David Ahl's benchmark
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
@ scouter: it's quite funny because:
- we have your beautiful interface for the C2N
- now mobsie is thinking of interfacing the vic-20 keyboard
- and eventually a 1541 drive with a
- C64-like BASIC interpreter.
in the end it will be a C64 with 2MHz CPU
of course everything is welcome, but it's quite ironic
- we have your beautiful interface for the C2N
- now mobsie is thinking of interfacing the vic-20 keyboard
- and eventually a 1541 drive with a
- C64-like BASIC interpreter.
in the end it will be a C64 with 2MHz CPU
of course everything is welcome, but it's quite ironic
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
No!
To use stuff from other computer with the CV DONT make the CV to this computer. The Atari people use ALL from hard disk to USB, but not one people say "now we have a pc"
I know people who drive Mercedes and i know people who drive BMW, with the same wheels. Strange! BMW will be BMW and Mercedes will be Mercedes. Also the battery and some other parts are the same and from Bosch.
After all we will have maybe a CV with interesting stuff BUT we have the VDP, we have the own sound chip etc. The own Basic … Nothing to compare with the C-64. Only the CPU.
But if you go so deep, then yes ALL computer and consoles are C-64 because all use a cpu and ram and ...
To use stuff from other computer with the CV DONT make the CV to this computer. The Atari people use ALL from hard disk to USB, but not one people say "now we have a pc"
I know people who drive Mercedes and i know people who drive BMW, with the same wheels. Strange! BMW will be BMW and Mercedes will be Mercedes. Also the battery and some other parts are the same and from Bosch.
After all we will have maybe a CV with interesting stuff BUT we have the VDP, we have the own sound chip etc. The own Basic … Nothing to compare with the C-64. Only the CPU.
But if you go so deep, then yes ALL computer and consoles are C-64 because all use a cpu and ram and ...
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
Seriously, yes I am looking forward to any hardware and software additions, in particular those bridging shortcomings and helping more people enjoy the machine. But you got to admit that an iterative process to add more and more items from another system would be a bit entertaining, in particular the last bit about feeding a different video source through the VDP without adding any of its own graphics.
Besides, I just dug up the Byte 1977 benchmark suite and might run that as well later on. It benchmarks slightly other elements of the BASIC interpreter, and is divided into eight programs so one can see the progress in time spent and compare with other models.
Besides, I just dug up the Byte 1977 benchmark suite and might run that as well later on. It benchmarks slightly other elements of the BASIC interpreter, and is divided into eight programs so one can see the progress in time spent and compare with other models.
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
Still thinking about the Atari Joystick Adapter ;0)
http://www.8bit-homecomputermuseum.at Find me here...
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
New results on Ahl's benchmark:
Creativision with 1982 BASIC: about 3 min 10 sec, accuracy 0.37207
Creativision with 1983 BASIC: ditto, no difference in speed or accuracy
Creativision with Barry Klein's hacked 1983 BASIC: about 2 min 47 sec, accuracy still 0.37207
I haven't studied how long e.g. RND calls take, but on this particular benchmark the hacked version is about 12% faster, if I understand how to calculate percent: (190 - 167)/190.
Creativision with 1982 BASIC: about 3 min 10 sec, accuracy 0.37207
Creativision with 1983 BASIC: ditto, no difference in speed or accuracy
Creativision with Barry Klein's hacked 1983 BASIC: about 2 min 47 sec, accuracy still 0.37207
I haven't studied how long e.g. RND calls take, but on this particular benchmark the hacked version is about 12% faster, if I understand how to calculate percent: (190 - 167)/190.
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
Here is the Byte Magazine benchmark suite from 1977, extended with the 8th benchmark by Creative Computing 1983:
To begin with, here are the results in seconds from a range of mostly 8-bit computers. The list does not contain the exact same examplse as in the Ahl benchmark, but gives you an idea what to expect:
Now how fast is the official CreatiVision BASIC? I ran these in the 1983 version, but I doubt the 1982 one is any faster. Obviously the hacked one would run a bit faster though. Prepare yourselves!
Benchmark 1: 20 seconds! Yes, a simple FOR-NEXT loop running for 1000 iterations takes more than four times as long as the slow ZX Spectrum.
Benchmark 2: 60 seconds using K=K+1 and IF statement instead of the loop
Benchmark 3: 79 seconds with the calculation using variables
Benchmark 4: 119 seconds with the calculation using constants
Benchmark 5: 180 seconds when adding an empty subroutine call
Benchmark 6: 298 seconds with the DIM and an additional empty loop
Benchmark 7: 398 seconds when assigning values to the DIM'd array
By now we can see that CreatiVision BASIC actually suffers a lot, and we brace ourselves for the final benchmark with the logarithm and trigonometric functions that all other computers get stuck at...
Benchmark 8: 120 seconds!!!! Suddenly the CreatiVision springs to life, and handles those K^2, LOG(K) and SIN(K) like there was no tomorrow.
I don't bother calculating an average, as it doesn't say very much and would anyway put it at the very bottom, but we learn one thing: to not be afraid of using aritmethic, logarithmic or trigonometric functions with CreatiVision BASIC as those are where it really shines. Regular loops, subroutines, assignments etc is what slows it down, as far as I can tell.
In a few days, I might run this suite on my Laser 2001. Perhaps someone else with e.g. a Salora Manager will get ahead of me. I expect it to perform fairly well. It reminds me that the source where I got the majority of benchmark numbers also had a row for IBM PC 4.77 MHz but at some point I omitted it as it is not a true 8-bit computer.
Code: Select all
BENCHMARK 1 (new)
100 REM TEST 1
110 PRINT "START"
120 FOR K=1 TO 1000
130 NEXT K
500 PRINT "STOP"
550 END
BENCHMARK 2 (add/replace lines)
120 K=0
130 K=K+1
190 IF K<1000 THEN GOTO 130
BENCHMARK 3
140 A=K/K*K+K-K
BENCHMARK 4
140 A=K/2*3+4-5
BENCHMARK 5
150 GOSUB 600
600 RETURN
BENCHMARK 6
125 DIM M(5)
155 FOR L=1 TO 5
160 NEXT L
BENCHMARK 7
157 M(L)=A
BENCHMARK 8 by Creative Computing (new)
100 REM TEST 8
110 PRINT "START"
120 K=0
130 K=K+1
140 A=K^2
150 B=LOG(K)
160 C=SIN(K)
170 IF K<1000 THEN GOTO 130
180 PRINT "STOP"
190 END
Code: Select all
BM1 BM2 BM3 BM4 BM5 BM6 BM7 BM8 Avg
--------------------------------------------------
BBC (B ?) 0.6 3.2 8.1 8.8 9.9 14.3 21.9 48 14.3
Acorn Atom 0.5 5.1 9.5 10.8 13.9 19.1 31.1 92 22.8
Telestrat 0.5 3.6 11.4 13.2 13.4 18.7 26.3 109 24.6
VIC-20 1.4 8.3 15.5 17.1 18.3 27.2 42.7 99 28.7
Apple II 1.3 8.5 16.0 17.8 19.1 28.6 44.8 107 30.4
Dragon 32 1.6 10.2 19.7 21.6 23.3 34.3 50.0 129 36.2
Oric Atmos 1.6 15.2 25.4 27.4 33.0 45.6 68.5 136 44.1
SVI-328 1.6 5.4 17.9 19.6 20.6 30.7 42.2 236 46.7
ZX81 (fast) 4.5 6.9 16.4 15.8 18.6 49.7 68.5 229 51.2
Microtan 65 1.9 12.8 24.7 27.8 29.6 43.2 68.9 243 56.5
ZX Spectrum 4.8 8.7 21.1 20.4 24.0 55.3 80.7 253 58.5
Oric-1 1.8 17.1 29.0 31.4 38.0 51.8 77.8 230 59.6
Atari 600XL 2.2 7.2 19.1 22.8 25.8 37.6 58.3 412 73.1
TI-99/4A 2.9 8.8 22.8 24.5 26.1 61.6 84.4 382 76.6
Benchmark 1: 20 seconds! Yes, a simple FOR-NEXT loop running for 1000 iterations takes more than four times as long as the slow ZX Spectrum.
Benchmark 2: 60 seconds using K=K+1 and IF statement instead of the loop
Benchmark 3: 79 seconds with the calculation using variables
Benchmark 4: 119 seconds with the calculation using constants
Benchmark 5: 180 seconds when adding an empty subroutine call
Benchmark 6: 298 seconds with the DIM and an additional empty loop
Benchmark 7: 398 seconds when assigning values to the DIM'd array
By now we can see that CreatiVision BASIC actually suffers a lot, and we brace ourselves for the final benchmark with the logarithm and trigonometric functions that all other computers get stuck at...
Benchmark 8: 120 seconds!!!! Suddenly the CreatiVision springs to life, and handles those K^2, LOG(K) and SIN(K) like there was no tomorrow.
I don't bother calculating an average, as it doesn't say very much and would anyway put it at the very bottom, but we learn one thing: to not be afraid of using aritmethic, logarithmic or trigonometric functions with CreatiVision BASIC as those are where it really shines. Regular loops, subroutines, assignments etc is what slows it down, as far as I can tell.
In a few days, I might run this suite on my Laser 2001. Perhaps someone else with e.g. a Salora Manager will get ahead of me. I expect it to perform fairly well. It reminds me that the source where I got the majority of benchmark numbers also had a row for IBM PC 4.77 MHz but at some point I omitted it as it is not a true 8-bit computer.
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
great test!
"Benchmark 8: 120 seconds!!!! Suddenly the CreatiVision springs to life, and handles those K^2, LOG(K) and SIN(K) like there was no tomorrow."
Yes this show us what the CV can do with a modified well programmed Basic
"Benchmark 8: 120 seconds!!!! Suddenly the CreatiVision springs to life, and handles those K^2, LOG(K) and SIN(K) like there was no tomorrow."
Yes this show us what the CV can do with a modified well programmed Basic
Re: David Ahl's benchmark
as you write i am to serious, and that is ironic to use the commodore keyboard (stuff) i found now the ideal keyboard for me
Is vtech!You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.