Benchmarking the Atari ST / STe / Falcon Fleet 

It's just too bad it was too little too late for Atari. Had adoption been greater they could have held on a little longer and there would have been more awesome software that took more full advantage of the capabilities.

@@powerofvintage9442 the adoption was not the real problem, this is a popular myth. In reality you could not find Falcon very easy in 1992/93, the larger numbers got into shops discounted after the production was terminated by Sam Trammell. Its being said that after he saw late PC development and the leap intel made and Motorola was almost dead, he decided to kill entire computer division to focus into console home entertainment.

For me it's just about the challenge and fun of getting it to work.

There are RAM upgrades that are "no solder" that plug into the MMU and Shifter chip sockets. These can be a bit flakey and some folks think they are long-term bad for the computer. That said, they are an option and assembled and ready to install from Exxos webstore for around 60GBP.

It’s the tinkering, and fixing that I enjoy more than anything else really.

Where it was programmed for, the STe hardware makes a difference. Unfortunately as you mention, not much took advantage of it. If it had come earlier in the lifecycle of the ST, maybe it would have made a difference...if it was an easier upgrade path for existing ST users to add the same capability, again potential for more development. Both Commodore and Atari are stories of awesomeness in the beginning and "if only" in the end.

That's awesome! I started with the 520ST myself in '86. I didn't even know the Falcon existed until about 10 years ago.

Unfortunately I don't have a Firebee available. If you have an idea of where to find one, let me know.

True, the biggest advantage with stock Falcon was the added video capability and the DSP chip. A stock Falcon can run Doom or play MP3's by leveraging the extra horsepower in that chip. In raw CPU performance...not much more versus the Mega STe.

@@powerofvintage9442 The DSP and video resolutions were definitely huge improvements! It was nice to see Atari at least kept trying to evolve the ST over time. The basic ST chipset was remade twice after 1985. Again thanks for the awesome video here!

you are all very wrong, of course if you run code with M68000 instructions only, then the Falcon is more or less overclocked ST with faster graphics. And that is what all benchmarks used in this video are... So basically a 16MHz MSTe with cache is just a tad slower then 16MHz Falcon with much faster on die cache. If the software would be compiled with 68030 in mind using additional instructions of 68030, you would see how much more powerful the stock Falcon is when compared to MSTe, 2-3x faster, at least. And MSTe is already 2x speed of stock ST, so the Falcon is way faster then ST, not evolutionary but revolutionary. We talk raw CPU performance of course.

Great point. Do you know of any software that is both compiled for the M68000 and M68030 instruction sets that would allow for a more even comparison? Would love to run that comparison!

@@powerofvintage9442 nothing comes into my mind, and Im not criticizing your video, just trying to explain that the conclusions are twisted by the fact that the code used in those programs is in no way optimized for 68030. ...and I re-watched your video, and there is one benchmark showing you the difference of computing power of Falcon and stock ST or even MSTe and all accelerators, it is the GEMBENCH but pay attention just to Integer Division. Edit: just to explain what you see, every instruction needs certain amount of cycles to complete, some just one, but on MC68000 mostly two or more, and here the double frequency generates doubled speed of execution. While the 68030 has more efficient instruction set where 68000 needs for example 6 cycles loop, the 68030 needs just 4 cycles loop or even less, given the fact that on die 512B cache helps the CPU bypass slow reads/writes to RAM, that also eat some processing time. And despite the fact the code is the same, the instructions on 68030 might be executed more efficient and therefore faster and more CPU time is free to use for other loops/instructions at the same CPU clock. The 68030 instructions that are added over the base 68000 usually do things more efficient, where you did need large loop, you can use a single execution on 68030 if compiled for the new instruction. But I dont program since 90s so I forgot most things, but the principles are as I described.

Yes, the fastram is on the add-in daughter board. The same applies to the Mega ST with the TF536. Keeping that RAM off the slower bus helps tremendously.

Unfortunately, I don't have one to test :) Send one my way and I'll be happy to!

Good question. I could be wrong, but I don't believe any of the accelerator RAM (higher speed) can be accessed by the graphics and it only speeds up any CPU tasks. This can benefit the video output, but only so much.

@@powerofvintage9442 I think youre right. What they most probably did is including both 32 bit RAM and the old 16-bit 8Mhz RAM into the CPU address map, so when ever it needs to do anything graphical, CPU accesses slow RAM, thus inserting (many) wait cycles.

Thanks! I'm fine with emulation myself...Retropi on a Raspberry Pi 2 was my gateway drug to recollecting my past. It is original hardware collecting for me since then though.

I never knew about any of the newer models myself at the time with the exception of the 1040ST...I learned about the STe, TT, and Falcon just about 10 years ago.

@@powerofvintage9442 the TT was such a disappointment for me that it made me abandon Atari after 10 loyal years in favor of a PC. I had some friends who still had some ST after that, so heard about the Falcon, its DSP or Mint (for Mint is Not TOS, later renamed Mint is Now TOS) But the ST went on a downward spiral after the release of the Amiga 500 in 1987. When the STe was released in 1989, 68000 legend Steve Bak said "''The prospect of the STE doesn't excite me: I won't even look at the machine until Atari has sold several thousand units"

I used (or previously looked for) either a BBC or Dragon 32 emulator. On AtariMania, there appears to be one for the BBC, but no software is available there for it. www.atarimania.com/list_utilities_atari_search_98.98.99._S_U.html

yep many thanks ive found one (software programs to download) but im not 2 sure how to install them into an atari st emulator?? thanks................@@powerofvintage9442

Thank you! Will adjust. Hopefully the rest of the audio was appropriate. As is apparent from my earlier videos, I am still working out my audio processes.

That's actually the intro music to Ultima VI

@@powerofvintage9442 Nice!

@@powerofvintage9442 Is that just playing out of the atari?

Yes. The music in Ultima VI is pretty good all around and plays while you are playing the game alternating through about 4 different songs

@@powerofvintage9442 I listened to a few versions on youtube with different cards and sound modules, and your one from the atari sound, to me is by far the best sounding version. Thanks. I would really like full length songs from Ultima 6 from the Atari? I am sure it would be a popular video! Thanks.

Ouch! Although there was probably a lot more software for the Mac back then.

@@powerofvintage9442 I sacrificed my Falcon so that my GF could use the SE/30 as a word processor for her studies. She ended up never using it.

If there had been enough critical mass of STe's or if the capabilities had been either provided earlier or greater when released we might have seen more. As it was with the large installed base of STFs as you point out that it was the market to chase in order to get the sales numbers.

Too little, too late. Had it been released alongside or in place of the STe, it may have had enough juice to get real software development.