STFM internal IDE ?

Troubles with your machine? Just want to speak about the latest improvements? This is the place!

Moderators: Mug UK, Zorro 2, Greenious, spiny, Moderator Team

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:58 am

ppera wrote:More RAM requires faster CPU, faster bus... 4MB is fine for ST(E).


Why does 14Mb RAM require a faster CPU than 4Mb RAM?

ppera wrote:I was Atari enhusiast, and I am still. But wishes still needs to be real.
Developing new SW for Ataris? I think that there is a lot of SW already, most is even forgotten.
I choosed to make supporting SW for easier usage of old SW.


I repeat, 14Mb will be available to all apps that runs under TOS 2 or MagiC. Using MagiC will not slow down the ST. On the contrary, you will often work faster and more efficiently under MagiC than TOS. Let's say you're developing a GEM application (which is what I do 95% of the time I'm using my Ataris). What do you think is the fastest and easiest way to do this?

a) Develop under TOS, having to exit PureC, start Interface, exit Interface, start PureC, exit PureC, start the developed application just to perform one small modification to the RSC.
b) or doing this under MagiC, where PureC, Interface and the desktop all runs in paralell and are instantly available.

And despite what you think, this does not slow down the general performance of the individual applications. Most apps spend all their time idling in the evnt_multi-loop when you're no interacting with them, so little or no CPU is spent on apps not interacted with. I've been using MagiC on a STE for many years, and I know that it's a lot more usable than a STE running TOS. TOS is for games, demos and dirty MIDI-apps.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

Shredder11
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2434
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (England)
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Shredder11 » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:21 am

Are you running MagiC on a regular 8MHz STe or a faster 16MHz Mega STe?

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Fri Oct 24, 2008 9:30 am

Shredder11 wrote:Are you running MagiC on a regular 8MHz STe or a faster 16MHz Mega STe?


8MHz STE. I haven't used it for quite a while though, I have a Milan060 and two Falcons too.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

User avatar
simonsunnyboy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5167
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:36 pm
Location: Friedrichshafen, Germany
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby simonsunnyboy » Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:12 am

Milan - > that explains your fixation on GEM apps :P
Simon Sunnyboy/Paradize - http://paradize.atari.org/

Stay cool, stay Atari!

1x2600jr, 1x1040STFm, 1x1040STE 4MB+TOS2.06+SatanDisk, 1xF030 14MB+FPU+NetUS-Bee

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:06 pm

joska wrote:Why does 14Mb RAM require a faster CPU than 4Mb RAM?

I repeat, 14Mb will be available to all apps that runs under TOS 2 or MagiC. Using MagiC will not slow down the ST....

And despite what you think, this does not slow down the general performance of the individual applications. Most apps spend all their time idling in the evnt_multi-loop when you're no interacting with them, so little or no CPU is spent on apps not interacted with. I've been using MagiC on a STE for many years, and I know that it's a lot more usable than a STE running TOS. TOS is for games, demos and dirty MIDI-apps.


OK, We are now at right points. More RAM is always more CPU time to operate with. So, if some single program need to work with a lot of RAM, it will be slower, than operating with less RAM. This is very obvious. (I'm still at single task here).

I did not say that Magic slowdowns something. Read what I wrote again... Machine is just slow. Magic can perform some regular GEM, TOS functions little faster than those in regular TOS versions, but it is not so relevant for most of APPS, contrary to what you said further. Applications what I used/use spend most time with executing own code, and little time in idling and executing GEM and TOS functions. You talk very subjective. Maybe you use such apps really, but I tend to think that you exagger about CPU time usage of your apps - except that you count time spent in some editors :D

Then, writing/testing in Magic some programs may result with problems running them in regular TOS.
What you write about jumping from compiler to RSC editor etc. is not may case. Way how I use RSCs needs more than just editing them in RSC editor, and then load with executable. So, I have much more troubles when doing some even minor corrections in RSCs. In compare to them exiting and starting some program is little. But it is price of efficient programming - ASM with integrated RSC. What will be faster: your C program in Magic or mine ASM in TOS ? :wink:

Your last sentence is ridiculous. There is far more APPS made for TOS than Magic. And big part of them works fine in most of TOS versions. Why to hell I should bother with installing and starting Magic, when everything what I use, need works fine in TOS?
Dirty Midi APPs ? Hmm. Maybe TOS is dirty too, so they co-exist fine :mrgreen:

User avatar
simonsunnyboy
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5167
Joined: Wed Oct 23, 2002 4:36 pm
Location: Friedrichshafen, Germany
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby simonsunnyboy » Fri Oct 24, 2008 12:34 pm

ppera wrote:OK, We are now at right points. More RAM is always more CPU time to operate with. So, if some single program need to work with a lot of RAM, it will be slower, than operating with less RAM. This is very obvious. (I'm still at single task here).


Now that's bullshit! The application will only be slower if it forces itself to clean/check all RAM allocated. It will be as slow or as fast on all RAM configurations if it only treats the amount of RAM it needs....if not it is really poorly coded :?
Simon Sunnyboy/Paradize - http://paradize.atari.org/

Stay cool, stay Atari!

1x2600jr, 1x1040STFm, 1x1040STE 4MB+TOS2.06+SatanDisk, 1xF030 14MB+FPU+NetUS-Bee

User avatar
Desty
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1970
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 2:36 pm
Location: 53 21N 6 18W
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Desty » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:47 pm

ppera wrote:What will be faster: your C program in Magic or mine ASM in TOS ? :wink:
I think a better question is, which one will be developed and completed faster?

I'd be willing to bet that writing C programs using Magic will be a lot faster than writing assembly programs in TOS (and of course, using an emulator/cross-compiler and editing the source in Emacs or something on your quad core machine will be faster than either).
And Joska is specifically talking about GEM apps, in which case they usually spend most of their time waiting on user input, so an extra 10% of speed makes no difference (0.9s response time when you click a button compared with 1s = meaningless).

Fine, if you're writing a packer or cryptography thingy or file transfer code, use assembly, but that can be linked with a C program anyway, so there's no real advantage unless you're writing games IMO.

ppera wrote:Your last sentence is ridiculous. There is far more APPS made for TOS than Magic.
Surely all APPS made for TOS are also made for Magic?

ppera wrote:And big part of them works fine in most of TOS versions. Why to hell I should bother with installing and starting Magic, when everything what I use, need works fine in TOS?
Because you can run more than one at once? You seem to be undervaluing that point.
tá'n poc ar buile!

User avatar
cb
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 3197
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 7:03 pm
Location: somewhere in time

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby cb » Fri Oct 24, 2008 2:54 pm

Desty wrote:
ppera wrote:And big part of them works fine in most of TOS versions. Why to hell I should bother with installing and starting Magic, when everything what I use, need works fine in TOS?
Because you can run more than one at once? You seem to be undervaluing that point.


Also, some apps do run faster with Magic or Mint than with TOS.
That Flashback game engine called Reminiscence (I think) that is available for Falcon is a good example.
AL-FGC
Heghlu'meH QaQ jajvam!
Image

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:13 pm

Just one thing - mentioned support for RAM above 4MB in TOS 2.06 and Magic - what is it?
Actually, every programm can access easy RAM above 4MB. What can not access that area is DMA chip. So, if you want to load/save from RAM above 4MB from/onto floppy or ACSI hard disk than it will be slower - because TOS, Magic will care about HW limits, and load data in some buffer under 4MB, then copy it to desired place. So, it is slower.

This thread just shows how most here is far from beeing real. We offer here some solutions, and instead of constructive comments, or (God, what a wish!) some orderings, we see only comments 'I would order if it would have some extra-super-hyper stuff) etc. How good is Magic, how TOS is crap etc...

Developing on Atari? As I see many people does it on PCs, as myself do it. Much more resolution, more windowses before nose, sharper pic. etc... As I said, Magic is past, relic. In that matter, same as TOS. We have much better solutions now.
Last edited by ppera on Fri Oct 24, 2008 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mug UK
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11427
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Stockport (UK)
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Mug UK » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:03 pm

Image

SNIP!

Now those that want to cat-fight and bitch about who said what, where and when - go elsewhere or start a flame-war in the Time Out area where you can attack each other with my full permission and where I won't venture. SSB moved this entire thread into that area but the information in the earlier 6 pages was too useful (and polite) a discussion for Time Out, so I've got my scissors out and pruned all the crap. My apologies to anyone who ends up missing a few posts from their post count :)

If you want to "DISCUSS" stuff then carry on .. if you're intent on slagging off *anyone* then take it elsewhere such as the Time Out area.
My main site: http://www.mug-uk.co.uk - slowly digging up the bits from my past (and re-working a few): Atari ST, Sega 8-bit (game hacks) and NDS (Music ripping guide).

I develop a free Word (for Windows) add-in that's available for Word 2007 upwards. It's a fix-it toolbox that will allow power Word users to fix document errors. You can find it at: http://www.mikestoolbox.co.uk

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:30 pm

ppera wrote:Just one thing - mentioned support for RAM above 4MB in TOS 2.06 and Magic - what is it?
Actually, every programm can access easy RAM above 4MB.


But only TOS >= 2 and MagiC/MiNT will let all apps do this. Maddalt() adds memory to TOS' memory space, so all apps that use Malloc will benefit from it.

ppera wrote:What can not access that area is DMA chip. So, if you want to load/save from RAM above 4MB from/onto floppy or ACSI hard disk than it will be slower - because TOS, Magic will care about HW limits, and load data in some buffer under 4MB, then copy it to desired place. So, it is slower.


The time it takes to copy between "ST-RAM" and alt-RAM is insignificant compared to the time it takes to access the drive.

ppera wrote:Developing on Atari? As I see many people does it on PCs, as myself do it. Much more resolution, more windowses before nose, sharper pic. etc... As I said, Magic is past, relic. In that matter, same as TOS. We have much better solutions now.


You see, there are still quite a few Atari-users that actually use their Atari to do such things. Personally I prefer MiNT/XaAES and use this on my Milan and Falcon040, but MagiC can not be beaten for "serious" stuff on a ST. Some people likes to hack games using a PC and an emulator, other people like to develop GEM-apps on a real Atari.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:58 pm

ppera wrote:OK, We are now at right points. More RAM is always more CPU time to operate with. So, if some single program need to work with a lot of RAM, it will be slower, than operating with less RAM. This is very obvious. (I'm still at single task here).


This does not make sense at all.

ppera wrote:I did not say that Magic slowdowns something. Read what I wrote again... Machine is just slow. Magic can perform some regular GEM, TOS functions little faster than those in regular TOS versions, but it is not so relevant for most of APPS, contrary to what you said further. Applications what I used/use spend most time with executing own code, and little time in idling and executing GEM and TOS functions. You talk very subjective.


Really? You're saying that more RAM is useless because the apps YOU are using does not take advantage of it. And you're also saying that multitasking is not usable on a ST simply because it doesn't suit your needs. Subjective? :)

ppera wrote:Maybe you use such apps really, but I tend to think that you exagger about CPU time usage of your apps - except that you count time spent in some editors :D


We obviously use our Ataris for completely different things - that doesn't mean that the stuff YOU don't need is useless. From what you write I assume you're still "stuck" in the TOS-world I left 15 years ago. That's fine - a lot of people prefer the "TOS-period" over the multitasking MagiC/MiNT-period. I will never go back to TOS, it just doesn't interest me.

ppera wrote:What you write about jumping from compiler to RSC editor etc. is not may case. Way how I use RSCs needs more than just editing them in RSC editor, and then load with executable. So, I have much more troubles when doing some even minor corrections in RSCs.


You will gain even more from using a multitasking OS than someone using resource-files the "proper" way. You can run the extra step (converting RSC to dc.w/b-statements which I guess you do) without having to exit/start any of the other apps. And you can even automate this in the build-process.

ppera wrote:But it is price of efficient programming - ASM with integrated RSC. What will be faster: your C program in Magic or mine ASM in TOS ? :wink:


That a completely different discussion. However, my guess is that execution-time will be roughly the same, and development time will be much shorter using C. What's interesting is how long it takes the user to complete a task. It does not matter if you develop the GUI in C or assembler, 95% of the hard work is done by the AES/VDI anyway.

ppera wrote:Your last sentence is ridiculous. There is far more APPS made for TOS than Magic. And big part of them works fine in most of TOS versions. Why to hell I should bother with installing and starting Magic, when everything what I use, need works fine in TOS?


You don't understand the benefits of multitasking at all.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Sat Oct 25, 2008 9:55 am

joska wrote:...
The time it takes to copy between "ST-RAM" and alt-RAM is insignificant compared to the time it takes to access the drive.
...


I will not repeat on all - really getting bored of people not reading posts carefully...

Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case 40% slower datarate.

Yes, in some manners I stucked to TOS world what was about 1990. But who to blame for that? Atari just went out of business, and only choice was to go on PC. Falcon was a miss, too slow, too expensive. In any case saying that I don't understand benefits of multitasking... please, I'm on multitasking machine now... Little more advanced than Magic :mrgreen:
Look what section of this forum is most active, and will see that old Ataris are used mostly for gaming. And that's OK, if you ask me. But saying that TOS is not good for something serious (because is not multitask. ?) ...

Shredder11
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2434
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 2:23 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom (England)
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Shredder11 » Sat Oct 25, 2008 10:07 am

ppera wrote:Look what section of this forum is most active, and will see that old Ataris are used mostly for gaming. And that's OK, if you ask me. But saying that TOS is not good for something serious (because is not multitask. ?) ...



Agreed although I have always used my STe(s) for pro music work, photo work, databases, a few other misc' stuff and finally yes.....gaming!

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:52 pm

Some more ranting here:

Music, MIDI is one of Ataris main aduts. Even today couple people uses it professionally. I had and have some such costumers - for maintaning and expanding their machines.
Myself still use Ataris for EPROM and GAL programming. It could be done on PC too, but there is simple no newer SW for programming, what runs on later Windows versions and multi-GHz PCs. I have souple older PCs, but they are not on desk.

All this reminded me on something: Windows 95 worked well with only 4MB RAM (very first version). And it was multitasking of course. However, it worked only from 386 CPUs . Partially because speed, but multitasking support in CPU was real reason.
Practically no one used Win 95 under 40 MHz 32 bit 386 CPU. And it is at least 4 times faster than Falcon. So, do we really need RAM over 4MB or faster machine (+ MMU in CPU for mt.) ?
Last edited by ppera on Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mug UK
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11427
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2004 7:16 pm
Location: Stockport (UK)
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Mug UK » Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:47 pm

Sigh .. scissors had to come out again. Hopefully the second hint that I'm peeved off with the personal slanging matches should be more than enough hint that temporary bans will be the next weapon I'll be reaching for. That includes those who goad others who can't control their responses as well as those who think that the whole Atari world is after them!


Jeez! Grow up people!
My main site: http://www.mug-uk.co.uk - slowly digging up the bits from my past (and re-working a few): Atari ST, Sega 8-bit (game hacks) and NDS (Music ripping guide).

I develop a free Word (for Windows) add-in that's available for Word 2007 upwards. It's a fix-it toolbox that will allow power Word users to fix document errors. You can find it at: http://www.mikestoolbox.co.uk

User avatar
exxos
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 4933
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 8:36 pm
Location: England
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby exxos » Sun Oct 26, 2008 11:36 pm

ppera wrote:
joska wrote:...
The time it takes to copy between "ST-RAM" and alt-RAM is insignificant compared to the time it takes to access the drive.
...


Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case 40% slower datarate.
?) ...


Are you saying the 14MB is alt-ram not ST ram ? such as the first 4MB is ST ram but the other 10mb is alt-ram ? I always just assumed it was ST ram.... I don't know how alt-ram works..

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:04 am

ppera wrote:
joska wrote:...
The time it takes to copy between "ST-RAM" and alt-RAM is insignificant compared to the time it takes to access the drive.
...


I will not repeat on all - really getting bored of people not reading posts carefully...

Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case 40% slower datarate.


Using the _FRB-buffer will add 20ms to the loading time of a 100Kb document. Is this significant?? I guess that there are apps out there where 20ms pr 100Kb will make a difference (none of the apps I use fall into this category), but the solution for these is very simple: Don't allow them to allocate alt-RAM. It's just a matter of setting a flag in the program header.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:13 am

exxos wrote:Are you saying the 14MB is alt-ram not ST ram ? such as the first 4MB is ST ram but the other 10mb is alt-ram ? I always just assumed it was ST ram.... I don't know how alt-ram works..


You are right. Only RAM between 4Mb and 14Mb is alt-RAM. 14-16Mb is occupied by hardware registers on the ST, which is why 14Mb is the limit.

ppera is talking about the 4Mb limit for the DMA-controller and memory controller in the ST. If you want to add more than 4Mb RAM, you need to use the "hole" between 4Mb and 14Mb. The problem is that since the memory controller does not handle adresses above 4Mb, you have to use a separate memory controller for the new adress range. For the CPU there is no difference, but as the DMA controller can't access memory above 4Mb either all communication with devices that use DMA (like the ACSI-port and floppy controller) and alt-RAM must go through a buffer in ST RAM. The CPU needs to copy to/from this buffer and alt-RAM. All this is taken care of by the operating system.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:32 am

muguk wrote:Sigh .. scissors had to come out again. Hopefully the second hint that I'm peeved off with the personal slanging matches should be more than enough hint that temporary bans will be the next weapon I'll be reaching for. That includes those who goad others who can't control their responses as well as those who think that the whole Atari world is after them!


Will I get banned for saying that there's still no sensorship on Usenet? comp.sys.atari.st is still there, although the activity is very low as people has (for some reason I just don't get) defected to the sensorship of web-based forums. I miss c.s.a.s. It was a lof of fun until the web took over about five years ago.

muguk wrote:Jeez! Grow up people!


Yes, we should all grow up to the level where we tell other people to "Jeez! Grow up!".
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

User avatar
Cyprian
10 GOTO 10
10 GOTO 10
Posts: 1772
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2002 11:23 am
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby Cyprian » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:24 am

ppera wrote:Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case

Ppera, are you sure? Did you check it?
I'm asking because, form CPU/BLiTTER point of view ALT-Ram is twice faster than ST-RAM. 4M Slots/s vs. 2M Slots /s. One slot equal one memory access - word (16bit). It means that it should be possible to copy 4MB/s between ST-Ram and ALT-Ram
Lynx II / Jaguar / TT030 / Mega STe / 800 XL / 1040 STe / Falcon030 / 65 XE / 520 STm / SM124 / SC1435
SDrive / PAK68/3 / Lynx Multi Card / LDW Super 2000 / XCA12 / SkunkBoard / CosmosEx / SatanDisk / UltraSatan / USB Floppy Drive Emulator / Eiffel / SIO2PC / Crazy Dots / PAM Net
Hatari / Steem SSE / Aranym / Saint
http://260ste.appspot.com/

joska
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:55 pm
Location: Florø, Norway
Contact:

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby joska » Mon Oct 27, 2008 11:50 am

Cyprian_K wrote:
ppera wrote:Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case

Ppera, are you sure? Did you check it?
I'm asking because, form CPU/BLiTTER point of view ALT-Ram is twice faster than ST-RAM. 4M Slots/s vs. 2M Slots /s. One slot equal one memory access - word (16bit). It means that it should be possible to copy 4MB/s between ST-Ram and ALT-Ram


It's true that the alt-RAM added by MagnumST is claimed to be twice as fast as ST-RAM. I'm not sure how much faster it is in real life though, but in theory the speed-up should be quite noticable as the 68000 doesn't have any caches.

You can't copy at 4Mb/s though. The time you spend writing to ST-RAM can't be spent reading from alt-RAM and vice versa, so you can't exploit the speed of alt-RAM 100% in this case. I agree that it will be faster than copying ST-RAM -> ST-RAM.

It's a good point. I had completely forgotten that the alt-RAM cards were faster than ST-RAM.
Jo Even

VanillaMiNT - Firebee - Falcon060 - Milan060 - Falcon040 - MIST - Mega ST - STM - STE - Amiga 600 - Sharp MZ700 - MSX - Amstrad CPC - C64

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:43 pm

Cyprian_K wrote:
ppera wrote:Copy between ST RAM and alt RAM is max 2MB/sec. Reading from ACSI hard disk is 1.25MB/sec... I would not call it insignificant. It means in best case

Ppera, are you sure? Did you check it?
I'm asking because, form CPU/BLiTTER point of view ALT-Ram is twice faster than ST-RAM. 4M Slots/s vs. 2M Slots /s. One slot equal one memory access - word (16bit). It means that it should be possible to copy 4MB/s between ST-Ram and ALT-Ram


Of course that I'm sure. It is checked.
Then, I read here all time about ALT RAM, FAST RAM, Slow RAM etc. In ST no Slow RAM even if it is expanded over 4MB - of course, because slow RAM is RAM which shares between APPS and video buffer. As in ST it is solved very well, and without slowdown (thanx partially to limited video RAM size, 32KB). Lower 4MB in ST works with full speed. Simple, CPU uses always less than 50% of databus 'time' . It is not so by later 68xxx CPUs, as they have faster instruction handling.
All this is relevant for this discussion, becaue blitter is not allowed to use databus 100% time, only 50%, and only in HOG mode. Other 50% is for shifter (video).
It would be possible if we would turn off video, but no support in HW for it.

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:09 pm

joska wrote:...
ppera is talking about the 4Mb limit for the DMA-controller and memory controller in the ST. If you want to add more than 4Mb RAM, you need to use the "hole" between 4Mb and 14Mb. The problem is that since the memory controller does not handle adresses above 4Mb, you have to use a separate memory controller for the new adress range. For the CPU there is no difference, but as the DMA controller can't access memory above 4Mb either all communication with devices that use DMA (like the ACSI-port and floppy controller) and alt-RAM must go through a buffer in ST RAM. The CPU needs to copy to/from this buffer and alt-RAM. All this is taken care of by the operating system.


Yes, that's all right. Just to mention that same restrictions stay not for IDE hard disks, which can acess any RAM area. But not via blitter, which is also limited to 4MB. Still, IDE can do up to 1.6MB/sec without blitter.

ppera

Re: STFM internal IDE ?

Postby ppera » Mon Oct 27, 2008 2:12 pm

joska wrote:...
It's true that the alt-RAM added by MagnumST is claimed to be twice as fast as ST-RAM. I'm not sure how much faster it is in real life though, but in theory the speed-up should be quite noticable as the 68000 doesn't have any caches.

You can't copy at 4Mb/s though. The time you spend writing to ST-RAM can't be spent reading from alt-RAM and vice versa, so you can't exploit the speed of alt-RAM 100% in this case. I agree that it will be faster than copying ST-RAM -> ST-RAM.

It's a good point. I had completely forgotten that the alt-RAM cards were faster than ST-RAM.


RAM can work faster only if CPU is clocked above 8MHz. In bare ST it works at full speed. Limit at 8MHz is under 2MB/sec, as I said.


Social Media

     

Return to “Hardware”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests