MSTE vs STE TOS206
MSTE vs STE TOS206
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... viewtopic.php?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... viewtopic.php?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.
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
What am I missing here Chris? I would have thought the boost from an 020 and its
architecture would naturally be expected to be faster?
Thanks.
architecture would naturally be expected to be faster?
Thanks.
Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives.!"
Atari SW/HW based BBS-Telnet:darkforce-bbs.dyndns.org 520
Atari SW/HW based BBS-Telnet:darkforce-bbs.dyndns.org 520
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
Has a 68000 in there according to GB6.. didn't think any MSTE had a 020 ?
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
MSTE is a 68000, not 68020.
TOS 2.06 can work with a 68020 (and even a 68030
).
TOS 2.06 can work with a 68020 (and even a 68030

Working ones : MegaSTE (68020) / TT030 / Falcon with AB040 & Eclipse / 1040STF
Need testing : Falcon with CT2
Need testing : Falcon with CT2
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
Er sorry for the confusion - was referring to Chris's comment:
" I think a 16MHz 020 would easily outperform the MSTE."
Just thought there wouldn't have been any question about it.
I wasn't implying there was an '020 in Mega STe's. I've got one,
for what it's worth.
" I think a 16MHz 020 would easily outperform the MSTE."
Just thought there wouldn't have been any question about it.
I wasn't implying there was an '020 in Mega STe's. I've got one,
for what it's worth.

Welcome To DarkForce! www.darkforce.org "The Fuji Lives.!"
Atari SW/HW based BBS-Telnet:darkforce-bbs.dyndns.org 520
Atari SW/HW based BBS-Telnet:darkforce-bbs.dyndns.org 520
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
Why does the CPU only show 124% with cache OFF? Shouldn't it be close to 200% considering the frequency is 16MHz? What more test is taken into consideration besides integer divison?
Daniel, New Beat - http://newbeat.atari.org. Like demos? Have a look at our new Falcon030 demo and feel the JOY.
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
I guess RAM/ROM Access is also taken into account
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/
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/
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
68020 CPU is faster even at same clock than 68000 - many instructions execute in less clock cycles. But there are some, not much which are slower - like interrupt handling.
Ah, and there is simple solution for slow ROM TOS execution - run it from RAM
I will benchmark it today afternoon ...
Ah, and there is simple solution for slow ROM TOS execution - run it from RAM

There is 2 kind of people: one thinking about moving to Mars after here becomes too bad, the others thinking about how to keep this planet habitable.
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
int-div is the only logical result... My V1 booster has ...

Thats a 8/16MHz switch.. the MSTE doesn't even get close to that

So either the MSTE has a very poor 8/16MHz switch, or CPU is running constant 16MHz with very poor state machine..

Seems to be its not really a 16MHz machine.. Its basically a STE with a cache giving ST-RAM a boost.. and thats pretty much it aside from 16MHz int-div test..
4MB STFM 1.44 FD- VELOCE+ 020 STE - 4MB STE 32MHz - STFM 16MHz - STM - MEGA ST - Falcon 030 CT60 - Atari 2600 - Atari 7800 - Gigafile - SD Floppy Emulator - PeST - HxC - CosmosEx - Ultrasatan - various clutter
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/ All my hardware guides - mods - games - STOS
https://www.exxoshost.co.uk/atari/last/storenew/ - All my hardware mods for sale - Please help support by making a purchase.
Re: MSTE vs STE TOS206
Don't like your new Mega STE exxos ? There is solution to get rid off it
I mean there is much more than + cache and 16 MHz CPU in compare to STE . For instance PSU is much-much better. Then better case, overall quality. I will not repeat what extra features and HW it has.
It has switch for CPU clock and CPU cache - HW register. And it runs then at 16 MHz, with 16 KB cache. With some waits - if data is not in cache must wait. If accessing ROM must wait. So simple. And that explains why integer division is 195% - it works most time internal, with little memory access.
And I must say that GEMbench tests are not really representative. ROM access should be exact 100% at 16 MHz. But RAM access is only 101%, lower than ROM access - and that's not realistic. Of course, real RAM access ratio depends from running SW. It may be 200% if all is in cache. Bad ROM access value is for sure because test code running from RAM, so it execs little faster, but that should be compensated - knowing that code read speed is for sure 200% - it fits in 16 KB RAM, so will execute from cache all time. If you use movem.l with all possible registers, then RAM access %-age will be very low. But even better is to make first RAM access test with known cycle times, then can compensate ROM access execution times with it.

I mean there is much more than + cache and 16 MHz CPU in compare to STE . For instance PSU is much-much better. Then better case, overall quality. I will not repeat what extra features and HW it has.
It has switch for CPU clock and CPU cache - HW register. And it runs then at 16 MHz, with 16 KB cache. With some waits - if data is not in cache must wait. If accessing ROM must wait. So simple. And that explains why integer division is 195% - it works most time internal, with little memory access.
And I must say that GEMbench tests are not really representative. ROM access should be exact 100% at 16 MHz. But RAM access is only 101%, lower than ROM access - and that's not realistic. Of course, real RAM access ratio depends from running SW. It may be 200% if all is in cache. Bad ROM access value is for sure because test code running from RAM, so it execs little faster, but that should be compensated - knowing that code read speed is for sure 200% - it fits in 16 KB RAM, so will execute from cache all time. If you use movem.l with all possible registers, then RAM access %-age will be very low. But even better is to make first RAM access test with known cycle times, then can compensate ROM access execution times with it.
There is 2 kind of people: one thinking about moving to Mars after here becomes too bad, the others thinking about how to keep this planet habitable.