Just to clarify some point out :Quzar wrote:It hasn't been pointed out yet publically, but the newest version of fame, with more bugs removed has become slower than c68k. This is according to Stef D.'s Bench68k test, which has two m68k programs written in 68k asm to calculate prime numbers, and do a bubble sort. FAME now falls behind c68k in both of these by about 5-10%.
Stef's benchmarks would probably not show the same results since my compile of c68k is quite a bit faster than his. I was waiting to see him on msn to send him the benchmark program with my compile of c68k and the newest fame.
Also, that is only in raw benchmarks, it is 100% up to the program to show how fast fame works for it. This however does show a drastic speed decrease for fame, as the first version was about 2x faster than c68k at these benchmarks. Now it is slightly slower.
Also, FAZE doesn't exist so there is no reason to be talking about it. For all we know it will be just like FAME, faster at first but horribly buggy, then by the time it gets mostly de-bugged, it is slower. (not to mention 3+x bigger than c68k) BA will release it when it is ready, and there probably isn't much you can do to help (at least based on your track record).
Bench68K was originally wrote by Fox68k, not by me.
I just sent you a copy
Something you need to know about this bench, it heavily uses the DIV instruction. I know Fox68k recently made change to the DIV instruction to have accurate cycles calculation, something than C68K doesn't have :
if you take a look on C68K source, you can read : "todo : fix DIV instruction timing".
C68K assumes an "average" number of cycles for division instruction, that's totally wrong but it's a fast solution. Having correct cycles calculation for DIV instruction take many extra CPU time. I guess if we try to use another bench code (no DIV instruction) FAME is ahead C68K without difficulties.