| Subject: RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse |
Author: Frankie Doyle (62.65.99.190)
Date: 03-22-2003 17:50
How about "in your mailbox"? `:)
I have sent v 3.40 since it is a copy of the very same program that we have used in all the other machines, in order to have a fair go. I think it will be *working*, at least it was in all the other machines. Tho, there are some issues one should whatch up with. The autor has kindly put some informative textfiles in the pack, here's a clip;
(quote)--------------------------------
"There are serious difficulties in benchmarking the CPU and FPU. The 68030 which is found on the TT and Falcon and also on some accelerator boards has a built-in cache. If the test routine is cached it can be _very_ fast. If it isn't the 030 does not show its real capability. In addition, GEM Bench is compiled for any 680x0 processor and is not optimised for the 030, again not showing its real power. This however, reflect most ST/TT/F030 programs, most are compiled in the same way.
The FPU test is even more complex. A program can be compiled to use an FPU or to use the main processor. There is also a compromise setting which uses an FPU if one is found. In this mode, the FPU cannot show its true performance because of the overhead of the checks. In addition, the 68881/2 have many functions such as log() and sine() built-in. These are processed very fast. The test in GEMBench was compiled to auto-detect and uses a mix of the built-in functions using double
precision floats and also converts Fahrenheit to Celsius a few thousand times using single precision floats.
Some I/O mapped 68881/2 seem to crash when bombarded with data. This will cause GEM Bench to hang while testing. If this happens, I have included a file called IEEE.RUN. To use it rename AUTOFPU.RUN to AUTOFPU.RUX and
then rename IEEE.RUN to AUTOFPU.RUN. This causes GEM Bench to ignore the FPU. The result it produces will then be based on the main CPU and will not use the FPU at all, but at least it will not hang.
The most surprising discovery was that TTs vary in speed. Some TTs can be up to 20% faster or slower at some functions compared to others."
----------------------------(eoq)
Hmm, I just realise that I don't have a test from a TT either. A good while ago someone promised to send me a test from a '75MHZ TT', but it never got here... Does any1 with a STandard TT want to help?
Thnx alot Frankie
|
| Topics |
Author |
Date |
 FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Jo Even |
03-19-2003 19:08 |
 RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Frankie Doyle |
03-21-2003 05:31 |
  RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Jo Even |
03-21-2003 16:21 |
  RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Frankie Doyle |
03-21-2003 22:29 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Frankie Doyle |
03-22-2003 02:58 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Jo Even |
03-22-2003 12:10 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse |
Frankie Doyle |
03-22-2003 17:50 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Elliot |
03-23-2003 15:42 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Frankie Doyle |
03-24-2003 02:20 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
earx |
03-25-2003 15:02 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Frankie Doyle |
03-26-2003 02:17 |
| RE: FS: Afterburner, Eclipse new |
Fenix |
03-22-2003 21:44 |
 |
|
|
