Benchmark FxPaint 2.02R - IOBench | |
---|
|
---|
| | Simo Koivukoski (Apollo Team Member) Posts 601 03 Nov 2017 20:02
| Gold2.7/x11, femu 0.11-WIP : FxPaint 2.0 Update 202R / 040 build. Menu -> Plugins -> IOBench:
| |
| | Mr Niding
Posts 459 04 Nov 2017 08:03
| Nifty! Anyone have comparative stats from non-Vampire machines to evaulate the benchmarks ShK put up here?
| |
| | Simo Koivukoski (Apollo Team Member) Posts 601 04 Nov 2017 11:09
| Mr Niding wrote:
| Nifty! Anyone have comparative stats from non-Vampire machines to evaulate the benchmarks ShK put up here?
|
There is some results: EXTERNAL LINK
| |
| | Saladriel Amrael
Posts 166 04 Nov 2017 11:12
| I think it is mandatory to subscribe in order to see the pictures
| |
| | Vojin Vidanovic
Posts 770 04 Nov 2017 12:26
| Saladriel Amrael wrote:
| I think it is mandatory to subscribe in order to see the pictures
|
Yup, one needs to be registered German-only forum user. Can you please convert both Vamp and non Vamp results to a plain text?
| |
| | Simo Koivukoski (Apollo Team Member) Posts 601 04 Nov 2017 12:42
| Gold2.7/x11, femu 0.11-WIP : FxPaint 2.0 Update 202R / 040 buildI/O: Loading picture: 0,11 sec I/O: Saving picture: 0,38 sec F/X: Zoom blur: 15,66 sec F/X: Waves: 202,29 sec F/X: Lightsource: 9,59 sec F/X: Pixelise: 2,82 sec MEM: Byte fill 100: 1,17 sec DRW: Ellipse 'Silent': 5,84 sec DRW: Lines 'Silent': 2,12 sec
| |
| | Vojin Vidanovic
Posts 770 04 Nov 2017 13:01
| Thanks Simo, but it was more about benchmark results from other Amigas, from German forum (hope some member can do it)
| |
| | Michael AMike
Posts 152 04 Nov 2017 14:01
| Simo Koivukoski wrote:
| Gold2.7/x11, femu 0.11-WIP : FxPaint 2.0 Update 202R / 040 buildI/O: Loading picture: 0,11 sec I/O: Saving picture: 0,38 sec F/X: Zoom blur: 15,66 sec F/X: Waves: 202,29 sec F/X: Lightsource: 9,59 sec F/X: Pixelise: 2,82 sec MEM: Byte fill 100 1,17 sec DRW: Ellipse 'Silent': 5,84 sec DRW: Lines 'Silent': 2,12 sec |
Hi Simo, thanks for the benchmark. Is better than I expected despite the fact that only a X11 Core is used. Here are the linked benchmarks of a1k. A4000_060_PPC_366Mhz I/O: Loading picture: 0,07 sec I/O: Saving picture: 0,14 sec F/X: Zoom blur: 4,53sec F/X: Waves: 9,93 sec F/X: Lightsource: 9,93 sec F/X: Pixelise: 2,55 sec MEM: Byte fill 100: 0,79 sec DRW: Ellipse 'Silent': 5,85 sec DRW: Lines 'Silent': 2,11 sec
A4000_060_66Mhz I/O: Loading picture: 0,15 sec I/O: Saving picture: 1,56 sec F/X: Zoom blur: 20,33 sec F/X: Waves: 111,66 sec F/X: Lightsource: 37,80 sec F/X: Pixelise: 8,96 sec MEM: Byte fill 100: 0,79 sec DRW: Ellipse 'Silent': 5,85 sec DRW: Lines 'Silent': 2,12 sec
| |
| | Nicolas Sipieter (Needs Verification) Posts 115/ 1 04 Nov 2017 14:19
| amike was faster than me, but since i took the time to make the document, i link to it anyway. for those that don't want to register on a1k forums:EXTERNAL LINK
| |
| | Simo Koivukoski (Apollo Team Member) Posts 601 04 Nov 2017 14:29
| Thanks guys for these comparison results! :)
| |
| | Samuel Devulder
Posts 248 04 Nov 2017 14:39
| Waves F/X is noticeably slower on the vampire than on the 060. Is there any reason for that like a missing fpu opcode that take ages by FEmu to emulate ?
| |
| | Niclas A (Apollo Team Member) Posts 219 04 Nov 2017 15:17
| EXTERNAL LINK
| |
| | Gunnar von Boehn (Apollo Team Member) Posts 6254 04 Nov 2017 15:20
| Samuel Devulder wrote:
| Waves F/X is noticeably slower on the vampire than on the 060.
|
I think in many tests the Vamp is faster.
| |
| | Vojin Vidanovic
Posts 770 04 Nov 2017 15:25
| Gunnar von Boehn wrote:
| I think in many tests the Vamp is faster.
|
If "lower is better" yes, Vamp outclasses 060, somethimes coming close to PPC results. But in that one tests,lags behind. 202,29 sec (Vamp) 111,66 sec (060 66Mhz) It will be interesting to see these "gap" tests redone once v4 with full FPU is out. Outclassing BPPC would be nice :-)
| |
| | Gunnar von Boehn (Apollo Team Member) Posts 6254 04 Nov 2017 15:30
| Your image is not correct, for example Zoom bars look wrong.
| |
| | Saladriel Amrael
Posts 166 04 Nov 2017 15:31
| Thanx for sharing the results. The one thing that surprise me is the "Byte Fill 100": on the 060 is as fast as on PPC, while Vampire results much slower. Sorry if dumb question but shouldn't Vampire be much faster than 060 in memory fill operations? (Not wanting to complain, just trying to understand, maybe this is not even a memory fill operation as the name suggests).For the rest it looks pretty much impressive
| |
| | Niclas A (Apollo Team Member) Posts 219 04 Nov 2017 15:43
| Gunnar von Boehn wrote:
| Your image is not correct, for example Zoom bars look wrong. |
Yes. Too quick for my own best :P Updated now. Sorry. Hate google docs. Dont have Excel installed right now.Always hard to make nice charts with huge difference in numbers. Easy in Excel to put some data on second axis. Cant find that in google docs.
| |
| | Michael AMike
Posts 152 04 Nov 2017 16:25
| nicolas sipieter wrote:
| amike was faster than me, but since i took the time to make the document, i link to it anyway. for those that don't want to register on a1k forums: EXTERNAL LINK |
Perfect - thanks :)
| |
| | Michael AMike
Posts 152 05 Nov 2017 21:06
| I've made some charts
| |
|
|