Jump to content
Estece

"DHRYSTONE" Benchmark Program

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Estece said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhrystone

source:https://homepages.cwi.nl/~steven/dry.c

Is it possible to run this on Atari?

Not in assembler but maybe in other languages like:  action, mad pascal, fast basic,basic, gcc6502, vbcc,turbo basic,quick and effectus ?

Yes, you can even find results somewhere in the forum here. The problem with this test is that it's aiming at least 16bit machines (using heavily 16bit data types) and does not reflect properly compiler capabilities for 6502 8bit platform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dhrystone is a benchmark of C compilers as much as it is of the CPU.
I've seen a massively unrolled 6502 assembly implementation, but that kinda defeats the purpose of the benchmark.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In vbcc6502 archive in examples directory there is maybe older version of this benchmark.

Three files: dhry.h,dhry_1.c and dhry_2.c.

But readme stated this:

"I get about 75 dhrystones/s for cc65 and ~234 for vbcc on C64."

How much faster would be the 8bit Atari?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Estece said:

In vbcc6502 archive in examples directory there is maybe older version of this benchmark.

Three files: dhry.h,dhry_1.c and dhry_2.c.

But readme stated this:

"I get about 75 dhrystones/s for cc65 and ~234 for vbcc on C64."

How much faster would be the 8bit Atari?

 

The archive contains a version compiled for Atari (dhryv.com). The calculated numbers assume 60ticks/s and have to be adjusted if run in PAL. In an emulator, I get ~300 dhrystones/s for PAL and ~280 for NTSC. In the thread about gcc vs. cc65, I also compiled the dhrystone version that was used for comparison there. If I understand the tick values correctly, the results seem to be pretty much identical . User gnusto apparently built a version with ANTIC disabled and obtained about 340 dhrystones/s:

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2020 at 10:51 PM, zbyti said:

The 8051 wouldn't make a good general purpose computer due to the memory architecture.
There are no instructions to write to program memory, and you can't run code out of data memory.
 

Edited by JamesD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/3/2020 at 11:57 AM, StickJock said:

I haven't worked on an 8051 since the early 90s.  As I recall, it had a pretty nice instruction set. 😀

I vaguely remember something about general purpose registers, and it being very 8 bit... but I haven't looked at the docs in ages so I could be confusing it with something else.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to program 8051's in EFTPOS machines in the 1990's.
Generally nice enough CPU's, although they had a few quirks - just like the 6502 has a few quirks.

 

The big problem for using it in a general purpose machine is that code and RAM are in separate 64 kbyte address spaces.

Which means code cannot execute from RAM.

Which makes it hard to load programs from tape or disk.
There are ways around it (eg use RAM chips to simulate ROM and then bank switch the RAM chips between the code address space and the RAM address space) but life is harder.

But they make excellent CPU's for embedded systems running from ROM.
And having 64 kB for code and another 64 kB for RAM sure is a lot nicer than 64 kB for everything and also run faster due to less wait states (wait states for code and RAM can overlap).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for answers vbc.

So benchmark can be run on atari 8bit and its faster by 106 in the best case (ANTIC as thief disabled) thanks to vbcc6502 compiler and 1,77 Mhz Sally cpu.

Today my wooden not so modern cpu have score above 13 millions. 

This power is wasted on scripts in web browser.... and to derail forum topics.

Edited by Estece
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...