Amiga Quake: 060 FPS 50MHz vs 100MHz

[sandruzzo]

[ Show youtube player ]

Just saw this video, and after all, since fps are doubled on 060 100mhz vs 50mhz, Aga, seems able to handle faster cpu. What would have been the performance with better RAM access by cpu?

I mean, so far With Amiga Architecture, Cpu can access to ram every other cycle, instead alla Available cycles. Not Bad For Aga...

[Seiya]

the only problems is not AGA, but the cost to have those 18 fps.

[sandruzzo]

nonetheless quite interesting for a chip set whitout Chunky modes

[lilwshu]

That demo appears to be using the RTG on the Warp card (csgfx).

[gimbal]

Not bad indeed, but still not fun to play Quake at those framerates

[fitzsteve]

That's not too bad considering my BPPC 330mhz with Bvision (software rendering to match the above) gave 27.2fps in TD2

[trixster]

Blizzard 1260 at 80mhz = 16.3fps timedemo demo1 in AmiQuake, which is pretty good.

The bottlenecks for Amiga are aga, fast ram speed and chip ram speed.

TF1260 at 80mhz = 15.7fps for the same timedemo, despite TF1260 having faster fast-ram speeds. The lower speed here is to do with its slower chip ram I think.

So you need fast fast-ram and chip-ram to get the best speeds on Amiga if you aren’t offloading to rtg.

[S0ulA55a551n]

Wonder what A1200 Vamp gets, given its super fast ram access etc , must be pretty decent.

Will have to get around to getting my stuff set up and do some testing

[Havie]

[QUOTE=S0ulA55a551n;1510254]Wonder what A1200 Vamp gets, given its super fast ram access etc , must be pretty decent.

Will have to get around to getting my stuff set up and do some testing[/QUOTE

Just tried Nova's Quake on V1200 RTG and got just under 19fps. The thing is if you shrink the screen to make it run faster - it is way too fast so seems to me that it was designed to be run about 25 fps? Smallest screen size gave about 37fps and it was almost to quick to follow!

Would also be interesting to see how Clickboom Quake compares to Nova Quake?

[grelbfarlk]

Did somebody ask about some A3000/A4000 Quake benchmarks?

          Demo  Sonnet 500MHz G3    PrPMC 450MHz G4   Killer NIC 400MHz   Ragnarok 950MHz RAM+
                320x240  640x480   320x240  640x480   320x240  640x480    320x240  640x480
QuakeWOS  (2)    68.3     24.6       93.0     40.3      60.0    25.3      119.3     50.4
glQuake   (1)     x       48.9        x       50.1       x      44.5        x       54.0

[AmigaHope]

Originally Posted by sandruzzo

nonetheless quite interesting for a chip set whitout Chunky modes

On full 3D games like Quake the C2P conversion time is relatively trivial. The bigger problem is how long it takes to actually copy the frame to slow chip memory. Since each frame takes a fixed amount of time to copy, during which the CPU can do nothing, you get diminishing returns the faster your CPU is.

[sandruzzo]

I thinking they figured that out, and during copying time, you can do some other taks

[coder76]

Originally Posted by sandruzzo

[ Show youtube player ]

Just saw this video, and after all, since fps are doubled on 060 100mhz vs 50mhz, Aga, seems able to handle faster cpu. What would have been the performance with better RAM access by cpu?

I mean, so far With Amiga Architecture, Cpu can access to ram every other cycle, instead alla Available cycles. Not Bad For Aga...

The c2p speed depends on 68060 board's memory access speed (mostly chip ram write speed). This is around 15 ms for a 320x256x8bpl screen at best. Not all 68060 boards will achieve this speed. The Quake gives a frame rate of almost 20 FPS @ 100 MHz, corresponding to a frame time of 50 ms. If the c2p time is totally eliminated, (15 ms) you get 35 ms, or 28-29 FPS. If you substitute a memory that is around 10x faster than chip ram max write speed (or 7 MB/sec), the c2p time would be around 2-3 ms (instead of 15 ms), giving you a frame or two less than with no c2p.

So, in any case, even if chip ram write speed would not be a bottleneck, Quake on AGA would run just 5 or more frames faster @ 100MHz.

[Seiya]

Originally Posted by grelbfarlk

Did somebody ask about some A3000/A4000 Quake benchmarks?

          Demo  Sonnet 500MHz G3    PrPMC 450MHz G4   Killer NIC 400MHz   Ragnarok 950MHz RAM+
                320x240  640x480   320x240  640x480   320x240  640x480    320x240  640x480
QuakeWOS  (2)    68.3     24.6       93.0     40.3      60.0    25.3      119.3     50.4
glQuake   (1)     x       48.9        x       50.1       x      44.5        x       54.0

interesting that WOS version there is so much difference from 320x240 and 640x480.

[fitzsteve]

Originally Posted by Seiya

interesting that WOS version there is so much difference from 320x240 and 640x480.

This is normal as it's using software rendering