[Rpcemu] RISC OS 5.17 benchmarked against 4.02

george greenfield george.greenfield at tiscali.co.uk
Wed Oct 24 02:13:12 PDT 2012


In message <6ba362e352.old_coaster at old_coaster.yahoo.co.uk>
          Tony Moore <old_coaster at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> On 23 Oct 2012, george greenfield <george.greenfield at tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> I recently ran Richard Spencer‘s benchmarking app romark 1.01 on both
>> my RPCEmu installations (0.8.8/5.17 and 0.8.9/4.02 respectively). Here
>> are the results (0.8.8/5.17 first, % advantage of 0.8.8/5.17 last):
> 
> I've now carried out the same exercise on my own installation comprising
> 0.8.9/5.19 and 0.8.9/4.39 running on Win7 (32bit) on a 1.6GHz Core2 Duo
> machine. Both virtual machines have 256MB memory. My screen resolution
> is 1360x768. For ease of comparison, my results are appended to yours:
> 
>      George                  Tony
> 
> 1.   572562; 592026;  97%    269685, 283301,   95%
> 2.     9139;   9380;  97%      3060,   2381,  129%
> 3    . 3665;   3053; 120%      1246,   1014,  123%
> 4.    11389;   6429; 177%      4573,   2148,  213%
> 5.     4198;   3060; 137%      1638,   1148,  143%
> 6.     4831;   3591; 135%      1898,   1526,  124%
> 7.    99020;  21340; 464%     87192,   8302, 1050%
> 8.    74777;  25683; 291%     93275,   8861, 1053%
> 9.     3525;   2322; 152%      1487,   1085,  137%
> 10.    3006;   1861; 162%      1348,    730,  185%
> 
> My results confirm your conclusion that, under emulation, RO 5.xx is
> considerably faster than RO 4.xx. The differential for tests 7 and 8 (HD
> Read and HD Write) is even more striking.
> 

I'm glad your results are similar to mine; I did wonder whether some 
unknown factor was skewing them in favour of 5.XX. And, as you say, 
the HD Read/Write stats are even more one-sided. FWIW, the 5.XX 
Processor benchmark is almost exactly proportional to basic system 
speed: 573k/3.4 = 168.5k; 270k/1.6 = 168.75k.

At the moment 4.02 is my primary RPCEmu setup; it has networking, a 
HardDisc4 (necessary for Photodesk to run) and can run all the legacy 
stuff I use (Eureka, Rhapsody). I tend to use 5.17 for 
graphics-intensive stuff (just done a 24-page calendar using OvPro 
which produced an 82MB file). Given these results, I can see benefit 
in shifting activity further towards 5.XX, but the lack of HD4 is a 
bit of a showstopper. Do you know if the memory-leak problem which 
prevented HD4 installation on 5.17 has been sorted by 5.19?

George

-- 
george greenfield



More information about the Rpcemu mailing list