A new benchmark tool

[zombie]

I had the thought maybe we could use the minimum system requirements for NS 3.3, but I can't find any mention of them (RAM, HDD size) in the install docs. I guess they were never published for black hardware?

I remember them and it would still run on a base 8MB 030 optical cube.  You would not WANT to run it on that, but it would run.

[Rob Blessin Black Hole]

I remember them and it would still run on a base 8MB 030 optical cube.  You would not WANT to run it on that, but it would run.

We played a good prank on a kid last year with his Dad code name Gman . The kid negotiated the price with me and everything else fun stuff

Here is Neal Drive lol 68030 25Mhz with only 4Mb of ram https://youtu.be/d_JvmIGY1uw  so his hobby was making frame by frame models moving the clay characters a frame at a time a little at a time. This cube may actually have run slower than making a frame by frame animated movie.   Now his Dad's Code name Gman was much much faster and you guessed it. In the end Gman's Cube was Neal's we updated everything for him ram, motherboard and sd He was very excited to receive it with the upgrades on his birthday.! Here was the final Cube https://youtu.be/DZxWCJj0j7o

[wlewisiii]

So out of curiosity I downloaded and ran the benchmark on my Previous installations:

Previous 2.7/Linux Mint: 68040/33 Turbo Color with 128mb assigned. Factor 3.08 Mark 26.12
AMD Ryzen 3 3350U 2.1 Ghz 16gb ram

Previous 2.5/Windows 10: 68040/33 Turbo Color with 128mb assigned. Factor 3.15 Mark 26.13
AMD Ryzen 5 2400G with Radeon Vega Graphics 3.60 GHz, 16 gb ram

I now wish I could see numbers from a real Turbo Color

[crimsonRE]

Ran the benchmarks last night on my '030 NeXT Computer with 64MB RAM (am not up for dismantling the computer to drop it to 16MB) and the original 660MB HDD - I'll send the results on to Paul this evening (I hope). I have a 25MHz 040 monostation, a TurboColor and a 110MHz SPARCstation5 on which to run the benchmarks as well...

[verdraith]

I'm tempted to remove the baseline and instead just have a collection of results from various configurations.

Idea being that after NXFactor runs, it presents a bar chart comparing n known configurations with which to compare against the host on which the benchmark has been ran -- where n is a number between 1 and however many bars I can fit into the display area.

This moots the entire argument over what the ideal baseline should be.

I'm tempted to expand this idea beyond NXFactor bundle and make it a feature of the app, so that any benchmark bundle result can be compared.

For this to work, though, it's imperative that I have the complete NXFactor log, as that gives the raw non-normalised results

The CoreMark result is not normalised, so the results of that are fine on their own.

Also working on integrating iozone into the Disk I/O benchmark in a way such that individual disks can be benchmarked.  I'll post an update when that's ready to go.

[spitfire]

> Idea being that after NXFactor runs, it presents a bar chart comparing n known configurations with which to compare against the host on which the benchmark has been ran -- where n is a number between 1 and however many bars I can fit into the display area.


The Amiga benchmark sysinfo does this. Displays your relative performance next to a bunch of different systems.

[nuss]

Just wanted to add, that I also do like the Amiga sysinfo approach of comparing to different known systems

[MindWalker]

Testing my new HP 712/60, here are the results (NXFactor 4.22). Not pictured but the CPU type shows correctly as "HP PA-RISC 7100LC" (as there was some wonder about that on post #16).

[Apple2guy]

NXfactor plus a few others.. on a i7 2600 running Openstep 4.2
If you're gonna do it, Overdo it!