06 April 2024, 21:48 | #1 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
AmigaOS 3.2 performance vs 3.1
I've been doing some experiments with a few of my A1200s recently, and I'm searching for the best tuned installation of 3.2.2.1 for the following configuration:
Amiga 1200 Blizzard 1230IV/50Mhz 32MB Fastram 64GB Kingspec 2.5" PATA SSD I got 3.2 installed on several Amigas, including ones with RTG, 060, Pistorms and Vampires, and they work great. But the performance between 3.1 and 3.2 has annoyed me a bit since I installed it on the 030-setup. It's probably more noticeable there I guess. OS3.2 is installed by using Blizkick to kick the 3.2 ROM first (3.0 is in ROM) , and this is the only modification to the system. Everything works fine and stable, but there is a performance impact somewhere that I can't put my finger on. It's already noticeable after kicking 3.2 with Blizkick. There will be a longer delay during boot which i think is by design allowing slow spin-up hard-drives to be detected, and probably some other SCSI-things are going on? After clicking boot you can already feel that the system has lost some of it's performance. It will boot slower, just like the hard-drive access-speed got slowed down a bit after kicking 3.2 Actually, this feeling exists in 3.1.4 also. But then there is the performance in Workbench doing normal things like application launching, opening several windows, text scrolling in the shell window is noticeable slower in these new systems. In fact, booting with no startup-sequence and launching a game like Eye of The Beholder 2 (not WHD-loaded) feels much more sluggish if 3.2 is kicked compared if I just let the machine load 3.0 from ROM, or blizkicking 3.1. It's very noticeable if you move fast in the dungeon. Is this intended, and does anyone else with the same setup experience these things? Don't get me wrong, this is not meant criticism to anyone, I'm just curious from a technical perspective why and if there should be a difference. |
07 April 2024, 00:21 | #2 |
Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin USA
Age: 60
Posts: 846
|
There are several threads already posted here on EAB regarding these specific AmigaOS version slow-down issues. You might want to try a search for them.
IMO if you paid for these versions, than you certainly do have a right to criticize them, but it probably won't accomplish anything constructively. |
07 April 2024, 00:33 | #3 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Europe
Posts: 477
|
@Firestone
Your "can't put my finger on" and "it feels like" are not grounds someone can discuss objective speed benchmarks. |
07 April 2024, 01:22 | #4 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: San Jose
Posts: 681
|
The most likely difference could be that you installed MMULibs as part of the 3.2 install. That can cost ~10% performance
|
07 April 2024, 10:05 | #5 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,331
|
Sigh. Stop speculating. There is an FAQ in 3.1.4 and 3.2 either. The issue is *most likely not* the MMU, but where the modules end up in RAM. Have you checked the FAQ?
Hint: The slowdown will most likely go away with a physical ROM, but even without a physical ROM, there are options. They are all listed in the FAQ. |
07 April 2024, 10:06 | #6 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,331
|
|
07 April 2024, 10:16 | #7 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: San Jose
Posts: 681
|
He mentioned that he’s using Blizkick to use 3.2 roms. Shouldn’t that be as if true 3.2 roms are installed? The blizzard 1230 has maprom hardware independent of the MMU.
|
07 April 2024, 11:28 | #8 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 44
Posts: 939
|
@Firestone: As Thomas mentioned, there will be a big performance hit if any modules end up in chip ram, like for example if the exec.library code is loaded in chip, it will have a significant impact.
Also the location of the library base of exec.library (library state, accessed a lot) has a significant impact on performance and general WB feel, but with the Blizzard, that should end up in chipmem disregarding OS version, so it should not affect your comparison. Unless you have fixed it with the 3.1-compatible LocalFast module in BlizKick, FastExec or tools from MMULib for one of the installs. One detail here is that BlizKick and FastExec will not have any negative side-effect on the performance, but on the 030, MMULib will noticeable decrease the performance when it enables the MMU with the configuration it uses, see for example this thread. I have written a tool, which is a work in progress, which will tell you which modules and library bases that are not in the fastest memory in an easy way: Documentation: https://github.com/patrikaxelsson/ResidentSpeed Executable: http://megaburken.net/~patrik/pt/ResidentSpeed |
07 April 2024, 12:40 | #9 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,331
|
I afraid the memory location (it's address) is not an indication of the memory type a code sits in. This mistake has been done quite often, unfortunately, but it is no longer true with the MMU running.
|
07 April 2024, 13:26 | #10 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 44
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
This result is then compared it against the result of a read access speed test of a location in the highest priority memory. If they differ significantly, it is determined to be a performance issue. |
|
07 April 2024, 14:20 | #11 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: São Leopoldo / Brazil
Age: 46
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
Any ideas why? |
|
07 April 2024, 14:37 | #12 | ||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 44
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
However, expansion.library is not utilized frequently when you are using the system in general, so it is not an actual performance problem even if its library base is slow to access. This is unfortunately not obvious from the output of ResidentSpeed, more like tribal knowledge(?) I do mention this in the documentation for ResidentSpeed, but I am sure it can be made more intuitive in some way?: Quote:
|
||
07 April 2024, 15:25 | #13 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: São Leopoldo / Brazil
Age: 46
Posts: 215
|
Quote:
I missed the README.md file on the first pass. |
|
08 April 2024, 00:12 | #14 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
But there are still some questions coming up, and one of them is why would there be a difference with physical ROMs on this when the kickstart is loaded with Blizkick? Is something still executed directly from ROM regardless of this? I don't think I have tried using MMU-libs in combination with "MuProtectModules ON REMAP" yet. I'll have do to some more tests. |
|
08 April 2024, 00:16 | #15 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
Of course I could have attached some benchmarks, but which benchmarks should it be? Sysspeed with intuitiontests ? |
|
08 April 2024, 00:24 | #16 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
Quote:
For reference, this is the result of ResidentSpeed for the system running OS3.2.2.1 : Code:
Type Name Version Size Loc Speed Speed % Region interrupt vector table 1.00k Chip 6.25M 22.9 Region system stack 6.00k Chip 6.25M 23.0 LibBase expansion.library 47.3 554 Chip 6.26M 22.8 LibBase exec.library 47.10 1.50k Chip 6.25M 22.8 Resident intuition.library 47.52 110.68k Kick 26.35M 97.1 Resident romboot 47.0 104 Kick 16.23M 50.0 Resident dos.library 47.30 35.16k Kick 26.54M 97.8 User-startup contains this line also: Code:
SYS:MuTools/MuFastZero ON FastExec MoveSSP >NIL: |
|
08 April 2024, 06:33 | #17 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 231
|
Quote:
I'm curious what that will do with the ResidentSpeed output. |
|
08 April 2024, 08:51 | #18 |
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 258
|
Here is a benchmark comparison between a plain installation of both systems.
Both Blizkicked (3.1 and 3.2) and using latest Sysspeed from Aminet to do the comparison. Fast2Fast operations seems to stand out most where the 3.1 system wins by great margin. Intuitiontests on the other hand seems to have slightly better results for some reason on 3.2. Code:
Memory 3.2BK 3.1BK Comparison ------ ----- ----- ----- Cache Read 31.36 31.53 1.01 ReadROMb 3.76 3.78 1.00 ReadROMw 7.23 7.26 1.00 ReadROMl 13.30 13.35 1.00 ReadFastb 3.76 3.78 1.00 ReadFastw 7.23 7.27 1.00 ReadFastl 13.29 13.36 1.00 WriteFastb 4.95 4.97 1.00 WriteFastw 10.45 10.50 1.01 WriteFastl 23.51 23.62 1.00 Fast2Fastb 1.82 3.30 1.82 Fast2Fastw 3.61 6.52 1.80 Fast2Fastl 6.21 12.52 2.02 Fast2Fastm 7.68 13.22 1.72 Fast2Fast16 - - - ReadChipb 0.92 0.92 1.01 ReadChipw 1.85 1.86 1.01 ReadChipl 3.78 3.80 1.01 WriteChipb 1.70 1.71 1.00 WriteChipw 3.46 3.47 1.00 WriteChipl 6.79 6.82 1.00 Chip2Chipb 0.84 0.85 1.00 Chip2Chipw 1.70 1.71 1.00 Chip2Chipl 3.46 3.47 1.00 Chip2Chipm 3.08 3.09 1.00 Chip2Chip16 - - - Fast2Chipb 0.92 0.92 1.01 Fast2Chipw 1.85 1.86 1.01 Fast2Chipl 3.78 3.80 1.01 Fast2Chipm 5.25 5.28 1.00 Fast2Chip16 - - - Intuition --------- OpenWin16 10 10 1.00 OpenWin256 5 5 1.00 OpenWinHi - - - OpenWinTru - - - WinLayer16 12 7 0.58 WinLayer256 5 3 0.60 WinLayerHi - - - WinLayerTru - - - SizeWin16 66 64 0.97 SizeWin256 65 24 0.37 SizeWinHi - - - SizeWinTru - - - MoveWin16 127 34 0.27 MoveWin256 72 23 0.32 MoveWinHi - - - MoveWinTru - - - ConOutP16 42 38 0.90 ConOutP256 30 27 0.90 ConOutPHi - - - ConOutPTru - - - OpenScr16 10 8 0.80 OpenScr256 5 5 1.00 OpenScrHi - - - openScrTru - - - SwapScr16 50 50 1.00 SwapScr256 50 50 1.00 SwapScrHi - - - SwapScrTru - - - Graphic ------- ScrollX_16 8 7 0.88 ScrollX_256 3 2 0.67 ScrollX_Hi - - - ScrollX_Tru - - - ScrollY_16 8 7 0.88 ScrollY_256 3 2 0.67 ScrollY_Hi - - - ScrollY_Tru - - - PrintTxt16 709 691 0.97 PrintTxt256 332 301 0.91 PrintTxtHi - - - PrintTxtTru - - - RectFill16 475 459 0.97 RectFill256 187 167 0.89 RectFillHi - - - RectFillTru - - - DrwElpse16 229 226 0.99 DrwElpse256 126 118 0.94 DrwElpseHi - - - DrwElpseTru - - - DrwCircle16 219 216 0.99 DrwCricle256 120 113 0.94 DrwCircleHi - - - DrwCircleTru - - - WrtPixel16 24834 26482 1.07 WrtPixel256 16387 16571 1.01 WrtPixelHi - - - WrtPixelTru - - - HorLines16 278 253 0.91 HorLines256 106 691 0.86 HorLinesHi - - - HirLinesTru - - - VerLines16 353 308 0.87 VerLines256 134 109 0.81 VerLinesHi - - - VerLinesTru - - - DiaLines16 312 280 0.90 DiaLines256 134 109 0.81 DiaLinesHi - - - DiaLinesTru - - - AreaElps16 135 134 0.99 AreaElps256 91 85 0.93 AreaElpsHi - - - AreaElpsTru - - - AreaCir16 126 125 0.99 AreaCir256 82 77 0.94 AreaCirHi - - - AreaCirTru - - - AreaFill16 187 180 0.96 AreaFill256 91 81 0.89 AreaFillHi - - - AreaFillTru - - - CPU/FPU ------- MIPS 16.44 16.53 1.00 MFLOPS 1.11 1.11 1.00 |
08 April 2024, 13:25 | #19 | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Umeå
Age: 44
Posts: 939
|
Quote:
The important component in the above result is the library base for exec.library, which will affect the performance a lot. The system stack, way less. However, unless you are running any patches for your 3.1 system, both the library base for exec.library and system stack should reports slow results with ResidentSpeed. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
08 April 2024, 14:37 | #20 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Italy
Posts: 769
|
Is it possible to use MuMove4K as a BlizKick Module avoiding a second reboot ?
I see a MuMove4K module on Blizkick archive, but I don't know if it's obsoleted. EDIT: for me the old MuMove4K BK module works, exec is moved in fast, the system runs better and the IDE speed get 2,0 MB/s vs 1,5MB/s. And only one Reboot ! Last edited by DanyPPC; 08 April 2024 at 14:48. |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Slow performance with AmigaOS 3.1.4 in WinUAE 4.2.1 | matsp888 | support.WinUAE | 15 | 13 January 2020 03:15 |
Accurate performance? | epoxxy | support.WinUAE | 1 | 25 October 2015 14:22 |
Getting more performance out of my A1200 | Devlin | support.Hardware | 4 | 18 December 2013 18:17 |
PSPUAE Performance | tonyyeb | support.OtherUAE | 73 | 27 January 2011 16:45 |
How do I get the best WB performance? | Rabbit80 | support.Apps | 27 | 01 July 2009 11:29 |
|
|