Main > Main Forum
What is a good HD videocard for the current MAMES?? Need suggestions.
Kman-Sweden:
A little off-topic but what the hell...
I've been running 32-bit Windows XP Pro SP3 on a Intel Q6600 @2,4 GHz and compared that to my cabinet that's running 32-bit Windows XP Pro SP3 on a Pentium 4 @2.66GHz.
I started up Carnevil on both and tried diffrent builds of MameUIFX to see if some where better than others. O'course the Quad was a lot better. Running almost flawlessly.
Some skipping in the graphics but sound was playing at normal speed.
Yesterday I upgraded my Quad PC to 64-bit Windows 7 and compiled a 64-bit MameUIFX.
It's like day and night compared to running 32-bit XP.
So If you're running 32-bit OS on 64-bit CPU... UPGRADE! ;D
Now I have to start putting money aside for a major upgrade of my MameCab.
Cheers.
-Kman
IG-88:
Wonder if you would've got that vast of improvement by going to vista64 over win7?
u_rebelscum:
--- Quote from: IG-88 on January 07, 2010, 03:54:58 pm ---Wonder if you would've got that vast of improvement by going to vista64 over win7?
--- End quote ---
From what people say, for mame, vista 32bit is about the same as win7 32 bit, and vista 64 bit is about the same as win 64 bit.
So,
yes vista 64 bit will be faster than win7 32 bit, and
no vista 64 bit will be about the same as win7 64 bit.
That's ignoring boot time, driver issues, and other non-mame issues.
saurian333:
--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on January 07, 2010, 07:31:08 pm ---
--- Quote from: IG-88 on January 07, 2010, 03:54:58 pm ---Wonder if you would've got that vast of improvement by going to vista64 over win7?
--- End quote ---
From what people say, for mame, vista 32bit is about the same as win7 32 bit, and vista 64 bit is about the same as win 64 bit.
So,
yes vista 64 bit will be faster than win7 32 bit, and
no vista 64 bit will be about the same as win7 64 bit.
That's ignoring boot time, driver issues, and other non-mame issues.
--- End quote ---
I don't know about MAME in particular, since I never tried running it on Vista (didn't use it very long). But overall, in my experience, Win7-32 is a vast improvement, performance-wise, over Vista-64. Which was rather surprising, especially considering I was running Vista-64 on 4GB of RAM, and Win7 on 2GB.
Food for thought.
u_rebelscum:
--- Quote from: saurian333 on January 08, 2010, 01:59:53 am ---
--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on January 07, 2010, 07:31:08 pm ---...That's ignoring boot time, driver issues, and other non-mame issues.
--- End quote ---
I don't know about MAME in particular, since I never tried running it on Vista (didn't use it very long). But overall, in my experience, Win7-32 is a vast improvement, performance-wise, over Vista-64. Which was rather surprising, especially considering I was running Vista-64 on 4GB of RAM, and Win7 on 2GB.
Food for thought.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, that's what I tried to imply with the disclaimer. Win7's UI is "cleaner" (smaller, faster, and nicer) than Vista's, which helps speed up most windows apps. Mame is a different beast, though, as it doesn't use the windows UI, nor windows standard I/O API (mame uses directX & rawInput instead). Mame does benefit a little fromm the smaller memory footprint of win7 and probably other places, but the reports in don't show mame being helped nearly as much as other apps.
(Hmm, the front end will probably be helped, though.)