13 February 2020, 20:17 | #21 |
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Kansas, USA
Posts: 328
|
And for a slightly more productive post:
The only way to get the emulated software running anywhere near the speed you're looking for is by turning on JIT mode set to fastest possible. That recompiles the 680x0 instructions into x86 instructions and runs them directly on the real CPU, which is far faster than the normal emulation. |
13 February 2020, 20:39 | #22 |
Registered User
|
To be fair, one should compare a modern CPU having all caches disabled, since 68000 did not have any caches by itself.
The performance drop when disabling all caches on modern CPUs is amazingly high! |
13 February 2020, 21:15 | #23 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,146
|
Let me rephrase this question:
As an average figure between the high and low possibilities, what would you guess the multiple is? |
13 February 2020, 21:43 | #24 |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Preston
Posts: 100
|
|
13 February 2020, 22:09 | #25 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Posts: 683
|
You could probably just reference this table:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instru...ons_per_second I assume this question will not have a practical application, so a guesstimate should be good enough. |
13 February 2020, 22:18 | #26 |
Zone Friend
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,176
|
Eleventy billion.
|
13 February 2020, 22:27 | #27 |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
You have hit a wasp nest: they are not easily comparable, as others
have pointed out, and benchmarks always suck, no matter which one you choose. But lets get wild: A stock Amiga 3000 is aproximately 6 Linux BogoMips. An Amiga 500 is aproximately ten times slower in performance, so lets assume 0.6 Linux BogoMips aproximately for an A500. Then lets go to the computer to compare it with: iMac 3.6GHz 8-core 9th-generation Intel Core i9 processor This one seems to report a little over 7000 BogoMips. So 7000 / 0.6 = madness That iMac is more than 11,666 times faster than a stock A500 when using the Linux BogoMips benchmark. So again. benchmarks are stupid, and unreliable, and this one is no exception. I hope it helps to at least get some sort of unfair comparison. |
13 February 2020, 22:38 | #28 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,146
|
Okay cool, so it's somewhere between 2000, 11666, and eleventy billion!
Last edited by Starglider 2; 13 February 2020 at 22:44. |
13 February 2020, 22:48 | #29 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,146
|
Quote:
So we're somewhere between 450, 2000, 11666, (and eleventy billion). This gives a nice round figure of: 4705 |
|
13 February 2020, 22:49 | #30 |
BoingBagged
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The South of nowhere
Age: 46
Posts: 2,358
|
And that is why when you see an Amiga demo coder you should vow with utmost respect:
They could probably rebuild the universe and seven parallel words with an Intel Core i9. ;-) |
13 February 2020, 23:13 | #31 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Posts: 683
|
|
14 February 2020, 00:49 | #32 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: California
Posts: 1,146
|
I was looking at per clock cycle
Last edited by Starglider 2; 14 February 2020 at 06:28. |
14 February 2020, 02:37 | #33 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Posts: 683
|
|
14 February 2020, 07:39 | #34 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Age: 41
Posts: 3,773
|
All this discussion is meaningless without figures. What would be a simple but effective way to benchmark the two systems? Something like calculating pi to 10,000 decimal places?
|
14 February 2020, 08:51 | #35 | |||||
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,323
|
Quote:
It does however allow to execute the exact same benchmark program on both machines. Quote:
But if you badly want numbers, you can estimate the compiler made the code 4 times too slow on the 68k... Quote:
But a multi-ghz 68k derivative would have been fun, yeah. Quote:
The 68000 has peak ipc of 0.25. Modern (cough) x86 cpus have peak ipc probably of 4. That's not more than 16 times faster. Yet this is only academic - 68000 can't reach 3ghz. Quote:
And if running the same program, it would again be sensitive to compiler differences. |
|||||
14 February 2020, 10:17 | #36 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norfolk, UK
Posts: 1,154
|
Quote:
(It's a simple enough problem that anyone who objects to compiler differences giving the 68k an unfair penalty could fairly easily write an asm version!) |
|
14 February 2020, 10:57 | #37 |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Belfast
Posts: 750
|
Can you not just settle on "a lot faster".
What is the context of your future video? According to wikipedia an intel i7 6950x achieves 317,900 MIPS at 3ghz compared to the 68k getting 1.4mips at 8mhz. So simple calculator time assuming MIPS scale linear against cpu clock (which they don't) The 68k at 3ghz would get 525mips and the Intel at 8mhz would get 847.73mips. I think its safe to say the Intel is a faster processor. |
14 February 2020, 11:29 | #38 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 3,420
|
It's almost impossible to answer this question accurately. There are far too many variables to consider. It's already quite difficult to accurately measure the performance difference between two computers of roughly equal power that are using the same CPU family. Even statements such as "an A3000 is 10x the speed of an A500" are not as "simply true" as you might think. For some things, the A3000 is only marginally faster. For others it might be 20x+ the speed.
Plus, in the real world it doesn't actually matter as much what any synthetic benchmark tells you the performance difference is. What actually matters is how it performs for your specific uses. As a small example: I have a PC at home and at work. The one at work is six years newer and has a much faster processor. Yet, my PC at home is much faster in real world use because it does have an SSD and has plenty of memory, while my work PC doesn't have either. Sure, the work one can calculate PI to 10,000 decimals a lot quicker. But I'm still far more effective on the one at home because it doesn't take a minute to start the applications I'm using and it doesn't need to swap out memory nearly as often. |
14 February 2020, 11:32 | #39 |
-
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Helsinki / Finland
Age: 43
Posts: 9,865
|
Please everyone: do not use bogomips as any kind of comparison between different CPUs. It is a totally meaningless value.
|
14 February 2020, 11:45 | #40 |
son of 68k
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lyon / France
Age: 51
Posts: 5,323
|
And all of this is for the cpu only. But the rest of the hardware also has to be taken into account.
As an example, Atari ST has 8Mhz 68000, Amiga 500 has 7.09Mhz 68000. So in theory the ST is faster... |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
amiga os on ibook or imac g4 | xan11 | support.Other | 11 | 05 September 2015 21:57 |
Amiga OS 4 on an iMac g4 2002? | Retroboy | support.Hardware | 1 | 31 July 2014 22:14 |
Is it worth it fitting faster chip/slow Ram to A500? | imperious | support.Hardware | 3 | 12 December 2013 14:41 |
Amiga Os 4 on iMac G3 | tech3475 | Amiga scene | 43 | 31 August 2009 02:17 |
For Sale: iMac G3 DV Tangerine Computer and iMac Logic Board G3 400mhz *With Pics!* | CU_AMiGA | MarketPlace | 13 | 16 January 2007 02:59 |
|
|