| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
Release id #139503 : Spindle 2.0
So with the spin mode it was now easy to quickly do a speedtest with the files i usually test with (most of the files from cl13 side1).
It turns out that spindle nearly loads as fast as bitfire with on the fly depacking. While bitfire chews in the tracks a tad faster, it has to make breaks to finalize the depacking. So data arrives a bit too fast first and blocks pile up to be decrunched. Spindle manages to have a continuous flow due to its blockwise packing scheme here.
Therefore the 18 files used get squeezed down to 491 blocks, as with bitfire down to 391 blocks. So Spindle leeches an additional 100 blocks in about the time bitfire requires for additional depacking.
However, under load the speed of spindle turns down rapidly, with 25% cpu load it is no faster than krill's loader, with 75% load it takes eons to leech the 491 blocks in :-( What's happening there?!
When is the 50x version from Krill done? :-D HCL, what's the penis length of your loader? :-D
Results here. |
|
... 91 posts hidden. Click here to view all posts....
|
| |
chatGPZ
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 11386 |
pfff, as if me being an annoying twat has anything to do with being mod on csdb =) |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Thread delivers. Now where's my "like" button. |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
(also, I really must get back to loader/cruncher coding. Just as soon as I've finished tidying up three or four other c64 projects...) |
| |
mankeli
Registered: Oct 2010
Posts: 146 |
:3
 |
| |
HCL
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 728 |
Oh, guys.. You just had a great opportunity to leave Danzig's rant remain unposted.. FOR YEARS!! :D. You bummers :P.. |
| |
Bitbreaker
Registered: Oct 2002
Posts: 508 |
Updated results here
Now also added features and corrected numbers for Krill with interleave 5, as well as for bitfire. Also BD-loader got added and an overview on the feature sets. Let me know if i missed or broke something. |
| |
Danzig
Registered: Jun 2002
Posts: 440 |
Quote: Oh, guys.. You just had a great opportunity to leave Danzig's rant remain unposted.. FOR YEARS!! :D. You bummers :P..
your are all dumbfucks, 'coz I "finalized" the thread to keep it alive and you all step into the trap ;)
/me wants coop between lft and bitbreaker: spitfire :D |
| |
MagerValp
Registered: Dec 2001
Posts: 1078 |
And ULoad M3 is slower than all of the above, uses more RAM, and can't handle sprites being enabled. Plus I stole all the code from Lasse Öörni. *Now* who's the lamer here? |
| |
ChristopherJam
Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 1409 |
Thanks for doing those benchmarks, Bitbreaker.
Here's an alternate view of the results, if I'm interpreting the data correctly.
How many bytes can we snaffle per raster line, and how many cpu-cycles does it take to acquire each byte?
Perhaps relevant if you're trying to work out how much you can stream if you allow 30 or 40 rasterlines of border time..
 |
| |
Burglar
Registered: Dec 2004
Posts: 1101 |
nice thread this, especially with a bit of mudslinging ;)
how many blocks/sectors are used with each loader? I guess bitbreaker didnt care about size (he'll just add another disk;), but I do :)
also, how come bd-loader beats krill, even though it doesnt support out-of-order loading? what magic spells did you cast, hcl? |
| Previous - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 - Next |
