Run benchmarks and share your results

Anything QL Software or Programming Related.
User avatar
Peter
QL Wafer Drive
Posts: 1953
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 8:47 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by Peter »

Interesting, do you also use a monitor with 1024x768 native resolution?
Is the second SDHC card decoration, or do you actually use it parallel to card one? We did not test that much, always good to get feedback.

The small remaining difference in your benchmark figure looks like you have loaded some extensions.
I have also tried with and without my "usual" extensions and see a similar difference.


daniel_baum
Bent Pin Expansion Port
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by daniel_baum »

Hi all,

I just tried this on QPC2 on my laptop.

The result was 745.197.

D.


daniel_baum
Bent Pin Expansion Port
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by daniel_baum »

Hi,

Resurrecting this thread to say that Marcel's new Mister core got 15.896 with Minerva and 15.329 with SMSQ/E, both with 4MB RAM and "full" CPU speed.
Since this figure is dependent on various factors, I would take the precise number too seriously, but it gives an idea. The results seem to put it between the Super Gold Card and the Q68.

D.


User avatar
janbredenbeek
Super Gold Card
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 4:54 pm
Location: Hilversum, The Netherlands

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by janbredenbeek »

BBQL with Minerva and (non-super) Gold Card: 5.640
Q68: 24.125 (SMSQ/E)
Raspberry Pi 3B+ with uqlx and Minerva: about 103
QPC2 on an i7-4790 PC: about 1500.

Jan


daniel_baum
Bent Pin Expansion Port
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by daniel_baum »

Apropos QPC, on my i7 laptop I'm finding that the results are very inconsistent. One thing is certain though; the GRAPHSCRN part is very very slow in high colour. It shows around 8 seconds, or a factor of approx 1.8 compared to a standard QL, while in 4 colour mode at QL resolution or slightly higher (640x400 etc.) it shows approx 0.04 seconds or a factor of 380. It also occasionally shows negative timings, which is weird.

At QL colours and resolution I have seen results up to approx 1800x QL speed, but it can also be much lower, for whatever reason.

It also seems to report a 512x256 resolution irrespective of which resolution it is actually running on.

D.
Attachments
640x400 QL colour
640x400 QL colour
1024x768 high colour
1024x768 high colour


bixio60
Brittle Membrane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 7:05 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by bixio60 »

Hi,
are you using QPC under a VM ? Maybe parallels with Mac OSX?
I read VM (in general: Parallels & VMware) can slow down graphics, even if I don't remember why and where i read it.

Fabrizio
daniel_baum wrote:Apropos QPC, on my i7 laptop I'm finding that the results are very inconsistent. One thing is certain though; the GRAPHSCRN part is very very slow in high colour. It shows around 8 seconds, or a factor of approx 1.8 compared to a standard QL, while in 4 colour mode at QL resolution or slightly higher (640x400 etc.) it shows approx 0.04 seconds or a factor of 380. It also occasionally shows negative timings, which is weird.

At QL colours and resolution I have seen results up to approx 1800x QL speed, but it can also be much lower, for whatever reason.

It also seems to report a 512x256 resolution irrespective of which resolution it is actually running on.

D.


daniel_baum
Bent Pin Expansion Port
Posts: 90
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:58 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by daniel_baum »

No, just regular Windows 10. It's actually a powerful laptop with an Nvidia 3D graphics card, although QPC of course doesn't utilise it. I've never seen any sign of graphic slowdowns before.

D.


User avatar
Artificer
Brittle Membrane
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 8:43 am

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by Artificer »

One can find some other benchmarks with QTOP
http://qlheaven.blogspot.com/2017/11/q6 ... index.html and http://qlheaven.blogspot.com/2016/04/rp ... peeds.html

These are from almost 3 or 4 years ago. The Rpi now is up to version 4 with again a faster processor so it should perform faster now.

Cheers


User avatar
QLvsJAGUAR
Gold Card
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:42 am
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by QLvsJAGUAR »

Just minutes ago, after work, I had the chance to try QPC2&QL/E on a brand new Intel NUC with Core i5-1145G7 Tiger Lake CPU...


QL forever!
https://www.sinclairql.net/ - Go and get THE DISTRIBUTION & QL/E!
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR/community - Blog
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR - Dedicated QL videos
Sinclair, QL, ATARI, JAGUAR, NUON, APPLE, NeXT, MiST & much more...
Videos, pictures & information
User avatar
QLvsJAGUAR
Gold Card
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:42 am
Location: Lucerne, Switzerland
Contact:

Re: Run benchmarks and share your results

Post by QLvsJAGUAR »

QLvsJAGUAR wrote:Just minutes ago, after work, I had the chance to try QPC2&QL/E on a brand new Intel NUC with Core i5-1145G7 Tiger Lake CPU...
Here‘s the rig:Image

Here‘s the result:
Image

Performance, Index: 2103!

Anyone faster?


Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk


QL forever!
https://www.sinclairql.net/ - Go and get THE DISTRIBUTION & QL/E!
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR/community - Blog
https://www.youtube.com/QLvsJAGUAR - Dedicated QL videos
Sinclair, QL, ATARI, JAGUAR, NUON, APPLE, NeXT, MiST & much more...
Videos, pictures & information
Post Reply