04 August 2024, 13:59 | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2024
Location: France
Posts: 35
|
Amiga Emulation Benchmarks
I recently got interested in the Amiga again ...because I'd bought a new Mac.
I bought a new machine because I wanted to run local Ai models. To run the bigger models takes an enormous amount of video memory and if you want to go above 48GB, Macs with Apple silicon work out to be the cheap option. Of course, Apple being Apple don't just let you spec out any machine with a large memory, for the top memory you have to get the top processor and that's $$$. What's any of this to do with the Amiga? This thing is ridiculously fast. Apart from running Ai, which maxes out the GPU, I don't run anything that goes anywhere near the power of the machine. So it got me thinking about how good would it be at emulation, and that got me interested in the Amiga again. I fired up an emulator yesterday and ran some benchmarks: Emulation System: CPU: M3 Max 4GHz (16 Core CPU / 40 Core GPU) RAM: 128GB Emulator: Amiberry preview 6.3.3 macOS-apple-silicon JIT: No (not available for ARM64). Emulation settings: 68040 - fastest. AGA chipset - fastest. 2MB Chip, 4MB Fast RAM. Amiga OS: Kickstart 3.1 Workbench 3.1 - The Workbench I used was a backup I had made from the Walker. SysInfo 4.4 471.12 (x A600) 249 227 Dhrystones 260 MIPS 60 MFlops AIBB 6.5 Test code type: 68020, 40 Math Results are KoopRate (A600 is 1.00) EmuTest 266 WritePixel 340 Sieve 310 Drystone 293 Sort 242 EllipseTest 8.82 Matrix 470 IMath 1864 MemTest 563 (677 MB / Sec) TGTest 5.66 LineTest 2.25 Savage 3017 FMath 1463 FMatrix 478 BeachBall 3224 InstTest 335 Flops 4326 TranTest 2869 FTrace 2601 CplxTest 385 Conclusion: This is pretty impressive considering this is a pre-release non-JIT emulator and Amiberry appears to use all of 1 core. Memory speed was a bit disappointing considering the external RAM bandwidth on this machine is 400GB / Second and this emulation was likely sitting entirely in the cache. PiStorm [ Show youtube player ] gets mostly faster results on a considerably slower CPU so I'd really like to see this when a JIT emulator is implemented in Amiberry. I'd also like to see the emulator split across 2 cores. It should be possible to run the CPU and Fast RAM emulation separately from the chipset so I suspect that'd provide a performance boost. If this is how fast it can be emulated, imagine how fast it'd be running native? The A600GS is running some Arm native parts so maybe we'll find out. |
04 August 2024, 15:06 | #2 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 112
|
PiStorm also has the advantage it only has to do 68K CPU emulation.
So not having to emulate the Amiga chipset saves cycles |
05 August 2024, 02:41 | #3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: Venus
Posts: 229
|
for emulator, games and most programs what really matter is single core speed
and the single core speed of the M3 is impressive acording to passmark benchmark in on the level of the core i9 14900ks and 14900kf which are the faster x86 cpus today https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html but that's according to passmark in real life the things are different, and I really don't believe in passmark results when mix x86 and arm cpus, because is obvious that the x86 cpus are much faster in single core than the arm ones OK ,your numbers posted indicate that such Amiga emulator is faster than winuae without JIT enabled but winuae on any old x86 cpu with JIT enabled is between 5x and 10x faster than what you got anyways interesting results thx for posting them |
05 August 2024, 23:50 | #4 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2024
Location: France
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
Granted most Arms are designed for phones so wont be as fast as desktop cores, but the Apple ones are designed to be fast. They also have faster decode than x86 and most importantly get the fastest silicon process before anyone else. Quote:
It'll be interesting to see once Amiberry gets an Arm64 JIT how my scores turn out. Should be quite a bit better than the RPi5. Quote:
|
||||
07 August 2024, 01:09 | #5 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: Venus
Posts: 229
|
Quote:
the m3 and m4 are just 30w cpus while the core i9 i7 waste +200w when are pushed yep the arm cpus are more efficient but they still have a long way to go to compare to x86 power The ppl of passmark and geekbench put numbers on par in single core with the x86 but it is just a marketing strategy to avoid ppl realizing that the arms cpus are actually much slower |
|
07 August 2024, 11:37 | #6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,535
|
i think you should try to make benchmark with real software.
Many years ago i make a benchmark 68k between Amithlon (athlonXP 2600, Sempron 2400, Pentium 2), AmigaOne SE G3, Pegasos G3, Pegasos II G4 Last edited by Seiya; 07 August 2024 at 12:24. |
10 August 2024, 16:04 | #7 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2024
Location: France
Posts: 35
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's also not my experience. When I first got an M1 Pro, it completely destroyed my i7, and it doesn't get hot in normal use. The x86 machines are still faster on the desktop because they have more cores and have higher clock speeds, but the M3 max isn't that far behind. Quote:
Passmark appears to be more of a CPU only test, the M4 is faster than an M3 (it's a more advanced core and on an improved process). However it's also in an iPad so it more likely to throttle if it's pushed, that makes sense. Quote:
Arm were relatively basic low end chips 15 years ago, but a lot has changed since then. |
||||
10 August 2024, 20:46 | #8 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: digital hell, Germany, after 1984, but worse
Posts: 3,394
|
Don't overvalue the results of simple benchmarks, the speed of real applications is something different.
The Jit can improve speed a lot. On my 5 year old low-cost Celeron N4100, 4 core CPU, with WinUAE 4.4 and Jit on, my results are much higher. Without Jit the benchmark results are poor, but for applications the differences are lower. Btw, you can enable "multithreaded RTG" in WinUAE for a faster graphics emulation. |
11 August 2024, 12:04 | #9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,535
|
you can try this serie of benchmark (download files)
Some tests are very slow without jit. So you can do with JIT and without JIT. The only things to remember is to tell if you using jit and/or in what test you use jit. CPU TEST: ByteMARK 68k/PPC AFlops only mflops(4) Dnet68k (v2.8010-461-CPR-00062713) (I provide the 68k archive) Amiga Fibonacci Benchmark (Afinch) AUDIO TESTS: BladeENC (0.85 for 68k Amiga Lame 3.98 GAMES and ENTERTAINMENT: QUAKE (software mode): use Quake68k (included in the archive) and than "timedemo demo2" from the console by pressing the "" key under the "Esc" key and then pressing it again immediately to see the demo in fullscreen; Or download the Glquake. QUAKE II (software mode). How to run the benchmarks: BYTEMARK: try the versions for your cpu AFLOPS: test that calculates the mflops with these options: aflops (using the right version for your cpu); we only take into account MFLOPS(4) DNET 68K (in this case): launch the program from shell and write: "dnet -benchmark" and report the RC5 and OGR value. AMIGA FIBONACCI TEST: open the shell and launch the right program for the cpu version BLADEENC: use the wav file i included from Demoscene, indicated at the bottom of the page and from the shell do: "BladeEnc Osaka_Theory.wav" LAME 3.98: always with the same song, this time using qval=3 so always from the shell: "lame -q3 Osaka_Theory.wav Osaka_Theory.mp3" QUAKE 68k: simply do a "timedemo demo2" from the console being careful to immediately press the "" key under the "esc" key to restore fullscreen and at the end bring back the correct frame rate. Test quake with AGA and RTG . Resolution to try: 320x256x8 (AGA), 640x480x8 (RTG). In RTG mode run the game from shell with this command line: "quake68k -ip 127.0.0.1" and then choose 640x480 8bit QUAKE 2 ("timedemo 2" then "map demo1.dm2"): possibly the same and without audio. Important for the purposes of the tests that the games are tested in software mode audio test i used Demoscene music (Osaka_Theory.wav) free from copyright (i presume). Last edited by Seiya; 11 August 2024 at 19:30. |
14 August 2024, 07:46 | #10 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Germany
Posts: 120
|
Quote:
|
|
14 August 2024, 13:40 | #11 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,535
|
of course: pistorm, vampire, winuae, also real amiga.
|
14 August 2024, 13:45 | #12 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Italy
Posts: 2,535
|
my test in Jit with 68040 configuration, WinUAE 5.3.0
I7 2600 AFinch 68040: 10.480 seconds AFlops: Mflops(4): 154.0333 Bytemark 2.2: Integer Index: 6.493412 Floating-Point Index: 3.760559 Dnetc: RC5: 1,626,559.75 keys/sec OGR: 1,422,376.57 nodes/sec BladeEnc 0.85: 00:05:52 (0.69X) Lame 3.98: 00:01:49 (2.2379X) Quake68k 320x256, PAL: 121 fps Quaek68k 640x480x8: 87 fps I7 7700 (same configuration) AFinch 68040: 1.900 seconds AFlops MFlops(4): 276.1171 Bytemark 2.2: Integer Index: 19.050791 Floatin-Point Index: 7.747311 Dnetc: RC5: 7,732,873.95 keys/sec OGR: 3,805,171.57 nodes/sec BladeEnc 0.85: 00:02:38 (1.53X) Lame 3.98: 00:00:36 (7.4692X) Quake68k 320x256, PAL: 390 fps Quake68k 640x480x8: 171 fps |
26 August 2024, 10:14 | #13 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2023
Location: Venus
Posts: 229
|
Quote:
just try to play any video using ffplay ie some mp4 or avi file with x264 codec and you will see, then try it but with JIT disabled |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Benchmarks/Killer Apps | ShenLong | Amiga scene | 10 | 08 March 2021 21:48 |
Do raw benchmarks exists? | TEG | Retrogaming General Discussion | 2 | 04 August 2018 20:11 |
RiVa AMMX Benchmarks | TuKo | Amiga scene | 82 | 26 January 2017 20:59 |
Some benchmarks, and a request | Damion | support.Hardware | 29 | 14 March 2011 16:10 |
Benchmarks. | ECA | support.Hardware | 4 | 14 June 2002 15:14 |
|
|