Quote:
Originally Posted by daxb
On my A1200 040/40 32MB from shell:
pi-amiga1200 (with 9256 digits): 68.36 (with text scrolling)
|
Thank you very much. The result maybe better if to save them to a file. Is it 68040 @40MHz?
It is too good for my retro research. I am curious to get the true speed of 68020. I remember A1200 at 1993. It looks good but PC were cheap and fast...
Quote:
|
Bonus:
|
pi_css5 is a bit faster than my spigot-pi but I have a program for z80 which is 7 times faster than the pi-spigot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matthey
The 3000(T) has the ECS custom chips which should have the same timers at the same locations. It is a multitasking system so those timers may be used by other programs or the AmigaOS if not allocated correctly. The speed of the machine is much faster than a slow Amiga which may be somehow causing a problem.
|
The special version is required for later and upgraded Amigas. A500 has no way to allocate timer or I missed something. BTW how to play old good A500 games with so fast hardware?
Quote:
|
The pi-amiga program crashes most of the time for me. I did get 2 runs with max digits to give 18.05 and 17.92 which is strange as that would be faster than the 68020 version.
|
It is odd but it is possible. Maybe a stopwatch...
Quote:
I did some more tests with the pi-amiga1200 version and less digits.
These results were consistent over 10 runs each and likely correct so maybe you aren't so far off. There is probably some kind of bug when the digits are very high and for the 68000/500 version which crashes here.
|
Thanks.
I used OldOpenLibrary function which maybe poor supported at later Amigas...
Quote:
|
The Amiga 1200 is 1992 in your list and the Commodore SuperCPU-64 is 1996. The 68060 CPU came out in 1994 (and 68040 in 1990). C= could have put a 68060 in an Amiga 1200 or Amiga 4000(T) but they were too busy going bankrupt to sell high profit margin high end models. Amiga Technologies did put the 68060 in some Amiga 4000T models.
|
My initial aim was to compare z80 and 6502. 65816 (SuperCPU) is very close to 6502. PC386 is close to PC286 but I ignored 486 systems. The faster systems (68040, 80486, ...) require other program because a lot of 8-bit systems can't handle more than 3000 digits.
68060 is very good. It is sad that it was used so seldom. However, IMHO, Intel made a bit better architecture. Motorola couldn't skip the spirit of dino-like VAX completely. If they supported and developed 6502 architecture then they most probably would be leaders of CPU today.
Quote:
|
Workbench is not even the GUI which is Intuition/BOOPSI/Reaction/Gadtools by default (builtin). WB is a file manager kind of like the early versions of Windows where DOS was the OS. Yes, WB is part of the AmigaOS but unnecessary even for this test. C= did not do a good job of making it clear.
|
It is true today but the word Workbench was used for all these components at the 80s and early 90s. I am trying too preserve the spirit of the past.