| Main > Main Forum |
| 4Ghz Core 2 Duo vs M.A.M.E. 0.120 (benchmark results) |
| << < (8/104) > >> |
| taz-nz:
--- Quote from: headkaze on October 30, 2007, 10:12:51 am ---Compiling Mame is quite easy. Check out Mame Compiler for a front end and installer for all the tools necessary to compile. It has options for compiling 64-bit versions etc. --- End quote --- Thanks for the link, great app by the way. Works great but as soon as I tick the 64bit option I get the error message below. Deleting Object Folder... Compiling Mame... Using Parameters PTR64=1 Compiling src/osd/windows/winwork.c... cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors src/osd/windows/winwork.c: In function 'compare_exchange_pointer': src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: implicit declaration of function 'InterlockedCompareExchange64' src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:78: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size mingw32-make: *** [obj/windows/mame/osd/windows/winwork.o] Error 1 Finished! 0 Hours 0 Minutes and 0 Seconds Elapsed. If you've got any idea what I might be doing wrong let me know. If anyone wants to compile a PM optimized 64bit version of MAME 0.120u1 for me & post it somewhere I can download it, that would be great. I did a quick test of the preformance of the standard 64bit build on MAME 0.120 under Vista 64bit and it makes a big difference, the scores not as good as the PM optimised 0.120u1 build but a lot better that the PM optimised 0.120 build, so I think there will be some killer scores from a full optimised 64 build of 0.120u1 have a look at what I mean: C2D (4.00Ghz) 70.44%, 42.26fps 0.120 i686 optimized. C2D (4.00Ghz) 74.25%, 44.55fps 0.120 PM optimized CDC (4.00GHz) 100.39%, 60.23fps 0.120u1 Pm Optimized. CDC (4.00GHz) 96.24%, 57.74fps 0.120 official 64bit build.(standard build) |
| John IV [MameUI64]:
Thanks for that 64bit run, are you fully 64bit Vista now or can you dual boot to 32bit and run an apples to apples w/ my numbers above. You can also use my official Mame32 .120u1 as the .exe and just redirect output. Thx - |
| headkaze:
--- Quote from: taz-nz on October 31, 2007, 06:17:21 am ---Deleting Object Folder... Compiling Mame... Using Parameters PTR64=1 Compiling src/osd/windows/winwork.c... cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors src/osd/windows/winwork.c: In function 'compare_exchange_pointer': src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: implicit declaration of function 'InterlockedCompareExchange64' src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:77: warning: cast from pointer to integer of different size src/osd/windows/winwork.c:78: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size mingw32-make: *** [obj/windows/mame/osd/windows/winwork.o] Error 1 Finished! 0 Hours 0 Minutes and 0 Seconds Elapsed. If you've got any idea what I might be doing wrong let me know. --- End quote --- Oh crap I never actually tested that option. After a bit of investigation I think you actually need the Windows Platform SDK and a recent DirectX SDK to compile 64-bit versions of Mame. Aparently the Windows SDK includes a VS 64-bit compiler. I will have to do another update of Mame Compiler to support this, so when I get some time I'll look into it. If MinGW can support compiling 64-bit versions of Mame, please let me know what is required to get it compiling. Thanks. |
| taz-nz:
--- Quote from: john iv on October 31, 2007, 05:13:19 pm ---Thanks for that 64bit run, are you fully 64bit Vista now or can you dual boot to 32bit and run an apples to apples w/ my numbers above. You can also use my official Mame32 .120u1 as the .exe and just redirect output. Thx - --- End quote --- No problem glab to be of help, I'm running dual boot and will do for some time to come. Ok apples for apples CPU bench test. (All 32bit benchmarks run in Windows XP Pro , 64bit benchcmarks run in Vista ultimate 64bit) I downloaded the standard build of Mame 0.119 and re-named the mame.exe to mame119.exe I downloaded the standard build of Mame 0.120 and re-named the mame.exe to mame120.exe I downloaded the souce code fore Mame 0.120 and the 0.120u1 difffile applied the diff and compiled a standard build with mingw. I then re-name the resulting mame.exe to mame120u1.exe (Sorry couldn't for the life of me get Mame32 0.120u1 to output to a txt file) Then I created a batch file called "bench.bat" to make like easy: >>>> start bench.bat <<<< mame119.exe -str 90 -video none -nosound -nothrottle -norc -nosleep %1 mame120.exe -str 90 -video none -nosound -nothrottle -norc -nosleep %1 mame120u1.exe -str 90 -video none -nosound -nothrottle -norc -nosleep %1 >>>> end bench.bat <<<< And call that by typing "bench [ROM NAME]" for the command prompt window. >>>>>> UPDATED: Now including 0.120u2 results <<<<<<< mame120u2.exe -str 90 -video none -nosound -nothrottle -norc -nosleep [ROM NAME] Anyway here are the results: CPUROMDriver 0.119 0.120 0120u1 0120u2 0.120(64bit) E6400 @ 3.4ghz crusnusa midvunit.c212.24%212.12%178.27% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzcrusnusa midvuint.c257.69%257.32%218.20%214.79%271.81% E6400 @ 3.4ghz starblad namcos21.c234.33%120.83%116.97% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzstarblad namcos21.c299.30%144.10%144.00%142.10%153.57% E6400 @ 3.4ghz gauntleg vegas.c47.92%114.97%132.38% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzgauntleg vegas.c68.91%166.17%173.07%166.03%183.42% E6400 @ 3.4ghz blitz seattle.c122.25%87.86%111.59% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzblitz seattle.c153.43%138.59%143.28%136.99%164.15% E6400 @ 3.4ghz daytona model2.c n/a86.18%87.22% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzdaytona model2.c n/a106.17%106.43%104.94%142.72% E6400 @ 3.4ghz gradius4 hornet.c60.36%79.34% n/a n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzgradius4 hornet.c116.72%164.94% n/a180.32%122.16% E6400 @ 3.4ghz radikalb gaelco3d.c77.46%76.11%95.72% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzradikalb gaelco3d.c94.25%93.97%116.77%129.44%150.07% E6400 @ 3.4ghz ridgerac namcos22.c65.56%64.73%90.77% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzridgerac namcos22.c80.00%79.54%114.89%112.44%106.77% E6400 @ 3.4ghz scud model3.c34.41%32.91%33.00% n/a n/aE6850 @ 4.0ghzscud model3.c41.21%39.60%39.56%38.93%33.81% If you have any other benchmarks you would like me to run let me know. Later I'll post In-Game benchmark result for the standard build of 64bit mame in Vista 64bit. I'm also playing around with the Microsoft SDK & Visual studio express to see if I can build a PM optimised 64bit build or Mame 0120u1. |
| taz-nz:
Well after running all the benchmarks again in Vista 64 with the standard build or 64bit MAME I have to say, 64bit is where it's at. If your serious about running MAME you should be running a 64bit OS. Check out the score for yourself you'll see what I mean. Scores with 0.120 in front were benchmarked with official I686 optimised MAME 0.120 Scores with 0.120u1 in front were benchmarked with my build of PM optimised MAME 0.120u1 Socres with 0.20 64bit in front were benchmarked with official 64bit MAME 0.120 build. - 1492 0.120 5570.54% 3342.32fps 0.120 64bit 6503.71% 3902.23fps gaelco3d.c - radikalb 0.120 88.21% 52.93fps 0.120 64bit 134.23% 0.120u1 117.74% 70.64fps - speedup 0.120 102.93% 61.76fps 0.120 64bit 157.14% 0.120u1 127.66% 76.60fps - surfplnt 0.120 91.29% 54.77fps 0.120u1 64bit 139.72% 0.120u1 112.79% 67.67fps Mediagx.c - a51site4 0.120 185.95% 111.57fps 0.120 64bit 234.34% 0.120u1 186.04% 111.62fps medvunit.c - crusnusa 0.120 225.23% 128.38fps 0.120 64bit 271.99% 0.120u1 220.16% 125.49fps - crusnwld 0.120 229.70% 130.93fps 0.120 64bit 249.66% 0.120u1 221.42% 126.21fps - offroadc 0.120 395.36% 225.36fps 0.120 64bit 425.80% 0.120u1 365.57% 208.38fps - wargods 0.120 376.85% 214.80fps 0.120 64bit 411.71% 0.120u1 330.00% 188.10fps namcos22.c - airco22b 0.120 97.73% 58.64fps 0.120 64bit 124.71% 0.120u1 110.64% 66.38fps - alpinerd (I wish I knew why this rom is so slow, I getting sick of looking at the skiers pink arse. 0.120 42.36% 25.42fps 0.120 64bit 53.37% 0.120u1 65.95% 39.57fps - cybrcomm 0.120 67.79% 40.68fps 0.120 64bit 96.65% 0.120u1 95.78% 57.49fps - cybrcycc 0.120 125.69% 75.41fps 0.120 64bit 161.28% 0.120u1 157.40% 94.44fps - propcycl 0.120 70.44% 42.50fps 0.120 64bit 96.31% 0.120u1 100.39% 60.23fps - raveracw 0.120 53.70% 32.22fps 0.120 64bit 68.33% 0.120u1 81.37% 48.82fps - ridgerac 0.120 75.84% 45.50fps 0.120 64bit 103.33% 0.120u1 108.13% 64.88fps - timecris 0.120 70.84% 42.50fps 0.120 64bit 93.17% 0.120u1 101.81% 61.09fps Seattle.c - biofreak 0.120 91.78% 55.07fps 0.120 64bit 140.22% 0.120u1 101.70% 57.97fps - blitz 0.120 122.34% 73.40fps 0.120 64bit 153.09% 0.120u1 127.38% 72.61fps - blitz2k 0.120 121.94% 69.51fps 0.120 64bit 146.08% 0.120u1 123.73% 70.52fps - blitz99 0.120 120.27% 68.55fps 0.120 64bit 142.65% 0.120u1 120.26% 68.55fps - calspeed 0.120 146.21% 83.34fps 0.120 64bit 181.91% 0.120u1 165.08% 94.10fps - carnevil 0.120 241.11% 137.43fps 0.120 64bit 287.40% 0.120u1 221.69% 126.36fps - hyprdriv 0.120 140.84% 80.28fps 0.120 64bit 185.50% 0.120u1 144.27% 82.23fps - mace 0.120 173.23% 98.74fps 0.120 64bit 217.20% 0.120u1 186.67% 106.40fps - sfrush 0.120 144.95% 82.62fps 0.120 64bit 199.68% 0.120u1 152.01% 86.64fps - wg3dh 0.120 253.19% 144.32fps 0.120 64bit 342.70% 0.120u1 265.32% 151.23fps Vegas.c - gauntdl 0.120 108.58% 61.89fps 0.120 64bit 123.46% 0.120u1 110.06% 62.73fps -gauntleg 0.120 108.57% 61.88fps 0.120 64bit 153.76% (tends to lockup) 0.120u1 111.60% 63.61fps - tenthdeg 0.120u1 62.03% 35.36fps 0.120 64bit 76.21% 0.120u1 67.42% 38.43fps model2.c - Daytona 0.120 120.15% 72.06fps 0.120 64bit 157.64% 0.120u1 120.08% 72.05fps hornet.c - gradius4 0.120 112.04% 67.91fps 0.120 92.69% 0.120u1 fails instantly with memory error Model3.c - scud 0.120 40.98% 24.59fps 0.120 64bit 33.57% 0.120u1 44.21% 26.53fps namcos21.c - starblad 0.120 140.06% 84.03fps 0.120 64bit 146.24% 0.120u1 139.95% 83.97fps (I'll edit this post and fill in the FPS tomorrow sometime, it's late and between the Pure CPU & In-Game benchmarks I've been at this almost 6 hours tonight.) Well there you go, I hope to be able to post PM opitised 64bit MAME 0.120u1 benchmarks by the end of the weekend, but that all depend how things go with compiling a 64bit build. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |