Overview Features Instructions Performance Forum Downloads Products OrderV4 Contact

Welcome to the Apollo Forum

This forum is for people interested in the APOLLO CPU.
Please read the forum usage manual.



All TopicsNewsPerformanceGamesDemosApolloVampireAROSWorkbenchATARIReleases
Performance and Benchmark Results!

68080 (680xx Vs X86)page  1 2 3 

Noki Runner

Posts 7
06 Nov 2020 21:22


I'm too curious to ask these questions:

with suitable software optimized for parallel operations, would a multi-core apollocore be conceivable someday?

and above all would it bring some advantage?

for example a Quadcore 68080, optimized to exploit it, could it be clocked in "X4 mhz" and performance four times stronger than a single 68080 core?

would it be beneficial to do as modern x86 cpu builders, which even have 128 cores, do similar designs based on 680X0 architecture?...
obviously with the right software designed to take advantage of it..


Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 5317
07 Nov 2020 07:02


noki runner wrote:

I'm too curious to ask these questions:
 
with suitable software optimized for parallel operations, would a multi-core apollocore be conceivable someday?

 
Apollo 68080 is designed for multi core.
Apollo 68080 is also designed for Hyperthreading.
 
Saying this Amiga OS is NOT designed with Multi-core support.
This means these features are today not tested and not usable on Amiga.

Coding multithreaded applications is also not that easy.
If you want to speed up your program than a lot easier is to use on AMIGA is our AMMX SIMD instruction set.
I think that many games / programs could increase performance a lot with using AMMX.
I see this is something many programs will use in the future.


Geoff Wells

Posts 43
08 Nov 2020 13:51


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

 
noki runner wrote:

  I'm too curious to ask these questions:
   
  with suitable software optimized for parallel operations, would a multi-core apollocore be conceivable someday?
 

   
  Apollo 68080 is designed for multi core.
  Apollo 68080 is also designed for Hyperthreading.
   
  Saying this Amiga OS is NOT designed with Multi-core support.
  This means these features are today not tested and not usable on Amiga.
 
  Coding multithreaded applications is also not that easy.
  If you want to speed up your program than a lot easier is to use on AMIGA is our AMMX SIMD instruction set.
  I think that many games / programs could increase performance a lot with using AMMX.
  I see this is something many programs will use in the future.
 

@Gunnar - I'm not very familiar with AROS but given that it works on x86 does it work with multi-core?  If that's the case, would this be something that could work with 68080 multi-core if it was available?


Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 5317
08 Nov 2020 21:59


Geoff Wells wrote:

@Gunnar - I'm not very familiar with AROS but given that it works on x86 does it work with multi-core?something that could work with 68080 multi-core if it was available?

     
No it does not.
No Amiga OS supports multi-core - so far.
     
I think the point of Amiga OS is to run  .... Amiga applications !
You can not magically turn on SMP ... if the OS and all its thousands of applications never were designed for this.
     
Well you can but then nothings works anymore reliable.
And this would not be the point, right?
   
Aros on x86 is not an Amiga OS in my book.
It can not use Amiga chipset, can not run Amiga games, and can not run thousands of real Amiga applications.
 
In my experience for compatibility is 100% important to be have like the old Amiga OS did in all ways and all functions.
With every line AROS did change from this original behavior they broke hundreds of games and applications.
   
For me, the way forward is to increase Amiga compatibility and to make all games work ... not to break compatibility even more.
This means for me the future is making ApollOS to behave 100% like Commodores OS did behave and to have 100% compatibility.

Some AROS x86 people have a different goal, they prefer an OS which is not compatible but is only inspirit by some AMIGA concepts. And they also accept to break with some Amiga OS design fundamentals.




Geoff Wells

Posts 43
09 Nov 2020 22:44


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

 
Geoff Wells wrote:

    @Gunnar - I'm not very familiar with AROS but given that it works on x86 does it work with multi-core?something that could work with 68080 multi-core if it was available?
   

         
    No it does not.
    No Amiga OS supports multi-core - so far.
         
    I think the point of Amiga OS is to run  .... Amiga applications !
    You can not magically turn on SMP ... if the OS and all its thousands of applications never were designed for this.
         
    Well you can but then nothings works anymore reliable.
    And this would not be the point, right?
       
    Aros on x86 is not an Amiga OS in my book.
    It can not use Amiga chipset, can not run Amiga games, and can not run thousands of real Amiga applications.
     
    In my experience for compatibility is 100% important to be have like the old Amiga OS did in all ways and all functions.
    With every line AROS did change from this original behavior they broke hundreds of games and applications.
       
    For me, the way forward is to increase Amiga compatibility and to make all games work ... not to break compatibility even more.
    This means for me the future is making ApollOS to behave 100% like Commodores OS did behave and to have 100% compatibility.
   
    Some AROS x86 people have a different goal, they prefer an OS which is not compatible but is only inspirit by some AMIGA concepts. And they also accept to break with some Amiga OS design fundamentals.
   
   
 

 
Thanks for the response and I completely agree.  I love the fact that there's an AROS fork (ApolloOS) which can be optimized for 68080 and application compatibility.
 
Of course, like everyone I want to have my cake and eat it too.  In this case, it sounds like that might be a bit too much.  As many have noted, it would be great to see the performance continue to improve through new innovations in future releases of the Vampire.

Thanks for the continued work!


Ron Valen
(Needs Verification)
Posts 12/ 2
30 Jan 2021 11:56


Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

  Please note that MMX and AMMX have not much in common except 3 letters. The instructions are different and AMMX has a huge number of features that MMX not has.
 
  You are fully correct that AMMX is optimized for integer and pixel operations.
 
  But this is not bad.
  For GFX operations and video operations the integer math is most important.
  And for 2D game coding the AMMX special instructions give AMMX a huge advantage over SSE.
 
  For 2D games AMMX does beat SSE hands down.
 


EXTERNAL LINK  Quake 2 640x480 software render with demo1 benchmarks.

Pentium III 450Mhz beats Vampire.

PS; I still have an IBM T20 laptop with Pentium III 700 MHz for retro PC gaming, but I still prefer AmigaOS with WHD Load for late 1980 to early 1990s retro gaming i.e. I dislike MS-DOS.




Gunnar von Boehn
(Apollo Team Member)
Posts 5317
30 Jan 2021 15:47


Ron Valen wrote:

 
Gunnar von Boehn wrote:

 
    Please note that MMX and AMMX have not much in common except 3 letters. The instructions are different and AMMX has a huge number of features that MMX not has.
   
    You are fully correct that AMMX is optimized for integer and pixel operations.
   
    But this is not bad.
    For GFX operations and video operations the integer math is most important.
    And for 2D game coding the AMMX special instructions give AMMX a huge advantage over SSE.
   
    For 2D games AMMX does beat SSE hands down.
   
 

  EXTERNAL LINK    Quake 2 640x480 software render with demo1 benchmarks.
 
  Pentium III 450Mhz beats Vampire.
 
  PS; I still have an IBM T20 laptop with Pentium III 700 MHz for retro PC gaming, but I still prefer AmigaOS with WHD Load for late 1980 to early 1990s retro gaming i.e. I dislike MS-DOS.
 
 
 

 
 
You quote my post about "AMMX and 2D games" but then write about Quake 2.

1) But Quake is _not_ a 2D game
2) There is _no_ Quake 2 version coded for AMMX. So you could not even compare.

Can you please help me understand what your try to say?


Mateusz S.

Posts 50
01 Feb 2021 00:49


Hello Gunnar,
Is v4 faster than v1200? If so, why?


Vojin Vidanovic
(Needs Verification)
Posts 1896/ 1
03 Feb 2021 23:46


Mateusz S. wrote:

  Hello Gunnar,
  Is v4 faster than v1200? If so, why?
 

 
  V4 has more fpga space (bigger fatter  cyclone) enabling higher frequency of 080; more CPU cache and full hardware fpu.
 
  V1200 has also slightly bigger fpga then v500 and v600, enabling higher clocks then v500 and v600.

Also, v1200 and especially SA have faster ram, making Apollo CPU mem controller shine. Which is really weird, since Amiga never before was memory access champion.
 
  They are also priced respectfully.
 
  But all main 080 CPU features are same. Think it as e.g. 040ec 16mhz, 040fpu25mhz and 040fpu up to 40mhz, as parallel.



posts 49page  1 2 3