DayStar PowerCache 50MHz IIci Performance Results

[ObeyDaleks]

MacBench scores accelerator cards way lower than the others. It seems to be affected by bus speed more.

View attachment 58195

View attachment 58196

View attachment 58197

Ahh that's interesting. My results were very similar to your screenshots. So it stands to reason that Macbench will produce similarly low scores in my case as well. I might try it anyway out of curiosity (although swapping cards and extensions is a bit of a pain hehe).

So I heard (somewhere) that Macbench is considered a more "complete" benchmark as compared to Speedometer and Norton. But if Macbench indeed favors bus over cache, is it, in all actuality, a misleading benchmark, at least when it comes to accelerators? Onboard cache was touted as a big contributor to the performance gains for accelerators of this era. The idea was that in most applications, the most frequently reused portion of the memory stack was fairly small and therefore would fit into cache. This is actually true even today and it is a known fact that CPUs with large cache will often outperform faster CPUs with smaller amount of cache (AMD Ryzen X3D series being a prime example). So, if Macbench is somehow neglecting to test those scenarios (perhaps by randomizing memory allocations), is it really a good benchmark, at least when it comes to measuring real-world performance? Just a theory.

 

[Phipli]

So I heard (somewhere) that Macbench is considered a more "complete" benchmark than the other two. But if Macbench indeed favors bus over cache, is it really a misleading benchmark, at least when it comes to accelerators? Onboard cache was touted as a big contributor to the performance gains for accelerators of this era. The idea was that in most applications, the most frequently reused portion of the memory stack was fairly small and therefore would fit into cache. This is actually true even today and it is a known fact that CPUs with large cache will often outperform faster CPUs with smaller amount of cache (AMD Ryzen X3D series being a prime example). So, if Macbench is somehow neglecting to test those scenarios (perhaps by randomizing memory allocations), it's not really a good test, at least when it comes to measuring real-world performance. Just a theory.

It depends what you want from your benchmark. I think MacBench's objective was to produce results more representitive of productivity software performance etc. So, most of the time it is more interesting.

The reason I'm not mad on it is... I'm an engineer. I do maths projects and stuff like that on my old macs and while MacBench is a black box of mystery, I understand what the Norton System Info benchmark is doing.

MacBench is trying to estimate performance you'll get in normal use, while other benchmarks are more of a... pure test of the attributes of the computer. But I don't understand why MacBench "Processor" scores are different, surely these benchmark style decisions should only impart the later simulated productivity scores?

I don't understand  why it scores differently, so shouldn't criticise without understanding. Given I've used Norton System Info for about 30 years I'm very used to its quirks and so am happy continuing to use it. If the cats leave the screen, graphics are good

Which is the final point - I want cat pictures in my benchmarks. Without them I feel sad.

 

[Hunter259]

I'm running 2.2. I am thinking of making a ram disk to force into bank b just for giggles but running in a ram disk shouldn't make any difference unless macbench did a really poor job of pre caching the test data.

Welp did that and ran system 7.1 in a ram disk using RamDisk+ with no change in results. Really zips around system 7 tho

 

[Fizzbinn]

Which is the final point - I want cat pictures in my benchmarks. Without them I feel sad.

LOL! I definitely agree. How cool would it be to find out the names of those cats, how a Norton programmer got their fluffy kitties pictures in there...

 

[pfuentes69]

Would bring any benefit combining the Daystar PowerCache with a IIci Cache Card?
I got both in a bundle (still not received and tested) and I wonder if the standalone cache card is really used as the PowerCache is expected also to bring cache.
Txs

 

[Phipli]

Would bring any benefit combining the Daystar PowerCache with a IIci Cache Card?
I got both in a bundle (still not received and tested) and I wonder if the standalone cache card is really used as the PowerCache is expected also to bring cache.
Txs

They use the same slot, you can't fit both at the same time. The PowerCache has its own cache anyway.

 

[pfuentes69]

They use the same slot, you can't fit both at the same time. The PowerCache has its own cache anyway.

Right... silly me!

Anyway... if I manage to get an adapter I'm checking about putting the Daystar in the SE/30...

 

[JC8080]

What is the difference between the universal and P33? I have a 40mhz board that says P33, and a 50mhz board that just says "Powercache". I always assumed they were essentially the same, but people in this thread are talking about them being different.

 

[ObeyDaleks]

Pretty sure the P33 is universal. Look on the other side. It should say universal in the corner. I believe these are just different revisions of the same board.

 

[David Cook]

assumed they were essentially the same

 

[David Cook]

My understanding is that Figure 21 (P33 board) is desirable over Figure 20 (original board?), in that the P33 works in a wider variety of computers (with an adapter) and that the CPU/FPU are socketed to permit upgrading to higher speeds. The Figure 22 (P34) works in a variety of computers but is not socketed.

 

[JC8080]

My understanding is that Figure 21 (P33 board) is desirable over Figure 20 (original board?), in that the P33 works in a wider variety of computers (with an adapter) and that the CPU/FPU are socketed to permit upgrading to higher speeds. The Figure 22 (P34) works in a variety of computers but is not socketed.

Very cool, thanks for the info. I didn't know that any PowerCache cards were compatible with the SE/Classic. I don't think I've ever seen an adapter card for either of those. I assume the SE/30 adapter won't fit an SE.

 

[JC8080]

Pretty sure the P33 is universal. Look on the other side. It should say universal in the corner. I believe these are just different revisions of the same board.

I checked, you are correct the P33 says universal on the back, my other card does not.

 

[pfuentes69]

Cool, so the one I got is the P33 and it will work in the SE/30 if I manage to get the adapter

 

[jessenator]

Bears repeating: if you use Bolle's SE/30 adapter, all versions of the PowerCache should work. The TwinSpark adapters will only accept Universal.

 

[pfuentes69]

Bears repeating: if you use Bolle's SE/30 adapter, all versions of the PowerCache should work. The TwinSpark adapters will only accept Universal.

Yep… I’m trying to contact him…