MSTE vs STE TOS206
Posted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 8:02 pm
16MHz CACHE OFF
16MHz CACHE ON
16MHz CACHE ON - BLITTER OFF (MSTE VS ST SPEEDS)
Just for reference, ST vs ST with blitter ON.
In terms of cache vs blitter. Blitter makes faster work than using caches. But in above tests MSTE doesn't outperform stock STE.
In terms of ROM access, It should be 200% without cache due to 16MHz speeds, but it only sees speed increase with caches enabled. So MSTE doesn't seem to be running in 16MHz for ROM access. As such GB6 tests show not much speed increase in GEM related tasks.
However, CPU related tests access using cache make much faster work. I copied bob test results from later in thread to show how caching improves CPU & RAM related routines.
Using Frank's blitter demo... https://www.exxosforum.co.uk/forum/viewt ... ?f=25&t=50
16MHZ CACHE ON
16MHZ CACHE OFF
8MHZ CACHE OFF
Will ignore 8MHz tests as basically no difference..
So cache on vs cache off..
So can see CPU operations are faster because of caches.
In terms of unfair test with 40MHz STE (no caches)
So results faster than stock machine
So we can see CPU with caches give +3 bobs( from 10 bobs to 13 bobs) and using pre-shifting, caches come into play for fast copy of data and give +9 bobs (from 19 bobs to 28 bobs) .
So conclusions are tricky with this machine. Anything using blitter in particular with GEM tasks are not showing much speeds over a stock STE. Anything which doesn't use blitter (games for example) will see a reasonable increase in speed due to caches.
16MHz CACHE ON
16MHz CACHE ON - BLITTER OFF (MSTE VS ST SPEEDS)
Just for reference, ST vs ST with blitter ON.
In terms of cache vs blitter. Blitter makes faster work than using caches. But in above tests MSTE doesn't outperform stock STE.
In terms of ROM access, It should be 200% without cache due to 16MHz speeds, but it only sees speed increase with caches enabled. So MSTE doesn't seem to be running in 16MHz for ROM access. As such GB6 tests show not much speed increase in GEM related tasks.
However, CPU related tests access using cache make much faster work. I copied bob test results from later in thread to show how caching improves CPU & RAM related routines.
Using Frank's blitter demo... https://www.exxosforum.co.uk/forum/viewt ... ?f=25&t=50
16MHZ CACHE ON
Code: Select all
Blitter render $1B bobs
CPU shift blitter active $11 bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active $1C bobs
16MHZ CACHE OFF
Code: Select all
Blitter render $1A bobs
CPU shift blitter active $0B bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active $13 bobs
Code: Select all
Blitter render $1A bobs
CPU shift blitter active $0A bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active $13 bobs
So cache on vs cache off..
Code: Select all
Blitter render +1 bob
CPU shift blitter active +6 bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active +9 bobs
In terms of unfair test with 40MHz STE (no caches)
Code: Select all
Blitter render $1B bobs
CPU shift blitter active $0C bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active $16 bobs
Code: Select all
Blitter render +1 bob
CPU shift blitter active +2 bobs
CPU pre-shift blitter active +3 bobs
So conclusions are tricky with this machine. Anything using blitter in particular with GEM tasks are not showing much speeds over a stock STE. Anything which doesn't use blitter (games for example) will see a reasonable increase in speed due to caches.