparison Photon support.Hardware 79 05 March 2014 19:36
Looking for a 030 or 040 Board Lozspd4 MarketPlace 0 30 September 2012 23:09
Cyberstorm PPC vs Blizzard PPC CPU Speed Comparison CU_AMiGA support.Hardware 9 15 March 2012 14:25
A500 SCSI interface speed comparison Photon support.Hardware 90 02 February 2010 20:33

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 11:28.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Page generated in 0.13072 seconds with 12 queries