Slow DSP investigation with DFB1

[pakman]

Holger, @pakman (pakman with a K not a C)

And by the way "Parkman" is also wrong..
(Maybe I should better change my name to PAKman, since it refers to the PAK68/3 published in the german ct magazine back in 1994).

We can ask for permission to ship programmed gals with DFB1Xs, but I've not heard back from him for a long time. I hope he's OK.

Permission granted!

[viking272]

Permission granted!

Amazing, thank you!

[exxos]

Permission granted!

[viking272]

Its not on sale on my store.. Partly because I can't find any GALs. I've got the Atmel ones in my mouser basket but i had given up trying to program them as the power down pin was always enabled. But I've got a different programmer now. So worth another try.

Hi @exxos
Did you manage to test your different programmer?
Just wondering if it got around the power down pin issue?
Is the u68 GAL socketed or a solder job?

[exxos]

Did you manage to test your different programmer?
Just wondering if it got around the power down pin issue

I haven't got any chips to test yet.. They are in my mouser basket but I'm not ready to do the order yet

[charon030]

Nembench results when accessing ST RAM (MByte/s):

Code: Select all

  ┌───────────────────────────────────┬────────┬────────┬──────┐
  │               Test                │ DFB1X  │  CT2   │  Δ   │                                                                                                                        
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 32bit read ST-RAM          │  5.297 │ 10.240 │ +93% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 32bit write ST-RAM         │  6.406 │ 11.477 │ +79% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 32bit copy ST-RAM          │  3.209 │  5.738 │ +79% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 16bit read ST-RAM          │  4.890 │  9.256 │ +89% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 16bit write ST-RAM         │  5.779 │ 11.497 │ +99% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 16bit copy ST-RAM          │  2.066 │  3.828 │ +85% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 8bit read ST-RAM           │  4.190 │  6.660 │ +59% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 8bit write ST-RAM          │  2.894 │  5.748 │ +99% │
  ├───────────────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼──────┤
  │ Linear 8bit copy ST-RAM           │  1.034 │  1.914 │ +85% │

TL;DR version:
- ST-RAM: about 1.6x - 2.0x faster on CT2

I wonder whether the faster ST-RAM accesses are only related to bus-overclocking.
At least for the CT60, Rodolphe emphasized that the ST-RAM write accesses are carried out in 3 instead of 4 clock cycles. https://mikrosk.github.io/ct60tos/ct60/ ... hs_eng.htm
Maybe that trick was already done on the CT2? Or maybe the CT2 did not toggle the CPU clock between 50 MHz and 16 MHz for ST-RAM accesses but sampled the Falcon bus at 50 MHz?

[mikro]

I wonder whether the faster ST-RAM accesses are only related to bus-overclocking.

I'm almost sure that this isn't the case. Of course it helps but it isn't the whole story. I have got another Falcon with a Phantom@25 MHz so if I find time to switch the setups (I've got other things to try there, too) I can re-measure this again. I'll make a TODO note.