Processor comparisons

Discuss Demos / Games / Applications written by Atari coders

Moderators: Mug UK, Silver Surfer, Moderator Team

Rustynutt
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:38 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Rustynutt » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:55 am

I'd like to see any Mac or Win OS machine with any processor boot, print hello world, and shut down as fast as any Atari :) That, is real world performance.

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby mikro » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:07 am

Rustynutt wrote:That, is real world performance.

No, that is lack of features. :)

You can have a Linux kernel booting in 2 secs and booting in 20 mins, it's all about configuration. Maybe Windows and Macs are not so configurable but it's about the same thing.

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:29 am

God save the "lack of features"!
I believe that performance should be measured generally and therefore all factors intervene. Fast CPUs are useless if they are surrounded by slow and inaccurate ineptitudes de hardware and software.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:43 am

Rustynutt wrote:I'd like to see any Mac or Win OS machine with any processor boot, print hello world, and shut down as fast as any Atari :) That, is real world performance.

You forget that TOS loads not from disk, but is in direct accessible ROM. Slower load of some modern OS is complex process. And by Atari there is no even shut down option - only power off switch. Actually, even PSU-s changed by time - early PC PSUs were with power switch, then came power on/off button, combined with SW power off. That was necessary, because modern OS need to save a lot of it when shut down or just restart.

Btw. we could make Atari ST startup process even faster, using snapshots (hybernate in modern terminology) - that would start it with everything ready on Desktop, from some SD card for instance in 1/2 - 1 sec .
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

mikro
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:11 am
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby mikro » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:12 am

It's funny to see how clueless some people are. Whole world was making fun of Windows 95 because of its ability to crash to easily because it lacked proper memory management , driver protection and a zillion of other things. Windows 95 loads maybe 10 times faster than Windows 10.

With something as primitive as TOS/MiNT/MagiC/whatever any hacker could empty your bank account in a minute because literally your OS wouldn't give a sh*t about security.

User avatar
wongck
Ultimate Atarian
Ultimate Atarian
Posts: 11976
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 2:09 pm
Location: Far East
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby wongck » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:53 am

mikro wrote: Windows 95 loads maybe 10 times faster than Windows 10.

ha ha... different OS
My Stuff: FB/Falcon CT63+CTPCI_ATI_RTL8139 14+512MB 30GB HDD CF HxC_SD/ TT030 68882 4+32MB 520MB Nova/ 520STFM 4MB Tos206 SCSI
Shared SCSI Bus:ScsiLink ethernet, 9GB HDD,SD-reader @ http://phsw.atari.org
My Atari stuff for sale - click here for list

User avatar
Sturm
Atari maniac
Atari maniac
Posts: 88
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2016 1:51 pm
Location: France

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Sturm » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:56 am

Do you think a CT60 Falcon would be able to run Blade Runner ? With Supervidel maybe ?
Reqs are here :
http://forums.vgrequirements.info/showthread.php?t=1031

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Mon Jul 17, 2017 12:51 pm

Sturm wrote:Do you think a CT60 Falcon would be able to run Blade Runner ? With Supervidel maybe ?
Reqs are here :
http://forums.vgrequirements.info/showthread.php?t=1031


The keyboard and mouse already we have them.
XD.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

User avatar
wongck
Ultimate Atarian
Ultimate Atarian
Posts: 11976
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 2:09 pm
Location: Far East
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby wongck » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:32 pm

Sturm wrote:Do you think a CT60 Falcon would be able to run Blade Runner ? With Supervidel maybe ?
Reqs are here :
http://forums.vgrequirements.info/showthread.php?t=1031



WOW hardwarewise, we can top that. May be they can do a version using NVDI instead of DirectX. :lol:
My Stuff: FB/Falcon CT63+CTPCI_ATI_RTL8139 14+512MB 30GB HDD CF HxC_SD/ TT030 68882 4+32MB 520MB Nova/ 520STFM 4MB Tos206 SCSI
Shared SCSI Bus:ScsiLink ethernet, 9GB HDD,SD-reader @ http://phsw.atari.org
My Atari stuff for sale - click here for list

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:33 pm

mikro wrote:It's funny to see how clueless some people are. Whole world was making fun of Windows 95 because of its ability to crash to easily because it lacked proper memory management , driver protection and a zillion of other things. Windows 95 loads maybe 10 times faster than Windows 10. ....

And now you are clueless. Actually, both loaded in approx. same time. Maybe, if you could run Win95 on some new PC, it would really load much faster than 10, but that works not. Then, loading time depends from many things. Usually, fresh install loads much faster. Then, with diverse drivers, all possible crap, anti-virus etc. it goes slower and slower.
And if we do some with Atari - add there plenty of drivers and other in AUTO folder, then it will load slowly too.
All this went in total useless ranting. I would lock this thread, or at least move in Time Out section.
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

Rustynutt
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 384
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:38 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Rustynutt » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:07 pm

I forgot nothing. I reconfigured the test.
If you move the thread, it will only get worse :)

User avatar
EmpireAndrew
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:46 pm
Location: NYC, USA

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby EmpireAndrew » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:05 pm

Interestingly, prior to SSDs, my entire collection of disk booting machines, running their period correct OS, boot in the 45-60s range.
The only exception is the 386 running OS2 which to be fair is a version of OS2 7 years newer than the hardware...

Sub 1 minute seems to be some sort of magic number...
1977 VCS Heavy Sixxer (Boxed)
1990 Atari 1040STE, 4MB, UltraSatan, TOS 2.06, TT Touch -> Atari SC1435 Colour CRT Monitor
1991 Atari TT030, 2/64MB, Int 8GB Gigafile SCSI2CF, TOS 3.06, CaTTamaran Accelerator -> Atari TTM195 19" Mono CRT Monitor
1993 Atari Falcon030, 14MB, Int 4GB IDE2SD, TOS 4.04 -> Atari PTC1426 Color CRT Monitor
Amiga, Mac, DOS, Newton, SGI, Sun, NeXTStation and more!

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:36 pm

Rustynutt wrote:I forgot nothing. I reconfigured the test.
If you move the thread, it will only get worse :)

I'm sure that it will be worse only if you continue to post in :mrgreen:

Never went in ignoring some member here ... pardon, I did it actually with Simbo. But I think that will do it with couple smartheads 'shining' here.
Nobody is wrong in anything, only that thread is full with crap :(
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby leech » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:08 am

Ha, I had to laugh at the numbers too. No way a 68060@50 is the same speed as a P233... I had actually always heard/read that an 060@50 was about the same speed as a Pentium 75, which is probably a bit more realistic. Though I think I've also heard that a Pentium 75 wasn't that much faster than the fastest 486DX2, which didn't they hit 100mhz at some point? I just remember I overclocked my first P75 to a P100 with jumpers on the motherboard.
Atari 8Bits: 800xl, 600xl, XEGS, 800, 130xe, 130xe (fully upgraded (soon!))
Atari STs: 1040STf (broken shifter), 1040STe, Mega STe, TT030, Falcon (CT60e, SuperVidel)

User avatar
EmpireAndrew
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:46 pm
Location: NYC, USA

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby EmpireAndrew » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:05 am

Depends.
The original pentium 66 wasn't much faster than a 486dx2 66 except for floating point where the pentium blew the 486 away and is what enabled Intel to enter the workstation market.
But the pentium enjoyed a 66mhz bus which is the absolute limit of what could be done at the time (read early motherboards were troublesome) whereas the 486 topped out at 33 except for a few oddballs like the dx50, so talking from the CPU to anything was limited.
The late 486s, your dx4 100s etc didn't come out until a fair bit after the pentium and while they were good for most people, the reason the pentium was expensive as the cache, 64bit memory access and faster bus, all of which was significantly more expensive.
The P75 was a poor buy as it was on a 50mhs bus so you lost a fair bit of performance, the 90 wasn't bad at 60mhz, but the 100 and later 133 and 166 where the better buys. You also got better cache too by roughly the 133 iirc, the pipeline burst stuff with I think the triton chipset? (Memory failing me here)

the 68k architecture had hit the wall by the 060, the pentium was where it was at.
I'm not convinced I buy the argument that an 060 could match a higher clocked pentium frankly.
1977 VCS Heavy Sixxer (Boxed)
1990 Atari 1040STE, 4MB, UltraSatan, TOS 2.06, TT Touch -> Atari SC1435 Colour CRT Monitor
1991 Atari TT030, 2/64MB, Int 8GB Gigafile SCSI2CF, TOS 3.06, CaTTamaran Accelerator -> Atari TTM195 19" Mono CRT Monitor
1993 Atari Falcon030, 14MB, Int 4GB IDE2SD, TOS 4.04 -> Atari PTC1426 Color CRT Monitor
Amiga, Mac, DOS, Newton, SGI, Sun, NeXTStation and more!

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:31 am

OK, little history: There were diverse 386, 486 CPUs, done by 3 manufacturers - Intel, AMD, Cyrix. Then Intel decided to protect CPU marking, so named if Pentium, but competition continued, so there were AMD K5, K6, Cyrix 686 ... I never bought some 486 because motherboards were pretty poor quality, at least it was with big part of what was sold in Eastern Eu. It was much better with Pentium class boards, so I went on AMD K5, what was pretty good for it's price. And so on ...
Maybe the problem of Motorola was simply that it had no direct concurrent. Intel was pushed to make better and faster by AMD, which was even able to do some things first: like 1GHz CPU, 64-bit x86 CPU ... Some competition is always healthy, and not just for costumers.
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:03 am

Is there an option to block a user and never read it?
I'm going to use it, I do not like people asking to close a thread when someone contradicts it, I do not like people who insult others' opinions by saying that a thread has "crap."
Maybe you're right, the thread has crap but you do not know that you are the cause.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:32 am

Atarieterno wrote:Is there an option to block a user and never read it?
I'm going to use it, I do not like people asking to close a thread when someone contradicts it, I do not like people who insult others' opinions by saying that a thread has "crap."
Maybe you're right, the thread has crap but you do not know that you are the cause.

Yes, you can do it. And you can also edit your own posts - so for instance correct that 356 crap, and even other after it :D
I can understand you - it is not easy to hear negative things about your writings, nobody likes it. And I must say that your last sentence is crap too. Really no any ground to say it. You can continue dickhead attitude, or you can learn some things. Your choice.
Also, you can stay on topic, instead personal attacks - you did not came with any argument why my writings are bad (unlike me).
Well, what I predict is that thread will continue with mixed posts, and eventually finish in chaos section.
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

Atarieterno
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 3:40 pm
Location: Spain

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby Atarieterno » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:54 am

I do not write with an egocentric attitude (just like you do), and I can assure you that there are also opinions about your participation and not all are welcome.
You think you know everything and you are wrong, there are people who collaborate in the Atari scene by providing solutions, creating devices ... they move their hands and not just the mouth that is what you do (a very dirty mouth).
"Learning", of course I want to learn, every day I learn something new; But I do not learn anything from your, except to know the enormous ego that you have, how you insult others and how ridiculous you are when you ask for censure according to your criteria.
Nothing good is learned from you, if you were the only source of knowledge of the Atari world: I would pass to the Amiga.
This is nothing personal, there are just idiots everywhere and the wonderful world of Atari is no exception, you are proof of that.
I could correct the errata of "356", but you can never correct your malice.
Greetings.
ST/fm/e, STacy, Mega ST/e, TT, Falcon, C-Lab MKX... and more music tools.

User avatar
EmpireAndrew
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:46 pm
Location: NYC, USA

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby EmpireAndrew » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:07 am

AtariZoll wrote:OK, little history: There were diverse 386, 486 CPUs, done by 3 manufacturers - Intel, AMD, Cyrix. Then Intel decided to protect CPU marking, so named if Pentium, but competition continued, so there were AMD K5, K6, Cyrix 686 ... I never bought some 486 because motherboards were pretty poor quality, at least it was with big part of what was sold in Eastern Eu. It was much better with Pentium class boards, so I went on AMD K5, what was pretty good for it's price. And so on ...
Maybe the problem of Motorola was simply that it had no direct concurrent. Intel was pushed to make better and faster by AMD, which was even able to do some things first: like 1GHz CPU, 64-bit x86 CPU ... Some competition is always healthy, and not just for costumers.


Yes, competition is very important.
I was concerned AMD were in big trouble a year ago but they suddenly revealed some good processors recently that have caught Intel out...
I do wonder if Intel keep them alive enough to avoid a monopoly situation...

I think Intel simply had the benefit of volume which Motorola did not. Sun had moved on as had other workstation customers, Atari and Commodore sales were nothing more than a rounding error, and their biggest customer, Apple, represented about 7% of the PC market. So Intel were enjoying 90% of the market revenue and could invest.
It's interesting that the PowerPC did nothing to stop them despite being a vastly superior chip, but then it could only run 68k software for backwards compatibility so Apple were the winners there and it arguably saved them, but IBM failed to re-capture the market (thankfully) and so Motorola weren't saved either?
1977 VCS Heavy Sixxer (Boxed)
1990 Atari 1040STE, 4MB, UltraSatan, TOS 2.06, TT Touch -> Atari SC1435 Colour CRT Monitor
1991 Atari TT030, 2/64MB, Int 8GB Gigafile SCSI2CF, TOS 3.06, CaTTamaran Accelerator -> Atari TTM195 19" Mono CRT Monitor
1993 Atari Falcon030, 14MB, Int 4GB IDE2SD, TOS 4.04 -> Atari PTC1426 Color CRT Monitor
Amiga, Mac, DOS, Newton, SGI, Sun, NeXTStation and more!

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:27 pm

As I know, PowerPC is not code compatible with 68K family. And it would be surprise, since it is RISC. Apple did emulator for making possible running old SW in transition period. Problem of PowerPC is that it became slow in compare to new Intel CPUs - something what is known by Atari - slow development. And Motorola lost his best client. That's is how capitalism works.
I don't think that Intel had some high percentage of CPU market in early 80-es. It came later.
Btw. 68000 was candidate for PC in 1981 - but decision was to made some 2 years earlier. There are diverse legends why at the end 8088 was chosen. Some say that 68000 was still buggy, and that was main factor. What would be if ...
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

User avatar
EmpireAndrew
Captain Atari
Captain Atari
Posts: 391
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:46 pm
Location: NYC, USA

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby EmpireAndrew » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:50 am

I was never sure if the PPC had some mechanism for running the 68k at least in some way (microcode translator?) or purely through Apple SW...

As for PPC being slow compared to Intel, that was well over a decade later before that became an issue. Before that, PPC kicked butt. Although claims were made about being up to twice as fast, a more realistic comparison in real world use suggested a 500MHz PPC was faster than a 700MHz Pentium, although not by much, but it was also released a year before as well...
1977 VCS Heavy Sixxer (Boxed)
1990 Atari 1040STE, 4MB, UltraSatan, TOS 2.06, TT Touch -> Atari SC1435 Colour CRT Monitor
1991 Atari TT030, 2/64MB, Int 8GB Gigafile SCSI2CF, TOS 3.06, CaTTamaran Accelerator -> Atari TTM195 19" Mono CRT Monitor
1993 Atari Falcon030, 14MB, Int 4GB IDE2SD, TOS 4.04 -> Atari PTC1426 Color CRT Monitor
Amiga, Mac, DOS, Newton, SGI, Sun, NeXTStation and more!

User avatar
calimero
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:01 am
Location: STara Pazova, Serbia
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby calimero » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:47 am

Faucon2001 wrote:Even on a P150, Cubase VST a turtle beach sound card and win95 audio was lagging compared to Falcon.
How come on a 386 ?

Yea, lot of time need to pass to PC gain "sorcerery" of recording audio tracks. I think only Pentium with Turtle Beach start to work "ok" (not sure what version of CuBase...).

btw Pentium and 68060 are comparable MHz for MHz, right? Or Pentium have faster FPU?
using Atari since 1986.http://wet.atari.orghttp://milan.kovac.cc/atari/software/ ・ Atari Falcon030/CT63/SV ・ Atari STe ・ Atari Mega4/MegaFile30/SM124 ・ Amiga 1200/PPC ・ Amiga 500 ・ C64 ・ ZX Spectrum ・ RPi ・ MagiC! ・ MiNT 1.18 ・ OS X

User avatar
leech
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 869
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2015 3:26 pm

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby leech » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:06 am

AtariZoll wrote:As I know, PowerPC is not code compatible with 68K family. And it would be surprise, since it is RISC. Apple did emulator for making possible running old SW in transition period. Problem of PowerPC is that it became slow in compare to new Intel CPUs - something what is known by Atari - slow development. And Motorola lost his best client. That's is how capitalism works.
I don't think that Intel had some high percentage of CPU market in early 80-es. It came later.
Btw. 68000 was candidate for PC in 1981 - but decision was to made some 2 years earlier. There are diverse legends why at the end 8088 was chosen. Some say that 68000 was still buggy, and that was main factor. What would be if ...


I kind of always thought during the 8088 days that the reason the 68000 wasn't chosen instead was that it was very expensive. Same reason Jay Miner left Atari to create Hi Toro (which then became Amiga, which then was bought by Commodore). That's what I'd read at any rate, but there is still a lot of nonsense surrounding the whole 'was Amiga supposed to be Atari' story.
Atari 8Bits: 800xl, 600xl, XEGS, 800, 130xe, 130xe (fully upgraded (soon!))
Atari STs: 1040STf (broken shifter), 1040STe, Mega STe, TT030, Falcon (CT60e, SuperVidel)

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Processor comparisons

Postby AtariZoll » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:30 am

leech wrote:...
I kind of always thought during the 8088 days that the reason the 68000 wasn't chosen instead was that it was very expensive. Same reason Jay Miner left Atari to create Hi Toro (which then became Amiga, which then was bought by Commodore). That's what I'd read at any rate, but there is still a lot of nonsense surrounding the whole 'was Amiga supposed to be Atari' story.

First IBM PCs were pretty much expensive. So, 100-200$ more for better CPU wouldn't make some big difference.
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.


Social Media

     

Return to “Non Atari Platforms”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest