Main > Main Forum
Phenom II vs Core 2 Duo - Benchmarks
massive88:
Ill try to get around to doing some of your suggestions this weekend Robin.
Im curious as to why you would care about the non-optimized versions? The reason I went with the optimized, is that in a real world scenario, that would be the version a person would be using. Imo it doesnt matter much how each processor does the precompiled, but how well it can run mame.
I didnt know that any games used anything beyond 2 cores. Ill definitely rerun with MT off completely, that should give a fairer comparison between the two, probably should have done that in the first place. I imagine the use of mt should be a fairly consistant percentage no matter which processor, though I guess I can see that as well when I get it run.
The -ddraw flag, and in fact the entire line, was just taken straight from the 4ghz thread.
When I compared Vista to XP a while back, I was getting numbers that were within their own tolerance. IE you might get 410 421 415 running Xp, then Id run once in vista and get 412. As Win7 is supposed to be faster than Vista, but probably not faster than XP, speaking in incredibly generic terms, I think theres probably not much error there.
Ill try to grab Dolphin, though its probably not in my current set since Im at 0.132...
Peabody: Sorry I didnt test gauntlet actually playing it. I would guess its slow as on my Core2 it still plays slow, and the difference between then in the benchmark is not much. Theres a lot of FMV in the gauntlet attract screen, which probably skews the benchmarks. You could probably get a better number playing with the duration to cut it off after the max in game running.
Kman-Sweden:
Posted this in another thread earlier..
XP v.s Windows 7
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!
Now I have to start putting money aside for a major upgrade of my MameCab.
Cheers.
-Kman
u_rebelscum:
--- Quote from: massive88 on January 07, 2010, 09:23:37 am ---Ill try to get around to doing some of your suggestions this weekend Robin.
--- End quote ---
Thanks. Don't spend too much time on it, but I'd be interested in anything you're able to do.
--- Quote ---Im curious as to why you would care about the non-optimized versions?...
--- End quote ---
There are 2 reasons to test the non-optimized:
- Most people (not same as BYOACers) download a precompiled version, even 64bit. IOW, more "real world". (I'm not sure if they get the official non-optimized from mamedev.org, or if they get an optimized one from somewhere else, though.)
- I'd like to see how much the optimized version helps. In older (32 bit on P4 & athlons) versions, the difference was up to 5% speed increase, but 0%-2% was more normal, and a speed decrease wasn't unheard of, depending on game. IOW, the speed increase was usually within the margin of error. Plus the AMD optimized helped a little less than the P4 optimizations (-0.5% - 1% vs 0% - 2.5%, average IIRC).
Is it the same years later, or have things changed? Is the compiler better at optimization now? Is the AMD optimization up to the same as intel optimization now? Do some games benefit significantly more than others? Does optimization still not make a difference for most games?
:dunno
Anyway, comparing the nonoptimized & optimized is more of a test of the compiler than the CPUs, and how well it optimizes, and if the CPU makes a difference, and if people should bother with optimizing at all. ;) Not a direct test of the CPUs ability to run mame, true.
Again, not very important, but I'd like to know if what I still say in some of my posts is still true. ;D
--- Quote ---I didnt know that any games used anything beyond 2 cores. Ill definitely rerun with MT off completely, that should give a fairer comparison between the two, probably should have done that in the first place. I imagine the use of mt should be a fairly consistant percentage no matter which processor, though I guess I can see that as well when I get it run.
--- End quote ---
I can't find the thread, but IIRC Aaron has stated a few games can benifit from 3+ cores. IIRC it was one of the UDR (Universal Dynamic Recompiler) emulation that was able to, and only helped a handful of games (ie: <1% of the games). So as a general rule, saying mame doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores is fine, but AFAIK there are a few exceptions. I wish I could fine which games though. :-[
--- Quote ---The -ddraw flag, and in fact the entire line, was just taken straight from the 4ghz thread.
--- End quote ---
Which was used because it's great for backward comparability of older mames that only do ddraw, and what MameBenchmark uses. But mame has defaulted to d3d since 0.107, or 3.5 years ago.
JohnIV (mameUI) benchs with -video none and -cideo d3d because the first skips any slowdown due to the video card, and the latter is mame's default which most people use.
(BYOACers may mak up most of the ddraw'ers, though.)
I doubt there will be much difference though, so don't worry about running this if you don't want to. (it would only be interesting if there was a diference, right? ;) )
--- Quote ---Vista ... XP a ... Win7 is supposed to be faster than Vista, but probably not faster than XP, speaking in incredibly generic terms, I think theres probably not much error there.
--- End quote ---
Probably right. (only interesting if not, again ;) )
--- Quote ---Ill try to grab Dolphin, though its probably not in my current set since Im at 0.132...
--- End quote ---
Just wondering, since AFAIK it's the slowest game in mame ATM. >:D
Thanks, again! :cheers:
Deadly:
I haven't had any time to do any real benchmarking as of late but having a little time tonight I ran across this thread and thought I'd give the Dolphin compiling advantage "theory" test a go. I pretty much used JohnIV's settings ... I guess in all reality I don't feel it matters much. You just want to see a comparison between the "Simpleton Mame64 builds" VS the "BYOAC expert compiled version". <-- I had to laugh because I'm a simpleton and never tried compiling before.
So the end result: Using a stock QX6850 running the game Dolphin with a compiled MAMEUI64 ver 0.136 VS a standard release MAMEUI64 0.136 was right around 1.5% increase. Meh
IMHO for the extra work involved to compile I honestly don't see any real advantage to compiling other than skipping the nag screens. I think a person should focus on hardware optimization - I would arguably say the "need to be spot" right now is ~3.5ghz. I've run games at 3.5 and 4.2 and quite honestly I observed zero visual and audible difference in performance for instance Gauntlet legends. You drop below 3.4 and the audio starts to jah jah jah jitter ;) I'm not sold on that 4ghz mark but better to have too much than not enough I suppose. "I pulled these numbers on 3dmark" lol. Maybe I should bench dolphin on my 965 I7 hmmm..... I would imagine I'd see next to zero difference as well. I will arguably guess we've hit a brick wall until the devs learn to utilize the extra cores more efficiently. Said with love of course ;) But then again this is coming from a person who compiled Mame for the first time tonight heh
BTW special thanks to Headkaze for using his personal time to offer the GUI tool. Very nice man.
saurian333:
--- Quote from: u_rebelscum on January 07, 2010, 03:00:58 pm ---
--- Quote ---I didnt know that any games used anything beyond 2 cores. Ill definitely rerun with MT off completely, that should give a fairer comparison between the two, probably should have done that in the first place. I imagine the use of mt should be a fairly consistant percentage no matter which processor, though I guess I can see that as well when I get it run.
--- End quote ---
I can't find the thread, but IIRC Aaron has stated a few games can benifit from 3+ cores. IIRC it was one of the UDR (Universal Dynamic Recompiler) emulation that was able to, and only helped a handful of games (ie: <1% of the games). So as a general rule, saying mame doesn't benefit from more than 2 cores is fine, but AFAIK there are a few exceptions. I wish I could fine which games though. :-[
--- End quote ---
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when you're looking at an emulator, isn't it a question of whether the emulator itself will utilize the multiple cores? So technically, a game that doesn't "benefit" from 3 cores vs. 2 would still be utilizing it as the emulator allows. While there might not be a noticeable difference to the user, certain benchmarks may show a slight increase. Obviously you don't need 3 cores for Galaga, for example, but if it's using 3 cores, there should still technically be some kind of performance increase. Another factor to consider is how well your OS and any other background processes are utilizing those cores, and how that is impacting overall performance.
Just a thought; again, let me know if there's something I'm missing. I don't have any systems that close to each other (e.g. a 2.8 single core to compare with my 2.8 dual-core) to run any tests myself, so I'll have to take others' word for it. :)