Main > Main Forum
4Ghz Core 2 Duo vs M.A.M.E. 0.120 (benchmark results)
<< < (11/104) > >>
divemaster127:
I purchased vista 64 yesterday as soon as I get my new quad 4 built w/vista I will also post framerates, im going to use his guide for overclocking also, much better than I have been able to do
dm
Red:
Thanks for all your hard work on the benchmarks taz. 

It's looking like my next computer purchase will finally be able to play Blitz!

Do you have to compile a 64bit build of MAME to get these results?  Or can you just run regular MAME 64?

Did I miss it in the thread that said why you were compiling MAME 64?  I'm new to MAME and just don't understand the whole compiling stuff and why one would want to do it if the MAME devs have already done it for us with MAME 64.

Also, what's better for 64 bit MAME- Windows XP or Vista?  Thanks guys.

Red
John IV [MameUI64]:

--- Quote from: Haze on November 04, 2007, 09:33:55 am ---could you benchmark this? http://www.mameworld.net/maws/set/puzzlekg  (Puzzle King Dance & Puzzle.. by Eolith)


I'd be interested to know how well it performs on the 4ghz machine, yes, it's a simple 2d game, but it pushes the e132xs (hyperstone) core pretty hard, so the speedups have little effect.

--- End quote ---

This is at 3.5Ghz
mame32 -str 90 -video none -nosound -nothrottle -norc -nosleep puzzlekg
Average speed: 95.19% (89 seconds)

About 85% during gameplay part of demo.
taz-nz:

--- Quote from: Haze on November 04, 2007, 09:33:55 am ---could you benchmark this? http://www.mameworld.net/maws/set/puzzlekg  (Puzzle King Dance & Puzzle.. by Eolith)


I'd be interested to know how well it performs on the 4ghz machine, yes, it's a simple 2d game, but it pushes the e132xs (hyperstone) core pretty hard, so the speedups have little effect.

--- End quote ---

Core 2 Duo E6850 @4.0ghz running

Puzzlekg:
MAME32 01.20u2 (32bit)            119.68%           71.81fps
MAME32 01.20u2 (64bit)            109.00%           65.40fps

Go figure, who would have thought such a simple game could eat up so much processor time to emulate. But since most of the in game screen is static, it should be playable even at those scores as your unlikely to see wild swings in frame rate while playing.


--- Quote from: divemaster127 on November 04, 2007, 09:37:16 am ---I purchased vista 64 yesterday as soon as I get my new quad 4 built w/vista I will also post framerates, im going to use his guide for overclocking also, much better than I have been able to do
dm

--- End quote ---

I'm very interested to see what you overclocked scores are, I ran a set of benchmarks on a stock Q6600 today (results below) at I got more questions than answers out of do it.

Pure CPU benchmarks for Q6600 @2.4ghz, 4gb, 8800gts, Vista 64

CPUROMDriver   0.120u2(64) E6400 @ 3.5ghz    crusnusa   midvunit.c220.81%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzcrusnusa   midvuint.c269.31%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    crusnusa   midvunit.c139.86%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    starblad   namcos21.c127.74%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzstarblad   namcos21.c150.71%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    starblad   namcos21.c90.47%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    gauntleg   vegas.c163.50%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzgauntleg   vegas.c191.32%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    gauntleg   vegas.c133.76%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    blitz   seattle.c145.63%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzblitz   seattle.c185.35%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    blitz   seattle.c128.91%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    daytona   model2.c120.89%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzdaytona   model2.c140.42%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    daytona   model2.c83.73%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    gradius4   hornet.c79.57%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzgradius4   hornet.c125.69%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    gradius4   hornet.c65.95%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    radikalb   gaelco3d.c163.93%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzradikalb   gaelco3d.c200.22%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    radikalb   gaelco3d.c109.55%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    ridgerac   namcos22.c147.79%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzridgerac   namcos22.c194.55%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    ridgerac   namcos22.c33.74%   E6400 @ 3.5ghz    scud   model3.c28.48%   E6850 @ 4.0ghzscud   model3.c33.89%   Q6600 @ 2.4ghz    scud   model3.c20.16%   
I'm not sure what to make of these results, for most of the result the Q6600 results are in keeping with MAME scaling with CPU clock, but the score are almost those I like those I would expect from a 2.4ghz Core 2 Duo, there is not sign of any preformance gain on the Multi-thread drivers even though all 4 core were being used to about 75%+ load on average. 

But the really weird result is from ridgerac, which tanks total on the quad core.

I guess we will have to wait for more Quad core benchmarks at a couple of different CPU clocks before we get any real idea of a preformance pattern for Quad Core CPUs. (I've got a feeling the low FSB bus speed and thus limited FSB bandwidth is getting in the way of the Quad core really preforming)


--- Quote from: Red on November 04, 2007, 12:24:13 pm ---Thanks for all your hard work on the benchmarks taz. 

It's looking like my next computer purchase will finally be able to play Blitz!

--- End quote ---

Thanks, I'm just glad people are get some use out of all it, and hope this put the myth that you need a 10ghz CPU to run CHD rom to rest once and for all.

If your not buying until next year the Intel Yorkdale (quad) and Wolfdale (dual) cored processors look like to hold a lot of potential for overclocking and may make 4.5ghz & 5.0ghz overclocks possible. (without the ultra extreme cooling) I don't think anyone here is going to be running out to buy a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 any time soon, so we will have to wait and see what happens next year.


--- Quote from: Red on November 04, 2007, 12:24:13 pm ---Do you have to compile a 64bit build of MAME to get these results?  Or can you just run regular MAME 64?

Did I miss it in the thread that said why you were compiling MAME 64?  I'm new to MAME and just don't understand the whole compiling stuff and why one would want to do it if the MAME devs have already done it for us with MAME 64.

--- End quote ---

I currently using standard MAME32 0.120 builds by John IV for both 64 & 32 bit benchmarks.

All the official builds are non-optimised so they will run on any CPU, but by compiling your our build you can optimised the builds to the processor your using and thus gain an extra few percent in the benchmark scores, using a PM optimised build on a Core 2 Duo appears to add 5-8% to your scores.

I'd also like to start playing with the source to see if I can get to know it a bit and may help out in the future.


--- Quote from: Red on November 04, 2007, 12:24:13 pm ---Also, what's better for 64 bit MAME- Windows XP or Vista?  Thanks guys.

Red

--- End quote ---

To tell the truth I'm not a huge fan of Vista, but it has been growing on me, I much prefer Windows XP as my main OS. But in saying that I'd have to say get Vista 64 for a couple of pratical reasons, 64bit XP never really took off and driver support for it is fairly limited, where as Vista 64 is fairly well supported and I expect that will only improve with time, 64bit XP also still retains some rather nasty memory addressing limitations for 32bit windows that Vista 64bit does away with.

You can always run dual boot like myself if you can't live with Vista on a full time basis.


 

Tiger-Heli:

--- Quote from: taz-nz on November 05, 2007, 03:57:51 am ---Thanks, I'm just glad people are get some use out of all it, and hope this put the myth that you need a 10ghz CPU to run CHD rom to rest once and for all.

--- End quote ---
In fairness, I believe Aaron originally posted the 10ghz spec when people were struggling with Pentium 4's and Athlon's at less than 2 or 2.5 Ghz.  This was before Quad-core or even C2D or A64 had come to market.

I suspect your quad-core at 4 Ghz, is roughly equivalent to one of the processors of the time running at 10 Ghz.

I appreciate all the testing and all the gains made by MameDev, though!!!
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page

Go to full version