User clarified the bandwidth figure is 4 Mbps (488 KB/s), not 4 MB/s -- ~8x
tighter than the previous commit reasoned against. Two consequences, plus a
correction to session 1.
1. The scsi profile committed in f0f2f80 DOES NOT FIT. Its mean is a
comfortable 52% of the pipe but it PEAKS at 96.4% (470.8 KB/s on scene
00020), and a frame that arrives late is a dropped frame, not a slow one.
Peak/mean is 1.4-1.9x even on 1.2-1.7s clips. Sizing a real-time stream on
the mean was the error. Flagged in STATUS rather than silently retuned,
because the fix is rate control, not a lower lam.
This promotes ratectl.py -- written in session 2, never wired into
encode.py -- from a loose end to the highest-value work in the repo. It is
worth a full step on the quality ladder (lam=25 -> lam=10, +0.7/+1.2 dB)
because it allows sizing for the mean instead of the peak.
2. Pixel-exact is off the table at this bandwidth: lam=0 needs 92-97% of the
pipe. The previous commit's "if SCSI sustains >=800 KB/s, ship transparent"
conclusion only applies at roughly double the user's figure.
3. FINDINGS 5 said that because transfers are DMA, streaming "costs essentially
no CPU" and the 68000 is "nearly idle". That is wrong. The HD63450 steals
~8 clocks per 16-bit word: 10-20% of the machine at the rates the profiles
now use, on top of a 38% full-frame blit. Bandwidth and CPU are one budget.
Adds tools/encoder/profile_gen.py, which derives lam FROM a bandwidth figure
(accounting for audio, peak/mean and DMA steal) instead of reading it off the
knee of the RD curve, and docs/BENCHMARK.md covering how to actually measure
the subsystem -- including why MAME cannot answer the bandwidth question and
would be the same class of error as the FINDINGS 4 traps.
The 4 Mbps figure is user-supplied and its provenance is not recorded; every
profile now hangs off it.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01194oWYW8DQXK1SZ2DnChW6
