Main > Main Forum

4Ghz Core 2 Duo vs M.A.M.E. 0.120 (benchmark results)

Pages: << < (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.






Pages: << < (8/104) > >>

Go to full version