What are the ramifications of using the BigRAM+ with SB 7 in a stock A3000/25 with no accelerator or any other Zorro cards?
BigRAM+ without Super Buster 11 in A3000
- bitter
- Thread is Unresolved
Caution: Non registered users only see threads and messages in the currently selected language, which is determined by their browser. Please create an account and log in to see all content by default. This is a limitation of the forum software.
Also users that are not logged in can not create new threads. This is a, unfortunately needed, counter measure against spam. Please create an account and log in to start new threads.
Don't Panic. Please wash hands.
-
-
The A3000 does DMA with it's SCSI controller, but with DMA coming from a different side (not Zorro), it may just work. To be honest, I have never tried it, as the oldest Buster I have in a working A3000 is the -9 version. That one works just fine.
-
The A3000 does DMA with it's SCSI controller, but with DMA coming from a different side (not Zorro), it may just work. To be honest, I have never tried it, as the oldest Buster I have in a working A3000 is the -9 version. That one works just fine.
OK, I can report that I've seen no issues, stressing the system as well as running memory test.
-
Please report the exact config that you're using there - just for completing the archive that this forum is supposed to become. Thanks!
-
Please report the exact config that you're using there - just for completing the archive that this forum is supposed to become. Thanks!
Amiga NTSC 3000D/25, MB 7/01, Buster 7, Ramsey 4 and DMAC 2. 2Mb CHIP, and 8Mb FAST on-board, 80ns SC. KS 3.1/WB 3.1.
-
It's a curiosity of mine, but if you can, grab bustest off Aminet, and run it against an address somewhere midway on the BigRAM card address space (use SysInfo to ID the board's memory address range, probably starting around $0400.0000). Buster 7 is supposed to be slower than the -9 or -11. for Zorro III activities, but I've never seen test results before I updated the host to Buster -11 on. Its never going to be as fast as motherboard Ramsey memory (which natively gets consumed first).
-
(use SysInfo to ID the board's memory address range, probably starting around $0400.0000).
it'll start at $4000.0000, as that's where Z3 space starts.
-
Thanks for the correction - I should know better. My broken glasses are currently being replaced.
-
It's a curiosity of mine, but if you can, grab bustest off Aminet, and run it against an address somewhere midway on the BigRAM card address space (use SysInfo to ID the board's memory address range, probably starting around $0400.0000). Buster 7 is supposed to be slower than the -9 or -11. for Zorro III activities, but I've never seen test results before I updated the host to Buster -11 on. Its never going to be as fast as motherboard Ramsey memory (which natively gets consumed first).
OK, here we go:
Code- BusSpeedTest 0.19 (mlelstv) Buffer: 262144 Bytes, Alignment: 32768
- ========================================================================
- memtype addr op cycle calib bandwidth
- fast $07858000 readw 250.9 ns normal 8.0 * 10^6 byte/s
- fast $07858000 readl 330.5 ns normal 12.1 * 10^6 byte/s
- fast $07858000 readm 304.1 ns normal 13.2 * 10^6 byte/s
- fast $07858000 writew 249.5 ns normal 8.0 * 10^6 byte/s
- fast $07858000 writel 250.3 ns normal 16.0 * 10^6 byte/s
- fast $07858000 writem 221.3 ns normal 18.1 * 10^6 byte/s
- BusSpeedTest 0.19 (mlelstv) Buffer: 262144 Bytes, Alignment: 32768
- ========================================================================
- memtype addr op cycle calib bandwidth
- user $48000000 readw 325.9 ns normal 6.1 * 10^6 byte/s
- user $48000000 readl 485.5 ns normal 8.2 * 10^6 byte/s
- user $48000000 readm 463.4 ns normal 8.6 * 10^6 byte/s
- user $48000000 writew 447.3 ns normal 4.5 * 10^6 byte/s
- user $48000000 writel 446.9 ns normal 8.9 * 10^6 byte/s
- user $48000000 writem 409.3 ns normal 9.8 * 10^6 byte/s
Interesting results
-
That's an interesting comparison to my 25MHz 68030 A3000D with a Rev 11 Buster:
Ramsey-04 / SCRAM
BusSpeedTest 0.19 (mlelstv) Buffer: 262144 Bytes, Alignment: 32768
========================================================================
memtype addr op cycle calib bandwidth
user $48000000 readw 249.8 ns normal 8.0 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 readl 335.4 ns normal 11.9 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 readm 309.4 ns normal 12.9 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writew 251.2 ns normal 8.0 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writel 253.8 ns normal 15.8 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writem 227.7 ns normal 17.6 * 10^6 byte/s
66MHz Clocked BigRAM Z3
BusSpeedTest 0.19 (mlelstv) Buffer: 262144 Bytes, Alignment: 32768
========================================================================
memtype addr op cycle calib bandwidth
user $48000000 readw 307.7 ns normal 6.5 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 readl 454.3 ns normal 8.8 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 readm 430.6 ns normal 9.3 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writew 410.6 ns normal 4.9 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writel 414.3 ns normal 9.7 * 10^6 byte/s
user $48000000 writem 376.8 ns normal 10.6 * 10^6 byte/s
Not as much variation with the Buster chips as I would have thought.
-
Great comparison. Bit of a difference with the on-board results too, but to be honest, I thought Z3 memory would be slower in general. The writes are bad, but reads are surprising...
Of course, now I HAVE to find Buster 11... And more ZIP RAM.
-
For a 68030 @ 25MHz, it's not too different, but higher performance CPUs can get a bit more out of RAMSEY memory.
The cache also skews the benchmark a little, with sequential activity generally rewarded, and random activities penalized to various amounts.
-
Not only cache will affect the benchmark, but MMU will also slow down - though only a bit.
The biggest difference in the Z3 benchmarks in this thread comes from the clock speed of the BigRamPlus. While stock cards are clocked at 50MHz (this is the frequency we've used during CE testing), thebajaguy has clocked his card to 66MHz. This will improve response times, but not violate any SD-Ram timing.
We cannot offer this as a factory option, as it would require me to make new CE measurements. It needs to remain a user hack, which I'd expect to give a similar gain on any Buster revision.
-
The last reply was more than 365 days ago, this thread is most likely obsolete. It is recommended to create a new thread instead.