Page 1 of 3
Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 02 Aug 2018 21:52
by exxos
16MHZ Data cache ON, Instruction cache ON.
DONION_result.png
16MHZ Data cache OFF, Instruction cache ON.
DOFFION_result.png
16MHZ Data cache ON, Instruction cache OFF.
DONIOFF_result.png
16MHZ Data cache OFF, Instruction cache OFF.
DOFFIOFF_result.png
8MHZ Data cache ON, Instruction cache ON.
8DONION_result.png
8MHZ Data cache OFF, Instruction cache ON.
8DOFFION_result.png
8MHZ Data cache ON, Instruction cache OFF.
8DONIOFF_result.png
8MHZ Data cache OFF, Instruction cache OFF.
8DOFFIOF_result.png
So the 030 running at 8MHz does a pretty poor job and easily gets beaten be a stock STE.
At 16MHz with caches off, it basically isn't much different than a 16MHz STE.. but of course the 030 has more efficient core, so int-div is much faster than a stock STE by far, but other results are not much different.
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 02 Aug 2018 22:37
by Cyprian
which monitor -VGA or RGB?
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 02 Aug 2018 22:52
by exxos
Cyprian wrote: 02 Aug 2018 22:37
which monitor -VGA or RGB?
I use RGB to scart.
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 01:09
by KyleB
I always imagined the falcon was a mess, but here we are...
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 09:41
by Cyprian
KyleB wrote: 03 Aug 2018 01:09
I always imagined the falcon was a mess, but here we are...
yep, figures are not so impressive, but when we compare Falcon with similar solutions from the same era, it doesn't look so bad:
Code: Select all
Read LW (MB/s) Write LW (MB/s)
Amiga 1200, 020/14, Chipram 4.500 6.900
Falcon 030/16, ST-ram 5.345 6.488
TT 030 32MHz, ST-ram 7.867 7.867
TT 030 32MHz, Fastram 12.615 15.772
Here we can see that Falcon with it's 16 bit bus has better memory (read) performance faster than Amiga 1200 with full 32bit bus.
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 10:09
by exxos
You can't turn the blitter off in the falcon :(
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 10:22
by Cyprian
exxos wrote: 03 Aug 2018 10:09
You can't turn the blitter off in the falcon :(
NVDI turns the BLiTTER off.
can pls you compare STE with NVDI vs Falcon with NVDI?
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 10:28
by exxos
Cyprian wrote: 03 Aug 2018 10:22
NVDI turns the BLiTTER off.
Wonder how it does it ?
Cyprian wrote: 03 Aug 2018 10:22
can pls you compare STE with NVDI vs Falcon with NVDI?
I only have floppy on my falcon at the moment, so not a simple task to setup :(
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 14:37
by KyleB
Cyprian wrote: 03 Aug 2018 09:41
yep, figures are not so impressive, but when we compare Falcon with similar solutions from the same era, it doesn't look so bad:
Code: Select all
Read LW (MB/s) Write LW (MB/s)
Amiga 1200, 020/14, Chipram 4.500 6.900
Falcon 030/16, ST-ram 5.345 6.488
TT 030 32MHz, ST-ram 7.867 7.867
TT 030 32MHz, Fastram 12.615 15.772
Here we can see that Falcon with it's 16 bit bus has better memory (read) performance faster than Amiga 1200 with full 32bit bus.
The A1200 is about 88% underclocked compared to falc, that read result likewise 84%. So it's understandable. Not to resurrect decades old feud but 4MB Falcon vs 4MB 1200 is surely going to look very different?
Re: Falcon 030 vs STE
Posted: 03 Aug 2018 18:36
by Cyprian
Atually would be understandable if both had the same, 32bit data bus. But A1200 had twice wider data bus than Falcon.
Lets say that "falcon was a mess", then what we could say about slower A1200?
I would not go in that direction. Both machines could be faster but IMO they were great anyway.