Computer specs for MAME

[schwefeljm]

I am building a MAME cab (obviously) and need your opinions on how I should spec the computer.

Of the newer games that I want to play, MK3 and Area 51 are at the top. I want to be able to run these so that they run at normal speed, but I don't want to overkill. My destop machine is a P4 1.5 GHz and it runs the games fine, but I am not sure was the minimum would be. I was thinking 1 GHz PIII, with at least 128 MB ram.

Can anyone here be of help?

Jason

[ripzone]

I think a 1Ghz Pentium III or an Athlon XP is just good. Use more ram. 256/512 mb minimum because you want to run newer games.

My Setup is:

Pentium III 1Ghz with 512 mb ram

 

[Minwah]

I have an Athlon 1.4Ghz 512MB and MK3 runs perfect but Area 51 struggles slightly when the background graphics are changing a lot.

I would really get the quickest you can afford as the newer games are more demanding every release...

[SirPoonga]

Just to add, you get more bang for the buck with an athlon.  Right now the most cost effective athlon is the 2100.

[eightbit]

I would say 1ghz would be minimum. A lot of other factors can come into play, not just processor speed. So don't skimp on your other components.

[s8n]

i run a 1Ghz amd w/ 256mb RAM, and have only probelms with cruisin usa. area 51/maxforce run almost flawless, mk3 and everything else run fine. killer instinct is extremely laggy, but i have some other emulator dedicated to KI and KI2 which run perfect.

[schwefeljm]

i run a 1Ghz amd w/ 256mb RAM, and have only probelms with cruisin usa. area 51/maxforce run almost flawless, mk3 and everything else run fine. killer instinct is extremely laggy, but i have some other emulator dedicated to KI and KI2 which run perfect.

It would appear that memory is more of a factor with Area51 than processor speed. I am willing to bet that has to do with the .chd

What are you guys running, Win, DOS, Linux? The RAM could prolly be lowered for both DOS and Linux, and still have the same performance.

Anyone here that can backup my assumptions?

[ashardin]

From lurking around the Mame dev forums, Memory is *very* important.  I've run mame on two Athlon machines (1300 and 1533 mhz), one with 256, and one with 384 MB of memory.  I can tell you at least 2 games will not run with 256 megs, The Fallen Angels and Strikers III.  

The machine needs the memory to load all of the graphic and sound files at the start, same with the chd.  It can be a real bottleneck for the larger and newer games.  

I would say if you are building a computer, splurge on the processor and memory, and skimp on sound and graphics cards.  

Also, has anyone noticed a slowdown on MK3 with the new version of mame (v.64)?  I have heard that they changed the sound emulation in the Midway drivers and that is slowing those games down.  I tried a few in my cab and did not see any change, but wondering what others have found.

[dac]

Followup question, I keep wanting to know what OS and what ver (mame/mame32?) is being used by those suggesting memory increases.  I think W98 can use only up to 256MB of ram? I'm not sure what the max is for DOS.  Is Linux then the best choice (to use all avail mem)?

[Mike]

First if you buying the processor don't buy a p3 1ghz it will cost you more than an athlon xp 2100. As far as the os you can use windows 2000 or xp. And I found i got better performance off them than i did off of win98 and dos. I think it has something to do with it just being more stable and better at managing memory. The primary version of mame now is designed around mame32 so if you want to play area 51 you'll probably want to use that. As far as linux I don't know i haven't set up a mame box with it so performance wise i don't know how it runs. But I'd eliminate it simply for the fact i don't want to spend time jacking with finding drivers, most FE's are written for windows, and most people's mame cabinets run windows so it will be easier to get answers to your questions.

[eightbit]

The primary version of mame now is designed around mame32

I've always been confused on the this subject. Is Mame32 the same as Windows Mame? My understanding was Mame32 is based on Windows Command line Mame but its not the same executable.

[Mike]

Basically there is mame32 with the gui interface but most people referring to mame32 are referring to the windows commandline version.

[hyiu]

I could be wrong... but I believe MAME is the dos command line version... and MAME32 is the windows version (with gui)...

[lightspeed]

MAME32: Windows binary w/ GUI.   Its a variant of.....

....WMAME, or MAMEW, or Win32MAME  = Windows binary, command line version, which is now the official default build for x86 PCs.    

There is also DOSMAME, or DMAME, which is a real mode DOS version.  This used to be the default build for x86 PCs.  

Performance-wise, when DMAME was the office build, ppl preferred Win98, which supported real mode DOS drivers.   Since the official primary build is MAMEW, most would prefer Windows XP due to better memory management and DIRECTX support (MAME utilizes DirectDraw, among other components).  XP also scales better with higher-end systems than 98, ME, etc.

I run an Athlon 1400 w/ 256 mb RAM.  I can load all games, including Strikers III, with MAME32.  

If I were you, I'd go w/ 512 mb RAM, an Athlon proc (cheaper, more bang for the buck, and from what I undertstand, better suited for emulation due to a shorter instruction pipeline), DDR memory of some sort (333mhz works fine).   Video  and sound are not too important as long as your video chipset is somewhat newer (GeForce II or Radeon level).

Keep in mind cheaper on-board video solutions are often underpowered and eat memory bandwith - I'd stay away from them.  I'm satisfied with my on-board sound, though.  

[Minwah]

Slightly contrary to some earlier comments, I actually found Windows 98 to perform better than XP in some cases.  ie nearly all my games worked at full speed under '98 (except STUN Runner / Galaxy Fight etc.), but under XP some games (eg Space Invaders '95) run pretty poorly.

I can't explain why that is, since the h/ware was the same (actually I have more RAM since I started using XP and it made squat difference to these games mentioned)...

BUT I have to say XP is a much nicer OS to use, no crashing at all (which is REALLY nice) and pretty smooth - even my fairly simple FE works a lot quicker & smoother in XP.

And just to confirm, please don't mistake MAME32 for Windows MAME.  MAME32 has a built in GUI which pretty much sucks for most of the BYOAC crowd since we don't like to see Windows  

[schwefeljm]

Anyone here have any expderiance with Linux and MAME? I am quite proficient with Linux, so I am not concerned in that regard.

I will likely go with 2K though, as I plan on running other emulators.

Messages so far have been quite helpful

[ashardin]

That's interesting Lightspeed.

I'm running win98SE and Dos Mame launching through ArcadeOS, I guess the loss of memory mgmt. is costing me resources when I try to load those two roms.  Interesting.

I guess I could change OS's or throw more hardware at it (more memory).  The second sounds like more fun!  That'll fix its shortcomings.

[lightspeed]

ashardin -

I went home and checked, just to be sure.  Strikers III does load, but it takes about 30 seconds.  Fallen Angels comes almost right up.   I'd guess the extra memory footprint required for Arcade OS and DOSMAME might be hurting you there - since these are running in a real mode DOS enviroment (with sound and video drivers), you may just be running out of RAM when trying to load.