Intel vs. AMD (MAME Emulation)

[c0dehunter]

Hello,
I just build a custom PC with the following components:

AMD FX-4100 Zambezi 3.6GHz
ASRock 880GM-LE FX motherboard
MSI HD 4350 Radeon
8GB DDR3 RAM
Windows XP Professional x86


And I wanted to know if my system (CPU specifically) is fast enough for a MAME gaming experience. I posted this message on the official MAMEWorld forums, and the user/moderator (programmer of MAMEUI?)John IV responded as such:

"Games benefit more from x64 builds of MAME running on 64bit operating systems. Some games do *a lot* better on Intel solutions. THat said you should be fine for 90%+ of Mame games at that speed.

See some bench runs below.
http://www.mameui.info/Bench.htm"

The thing that I don't understand is that how can a 31 years old game, such as FROGGER run any faster/better on an Intel platform and 'smoke' an AMD system?

I was under impression that MAME relies only on pure CPU speed (and not other fancy modern CPU features). My AMD FX-4100 Zambezi is 3.6GHz which can be run at 4.00Ghz with turbo and proper overclocking. Isn't 4.00GHz not good enough for MAME?

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated! 

[404]

I personally stopped looking at mame benchmarks a long time ago. I don't believe any benchmarks are going to give you a good indication of exactly how a game is going to run on YOUR particular hardware. Every hardware config is different. In my opinion, i think it all boils down to running the game on your hardware. If it runs at 100%, why bother with any other benchmarks.

You have to understand that Mame, as with many emulators is geared towards accuracy. Mame always goes through changes in order to continue the quest to make a more accurate emulator. Mame focuses on emulating the original hardware and not necessarily emulating the game. Arcades of the time used many different chips in many different configurations none of which are anything like modern day Intel, AMD or other x86 processors. There are times where mame basically has to emulate as many as a dozen different chips that were contained on one arcade board in order for a game to run.

With that said, I found that even modern day mame builds can easily run nearly all non 3D games on a sub 2.0ghz single core processor. If you want to simply run the classics, you can use older versions of mame which have less updates to the rendering engine. Starting with build 0.107, mame used a brand new rendering engine which required more CPU power to run games that were already running at 100%

As for Intel vs AMD. It is true and it is what it is. I personally use AMD for nearly everything. Using a 64bit OS and 64bit builds of mame helps as well.

[capsule]

My current 1UP MAME cab runs fine on an AMD Athlon XP 2500+.
As a reference, KI runs almost smoothly. Anything below (like Metal Slug X, SF2 Alpha 3, ...) runs like a charm.

MAME runs probably better on Intel out of the box because it's optimized for Intel CPUs but you could recompile it and optimize it for AMD CPUs.

My new cab will run an AMD A8 3800 series, I'm pretty sure it won't make any difference with an Intel equivalent, certainly not to run frogger 

[mytymaus007]

i5 2500K $100 even more power i7 2600K best bang for your buckjust as good as the highest end i7's. AMD are they still around!

[Haze]

AMD have been lagging quite badly behind for a while now in terms of raw performance.

They also seem to have hedged their bets on multi-core / threaded performance rather than individual core performance more strongly than Intel which is no good at all for MAME / emulation (which for most cases relies on the performance of just a single core)

running a 32-bit version of XP on a 64-bit system with 8gb of RAM is just stupid however you look at it tho, you're just throwing a very significant amount of your cash down the drain.

[nick3092]

running a 32-bit version of XP on a 64-bit system with 8gb of RAM is just stupid however you look at it tho, you're just throwing a very significant amount of your cash down the drain.

+1 to this.  Half of your memory is sitting there doing nothing on a 32-bit OS.  You should really consider a 64-bit OS.  I've never used XP64, but I've heard it has poor driver support.  I personally use 64-bit 7 on any PC I've built in the last ~3 years.

[mytymaus007]

Windows 7 is the best OS that microsoft has made hands down64bit of course

[BadMouth]

The thing that I don't understand is that how can a 31 years old game, such as FROGGER run any faster/better on an Intel platform and 'smoke' an AMD system?

Frogger will run the same on an i2500k or the cheapest single core budget CPU.
Same goes for all the classics and 2D fighters.

It's not until you get to the 3D games that you will see the difference.
(The CPU is emulating both a faster processor and the 3D video card that was in the original machine).
If you can run NFL Blitz at full speed, you're doing better than most.
If you can run Ridge Racer at full speed, you're among the best.

As far as flagship CPU models go, Intel is way out front and the architecture is so small now that there isn't much room for AMD to leapfrog again.
Look at some of the charts on tomshardware for unbiased performance tests and see how your processor stacks up:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/benchmarks,112.html

That said, everything I've built for emulation or jukebox has used an AMD because it provided a better value at the time.
I have 3.4Ghz Athlon X3 budget builds (around $250 for the whole PC) in two of my setups and they run everything but the most demanding 3D games.
(Tekken 3 runs fine, NFL Blitz is playable, but has some sound issues.  Ridge Racer isn't playable.)

Right now, it isn't worth it to me to spend hundreds more just to have 3 or 4 more games playable.
(and another batch on the edge of playable    )
You are never going to have everything in MAME playable at 100% speed.  It's just not possible.
There will always be things that are emulated before there are computers fast enough to run the emulation at full speed.

I'd put the number you'll be fine at much higher than 90%.
Seriously, there are probably only going to be three or four games that you'd even think of playing that won't run at 100% on your computer,
but would on an i2500k.

[c0dehunter]

running a 32-bit version of XP on a 64-bit system with 8gb of RAM is just stupid however you look at it tho, you're just throwing a very significant amount of your cash down the drain.

Windows 7 is the best OS that microsoft has made hands down64bit of course

Not when I am running CRT_Emudriver and 15KHz. They don't have support for Windows x64 bit.

[nick3092]

I am not familiar with either of these as I am not running an arcade monitor (assuming they are based on the 15kh reference). But unless they are actual drivers, it is a moot point.  You can still run 32 bit apps under a 64 bit os.

And even if that's not the case, you still wasted money on the extra 4gb of memory.

[c0dehunter]

I have ton of extra memory modules, so that is not an issue. I know that WinXP x32 bit can no utilize more than 3GB memory. Yes, for real arcade monitors, when using 15Khz, you need WinXP, Win7 messed up the resolutions badly.
See here:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=120336.msg1276183#msg1276183

I am using my AMD machine with a Commodore 1084S-D1 RGB monitor (connected via a custom made VGA->RGB cable) and the image quality is astounding, very much like the actual arcade games.

My main interests are good ol' 2D games (shooters, fighting) and who cares if my setup can't run a handful of newer 3D games. If I wanted to play those, I would play them on my other machine (Intel i7, GEFORCE 570).

Thanks!

[paigeoliver]

The thing that I don't understand is that how can a 31 years old game, such as FROGGER run any faster/better on an Intel platform and 'smoke' an AMD system?

Frogger will run the same on an i2500k or the cheapest single core budget CPU.
Same goes for all the classics and 2D fighters.

It's not until you get to the 3D games that you will see the difference.
(The CPU is emulating both a faster processor and the 3D video card that was in the original machine).
If you can run NFL Blitz at full speed, you're doing better than most.
If you can run Ridge Racer at full speed, you're among the best.

And that is where the point of the whole thing sort of breaks down for me. The 3D era games are 75 percent driving, 15 percent sports and maybe 10 percent "Other". Specialty controls are the norm for most of them, which means even if you can play them, you probably still can't play them. Then the final nail in the coffin is the fact that the 3D era arcade titles didn't age well at all. Why emulate Blitz or Ridge Racer on a $3000 system when you can buy pc games in the same genre that absolutely blow those titles away in nearly all aspects and that will run on a $200 budget system.

[MonMotha]

I still love the old NFL Blitz titles.  I think it's aged rather well.  The graphics suck by modern standards, of course, but it's still really fun to play, and I think the control schema is more fun (if more clumsy) than the schema used on modern console football sim titles, including the new Blitz games (which are fun in their own right).

As for AMD vs. Intel, if you want a performance desktop, there's little reason to buy AMD right now.  AMD is currently shining in the integrated CPU/GPU market (which can be handy in laptops and low cost systems), low power (Bobcat e.g. E-350) with decent performance (it'll blow the Atom 5xx series away, though apparently the new Atoms are actually worth something), or if you want a low cost system with "enterprise" features like full virtualization (including IOMMU), ECC RAM, etc., which you can get on mid-range AMD parts but have to buy expensive Xeons from Intel to get.

The new "Bulldozer" architecture does shine on certain workloads, but in general, an Ivy Bridge will kick its butt in terms of sheer performance.

[nick3092]

Why emulate Blitz or Ridge Racer on a $3000 system when you can buy pc games in the same genre that absolutely blow those titles away in nearly all aspects and that will run on a $200 budget system.

Nostalgia. Sure, I can play GT5 in my PS3. But that doesnt bring back the feeling I had playing Ridge Racer at Aladdin's Castle. Actually, by your logic, we shouldnt play any emulated games.

In fact, we should just tell MAME dev to stop. There are better games available now, so why bother?

[mytymaus007]

The thing that I don't understand is that how can a 31 years old game, such as FROGGER run any faster/better on an Intel platform and 'smoke' an AMD system?

Frogger will run the same on an i2500k or the cheapest single core budget CPU.
Same goes for all the classics and 2D fighters.

It's not until you get to the 3D games that you will see the difference.
(The CPU is emulating both a faster processor and the 3D video card that was in the original machine).
If you can run NFL Blitz at full speed, you're doing better than most.
If you can run Ridge Racer at full speed, you're among the best.

As far as flagship CPU models go, Intel is way out front and the architecture is so small now that there isn't much room for AMD to leapfrog again.
Look at some of the charts on tomshardware for unbiased performance tests and see how your processor stacks up:
http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/desktop-cpu-charts-2010/benchmarks,112.html

That said, everything I've built for emulation or jukebox has used an AMD because it provided a better value at the time.
I have 3.4Ghz Athlon X3 budget builds (around $250 for the whole PC) in two of my setups and they run everything but the most demanding 3D games.
(Tekken 3 runs fine, NFL Blitz is playable, but has some sound issues.  Ridge Racer isn't playable.)

Right now, it isn't worth it to me to spend hundreds more just to have 3 or 4 more games playable.
(and another batch on the edge of playable    )
You are never going to have everything in MAME playable at 100% speed.  It's just not possible.
There will always be things that are emulated before there are computers fast enough to run the emulation at full speed.

I'd put the number you'll be fine at much higher than 90%.
Seriously, there are probably only going to be three or four games that you'd even think of playing that won't run at 100% on your computer,
but would on an i2500k.

My bad if you want to play mostly classic games common sense you can use an older system (AMD , intel) what ever! and use an older version of MAME i think .106 and before. Bbut if plan to go the extra mile and you are spending money already on your entire cabinet which if you do it nice it will cost a nice penny you might as well spend a couple of dollars more to future proof you arcade cabinet. OH i forgot to mention if you plan on running any of the new console emulators and a front end thats is the only worthy one to run (Hyperspin) then youll want an i5 intel Mines runs amazing never an issue!

[SlammedNiss]

Ok , I hate to bump an old thread, but im buying my cpu tomorrow and need to know which one will be better for what I need. Will mame take advantage of a 2.7 x6 cpu or should I get the 3.6 x4 for $10 less?  Does mame even take advantage of that many cores?

[Gatt]

Ok , I hate to bump an old thread, but im buying my cpu tomorrow and need to know which one will be better for what I need. Will mame take advantage of a 2.7 x6 cpu or should I get the 3.6 x4 for $10 less?  Does mame even take advantage of that many cores?

No,  Mame won't really use 6 cores at this time,  and doesn't really do much with 4 cores.  I'd recommend going with a 2600k Sandy Bridge or it's Ivy Bridge equivalent if you want to play 3D era games.  I would only recommend AMD if you aren't going to play anything from the 3D era.  If you do want to play 3D era games,  the Intels are a much better choice.  For reference,  my 2600k naturally overclocks to 4.3ghz stable,  and runs all but the most challenging drivers at 100%.

[wesbrown18]

Ok , I hate to bump an old thread, but im buying my cpu tomorrow and need to know which one will be better for what I need. Will mame take advantage of a 2.7 x6 cpu or should I get the 3.6 x4 for $10 less?  Does mame even take advantage of that many cores?

My AMD Llano A8 3870K at quad 3.0ghz works fine for Soul Calibur and Tekken 2 on 64-bit Linux. Get the higher clock speed quad core for $10 less.  That will benefit MAME far more.  With four cores, I see MAME use up to two cores, with things like the X11 graphics display server using a fraction of a core.

You don't need to spend more on Intel systems.

[SlammedNiss]

Ok , I hate to bump an old thread, but im buying my cpu tomorrow and need to know which one will be better for what I need. Will mame take advantage of a 2.7 x6 cpu or should I get the 3.6 x4 for $10 less?  Does mame even take advantage of that many cores?

No,  Mame won't really use 6 cores at this time,  and doesn't really do much with 4 cores.  I'd recommend going with a 2600k Sandy Bridge or it's Ivy Bridge equivalent if you want to play 3D era games.  I would only recommend AMD if you aren't going to play anything from the 3D era.  If you do want to play 3D era games,  the Intels are a much better choice.  For reference,  my 2600k naturally overclocks to 4.3ghz stable,  and runs all but the most challenging drivers at 100%.

I would, but I'm building this thing on a budget and the MB I got from a free-after-rebate offer a few months back. My only other choice would be a Core2 Duo I already have sitting around that I was originally going to use. while I love my 2500k i5 I currently use as my main PC, I really can't afford to invest that much into another Intel CPU at this time.

[Diet_Pepsi]

Ok , I hate to bump an old thread, but im buying my cpu tomorrow and need to know which one will be better for what I need. Will mame take advantage of a 2.7 x6 cpu or should I get the 3.6 x4 for $10 less?  Does mame even take advantage of that many cores?

What model numbers are we talking about?  If, say, you ask me to choose between the phenom 1045t and the phenom 965, for mame use, I would choose the 965 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

What c2d do you have lying around?  Depending on what games you are looking to play that cpu may be able to handle the job and save you some cash.

[404]

I believe you can compile your own version of mame to add support for more cores.

[ark_ader]

Buy Intel and you will not be disappointed.

[RyoriNoTetsujin]

No,  Mame won't really use 6 cores at this time,  and doesn't really do much with 4 cores.  I'd recommend going with a 2600k Sandy Bridge or it's Ivy Bridge equivalent if you want to play 3D era games.  I would only recommend AMD if you aren't going to play anything from the 3D era.  If you do want to play 3D era games,  the Intels are a much better choice.  For reference,  my 2600k naturally overclocks to 4.3ghz stable,  and runs all but the most challenging drivers at 100%.

This. Mame does in fact already utilize multiple cores - especially on the 3D games.  If you want currently-playable 3D games running 100%, you want Intel quad core running at a minimum 3.3ghz (MAYBE 3.1ghz, I haven't tested...) across all four cores.  In other words; i5-2500K at stock speeds, or better.  Check your turbo boost frequency tables here and here...)

I would say if you really want to give yourself some CPU overhead, wait until the Haswells are released in June. ~10% CPU increase over Ivy Bridge (+10% more over Sandy), a lower overall TDP, significant iGPU increase (my 2500K already runs PS2 emulation near perfect), approximately same price as current Ivy Bridge... and you can do the math yourself. Even I'm planning on upgrading, and I've NEVER done that so quickly between generations!

[Gatt]

No,  Mame won't really use 6 cores at this time,  and doesn't really do much with 4 cores.  I'd recommend going with a 2600k Sandy Bridge or it's Ivy Bridge equivalent if you want to play 3D era games.  I would only recommend AMD if you aren't going to play anything from the 3D era.  If you do want to play 3D era games,  the Intels are a much better choice.  For reference,  my 2600k naturally overclocks to 4.3ghz stable,  and runs all but the most challenging drivers at 100%.

This. Mame does in fact already utilize multiple cores - especially on the 3D games.  If you want currently-playable 3D games running 100%, you want Intel quad core running at a minimum 3.3ghz (MAYBE 3.1ghz, I haven't tested...) across all four cores.  In other words; i5-2500K at stock speeds, or better.  Check your turbo boost frequency tables here and here...)

I would say if you really want to give yourself some CPU overhead, wait until the Haswells are released in June. ~10% CPU increase over Ivy Bridge (+10% more over Sandy), a lower overall TDP, significant iGPU increase (my 2500K already runs PS2 emulation near perfect), approximately same price as current Ivy Bridge... and you can do the math yourself. Even I'm planning on upgrading, and I've NEVER done that so quickly between generations!

I've actually been researching things to get a handle on whether or not to upgrade to Haswell,  and my research has indicated that Ivy Bridge is only a situational improvement over Sandy Bridge.  If you look in the charts c0dehunter linked up higher and navigate to the 2012 ones,  Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge show largely the same performance.  From what I've read,  Haswell's only a 5%-15% increase over Ivy Bridge,  so I really think it's a pretty huge expense for a small gain.

That said,  if you're using the on-die GPU,  then it's a no brainer,  Haswell is the way to go.  But with a discrete card,  things get a lot more muddy from the information currently available.

[SlammedNiss]

I appreciate all the replies. Also, considering this is a build-on-a-budget, purchasing an Intel CPU at this time is not in budget, as I'd also have to purchase a new MB (I already have a compatible AM2/AM3 MB that I got for free). With that said, I've decided to go ahead a hold off on buying one at this time, at least until I'm further along in the project and can see a light at the end of the tunnel. There are many moons that need to align before this project gets even close to being completed.

What model numbers are we talking about?  If, say, you ask me to choose between the phenom 1045t and the phenom 965, for mame use, I would choose the 965 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

What c2d do you have lying around?  Depending on what games you are looking to play that cpu may be able to handle the job and save you some cash.

I was looking at the 1045T X6 and the FX4100 X4, as my MB only supports up to 95w CPU's. My c2d is a 2.2ghz w/ 2gb of ram.

[wesbrown18]

I appreciate all the replies. Also, considering this is a build-on-a-budget, purchasing an Intel CPU at this time is not in budget, as I'd also have to purchase a new MB (I already have a compatible AM2/AM3 MB that I got for free). With that said, I've decided to go ahead a hold off on buying one at this time, at least until I'm further along in the project and can see a light at the end of the tunnel. There are many moons that need to align before this project gets even close to being completed.

What model numbers are we talking about?  If, say, you ask me to choose between the phenom 1045t and the phenom 965, for mame use, I would choose the 965 every day of the week and twice on Sundays.

What c2d do you have lying around?  Depending on what games you are looking to play that cpu may be able to handle the job and save you some cash.

I was looking at the 1045T X6 and the FX4100 X4, as my MB only supports up to 95w CPU's. My c2d is a 2.2ghz w/ 2gb of ram.

Seriously, if all you can afford is an AMD, then get an AMD.  People on this thread keep acting as if AMD was dog ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- -- it isn't.  The price/performance ratio is far superior to Intel -- Intel *will* give you better performance, but it is also far more costly on the low end.

The question that you asked was 'which AMD processor' -- the answer is, the higher clocked, the better.  You will do better with four cores at higher clocks than six cores at lower clocks.  I use a quad-core AMD Llano A8, which isn't even quite as fast as a Phenom, and it's enough to play the 3D games that I want to play without breaking a sweat.  Mind you, this was on Linux -- the rest of y'all may be getting different results from me because of Windows.

Don't wait too long on the processor, unless you are planning on a different motherboard later.  I've observed that once RAM and CPUs get past a certain point, it actually gets more expensive to acquire new until it becomes an antique.

[WindDrake]

The 6-Core FX-6200 AMD CPU should pretty much smash anything you come across.

AMD makes great hardware. Not sure why people dog on it so hard. I run my company's engineering department (laptop/desktop repair, my department does the component level. PCB, and BGA repair) and I'd much rather deal with an AMD board than an Intel.

ICH8-10 were great, but the manufacturing quality on the H55/57, H65/67, and H75/77 have been pretty terrible (Huron River, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge).

AMD on the other hand has been consistently putting out tough, dependable hardware once they got out of the IXP450/460 Mobile Era (5+ years ago).

Sure, this is in my line of work, but when you're judging for reliability as well as speed, these are important things to know.

[SlammedNiss]

Seriously, if all you can afford is an AMD, then get an AMD.  People on this thread keep acting as if AMD was dog ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- -- it isn't.  The price/performance ratio is far superior to Intel -- Intel *will* give you better performance, but it is also far more costly on the low end.

The question that you asked was 'which AMD processor' -- the answer is, the higher clocked, the better.  You will do better with four cores at higher clocks than six cores at lower clocks.  I use a quad-core AMD Llano A8, which isn't even quite as fast as a Phenom, and it's enough to play the 3D games that I want to play without breaking a sweat.  Mind you, this was on Linux -- the rest of y'all may be getting different results from me because of Windows.

Don't wait too long on the processor, unless you are planning on a different motherboard later.  I've observed that once RAM and CPUs get past a certain point, it actually gets more expensive to acquire new until it becomes an antique.

You know, you're right. I'm just gonna have the wife stop by Micro Center and pick up the FX4100 tomorrow on her way home from a friends. They're the cheapest @ $70, where Newegg and TD are both $30+ more. I'll just sell off the C2D I was going to use to offset the cost. I don't see where going from a duo 2.2 to a quad 3.6 for little to no upgrade costs is a bad thing. Besides that, it looks like the OEM heatsink+fan will net me another $20 or so on the'Bay.

[404]

just compile your own mame build and set the flags for the processor and cores of your choice.

http://www.headsoft.com.au/?category=mame&page=mc64

[wesbrown18]

The 6-Core FX-6200 AMD CPU should pretty much smash anything you come across.

AMD makes great hardware. Not sure why people dog on it so hard. I run my company's engineering department (laptop/desktop repair, my department does the component level. PCB, and BGA repair) and I'd much rather deal with an AMD board than an Intel.

ICH8-10 were great, but the manufacturing quality on the H55/57, H65/67, and H75/77 have been pretty terrible (Huron River, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge).

AMD on the other hand has been consistently putting out tough, dependable hardware once they got out of the IXP450/460 Mobile Era (5+ years ago).

Sure, this is in my line of work, but when you're judging for reliability as well as speed, these are important things to know.

Amen to this.  For my $DAYJOB, we have literally hundreds of AMD 6200 and 6300's in a high density blade environment.  Intel offers more perforce, but would have cost us quadruple.  The CPUs have been reliable with 24x7 pedal to the metal operations - other things like the RAM and the motherboard and the Infiniband NIC have failed, but not the CPUs.

You know, you're right. I'm just gonna have the wife stop by Micro Center and pick up the FX4100 tomorrow on her way home from a friends. They're the cheapest @ $70, where Newegg and TD are both $30+ more. I'll just sell off the C2D I was going to use to offset the cost. I don't see where going from a duo 2.2 to a quad 3.6 for little to no upgrade costs is a bad thing. Besides that, it looks like the OEM heatsink+fan will net me another $20 or so on the'Bay.

Right.  You were looking at $200+ for comparable performance in the form of a new motherboard and CPU from Intel.