| RE: [hatari-devel] WinUAE CPU core CPU/FPU/DSP performance according to Centurbo benchmark |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
- To: "hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hatari-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [hatari-devel] WinUAE CPU core CPU/FPU/DSP performance according to Centurbo benchmark
- From: "Konador, Cyprian" <cyprian.konador@xxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2015 22:16:18 +0000
- Accept-language: pl-PL, en-US
- Thread-index: AQHQJn01N0MGhNDgYkqmiOAjPPxigZysy+yAgAATdgCAAAqygIAAJZCAgAAJQoCAACuQAIAAA4GAgAAdtBA=
- Thread-topic: [hatari-devel] WinUAE CPU core CPU/FPU/DSP performance according to Centurbo benchmark
> From: Douglas Little
> Sent: 2 January 2015 21:27
>
> (It seems there are still other mechanisms stealing some cycles or causing bus slots to get missed because the resulting timings are cycle-fractional - but I guess those causes are more likely to be constants. The timings always yield integers with Hatari)
What about memory refresh cycles? I have no good example, but e.g. in Amiga memory refresh cycles steal 4 memory slots per scanline:
http://amigadev.elowar.com/read/ADCD_2.1/Hardware_Manual_guide/node02D4.gif