|
|
|
|
| Welcome, Guest | Home | Search | Login | Register | |
|
Profile Info |
|
| Summary | Show Posts |
| Show Posts | |
| This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to. | |
| Messages - Lixivial | |
|
1
Software / MiniBench Scores
October 06, 2006, 23:24 |
Quote from: "dpaanlka" The emulator does not literally emulate the speed of a 33mhz Quadra - it just pretends to be a Quadra so that software of that vintage will run on it. It still runs it as fast as it possibly can on your machine. Indeed, fair enough, but through the act of emulation there are inherent performance hits over native hardware. The test, the way I see it, wasn't so much a test of the hardware as it was a test of BasiliskII/SheepShaver's ability to emulate CPU instructions, etc. This was running on a 2 GHz MacBook running the UB version of Basilisk II. I was also running the UB version of SheepShaver. I hadn't tested on native PowerPC OS X, though I'm interested to see what turns out. I'm also curious how the Windows version of Basilisk II would stack up. The test using BasiliskII takes a LONG time to complete, and I'm writing it off as the emulated hardware layer or BasiliskII's code translation. It doesn't handle CPU intensive tasks very well at all, as you'd might imagine. Anyroad, my tests are not really useful as they're not really testing the physical hardware of a given machine. |
|
2
Software / MiniBench Scores
October 06, 2006, 08:30 |
Indeed. I reread the thread after posting that message and noticed that you, as I should have guessed, mentioned Blue Box. In fact, I also noticed, too, that you had thrown out those times due to the performance hit. That makes a majority of my response irrelevant, as of course BasiliskII and SheepShaver would have performance hits as well. Yeah, so I was going to edit my post to accommodate that, but... 
|
|
3
Software / MiniBench Scores
October 06, 2006, 01:18 |
I figured I'd try a bit of an intriguing test. The setup is this: Mac OS X 10.4.8, running SheepShaver as an emulated Power Macintosh 9500 with a 100MHz G4 -- yes, I know that such a thing does not exist, but... I ran a total of 15 tests and they average out to be approximately 136.5, with extensions on. The app would not load in SheepShaver without extensions on. I then ran a test with this setup: Mac OS X 10.4.8 running BasiliskII emulating a Quadra 900 with a 33MHz 68040 and 64 megabytes of RAM running System 7.5.3r2. Here I get -2.147484x10^8 I'm going to see if I can run this in Blue Box on Rhapsody -- I realize it does not work in Classic, but I'm curious if it works in Blue Box. I'm also going to see if it runs under A/UX -- I know that's a bit below the 7.5 requirement, because A/UX uses 7.0.1 to boot to it, but... I know these aren't pure scores and aren't really relevant for anything other than checking how well a program emulates the hardware. I just thought they'd be interesting until I can become motivated enough to plug my old Macs in. |
| Pages: [1] | |
|
© 2021 System7Today.com. |
