| Main > Main Forum |
| New Intel G3220 Socket 1150 Haswell Processor Mame |
| << < (3/12) > >> |
| s_busby_uk:
Would be amazing if you could - I'd like to be able to run it with all the bells and whistles ideally. |
| nimda79:
Here's the benchmark results on my G3220 running at Stock 3.0Ghz vs e8400 running at 3.6Ghz overclock Game G3220(@3.0Ghz) e8400 (@3.6Ghz) blitz 181 166 gauntleg 219 221 gradius4 142 125 propcycl 135 135 scud 155 86 starsldr 100 58 e8400 benchmarks attained from: http://www.mameui.info/Bench/Bench.htm Attached is screenshot of setup with benchmarks (Note: dolphin and radikalb did not run because of bad dump on my box) s_busby_uk as soon as I have a chance I'll get you a video or something of Hyperspin running. |
| stripe4:
I'm curious about the MAME version you used to benchmark G3220. Was it also 0.141? I ask you this because performance regressions (and their subsequent fixes) are nothing out of the ordinary in MAME, here's an example: http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=309357&page=16&view=expanded&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 The huge difference in scud and starsldr results was the one that made me suspicious. If MAME versions really do not match, can you please rerun the tests using 0.141? |
| nimda79:
--- Quote from: stripe4 on January 29, 2014, 04:12:22 am ---I'm curious about the MAME version you used to benchmark G3220. Was it also 0.141? I ask you this because performance regressions (and their subsequent fixes) are nothing out of the ordinary in MAME, here's an example: http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=309357&page=16&view=expanded&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 The huge difference in scud and starsldr results was the one that made me suspicious. If MAME versions really do not match, can you please rerun the tests using 0.141? --- End quote --- You are right, I tested mine on .149 I'll compile up .141 x64 for it and run again to get more "accurate" comparison. I more wanted to show it can handle the workloads more than anything but I'll get you the results. --- Quote from: ark_ader on January 29, 2014, 03:54:18 am ---Like I said pretty pathetic for a Haswell processor. ::) --- End quote --- Thank you, Captain Obvious :applaud: Still, this shows that it handles the more demanding games as I stated (and you laughed at). ;D I'd be curious how the AMD A8-5500 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor compares to this, as you have recommended it to someone back in December. http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,135997.msg1406224.html#msg1406224 |
| nimda79:
--- Quote from: stripe4 on January 29, 2014, 04:12:22 am ---I'm curious about the MAME version you used to benchmark G3220. Was it also 0.141? I ask you this because performance regressions (and their subsequent fixes) are nothing out of the ordinary in MAME, here's an example: http://www.mameworld.info/ubbthreads/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=309357&page=16&view=expanded&sb=5&o=&fpart=1&vc=1 The huge difference in scud and starsldr results was the one that made me suspicious. If MAME versions really do not match, can you please rerun the tests using 0.141? --- End quote --- Well just as I feared...my .149 rom set is too much different, so .141 won't run. I guess I'll have to install a second drive in my e8400 box and install Windows 7 x64 to give the full comparison. Bonus is that it will be stock clock speeds so it will be a true 1:1 comparison vs the benchmarks I linked to that have an OC'ed e8400. Ark_Ader, would you like a blood sample or something? Holy crap dude. I proved it runs the games that drown most systems and you still have a hard on for flaming. I'm starting to doubt you are 45 as your profile states, due to the immaturity of your comments. As I see it you have 3 options: (1) Act your age (2) admit defeat (3) stop posting flame-bait comments By the above comments, I see I am not the only one annoyed by this behavior. I really hope a mod sees this crap and puts you and your attitude where it belongs, post-hell and perma-ban. Add value or GTFO. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |