Main > Main Forum

Phenom II vs Core 2 Duo - Benchmarks

Pages: << < (2/8) > >>

bkenobi:


--- Quote from: massive88 on December 31, 2009, 10:02:05 am ---...with the AMD crushing in the value department...

--- End quote ---
That's been AMD's MO forever.  They were a nobody when it came to power back in the day though (think 486 and early 586).  Then AMD actually made a good chip (the 686 line) and started to take market share.  Since they were cheaper and performed better, it was a no brainer to go AMD.  At this point, they don't always have a better chip but they almost always have the best bang for the buck.  I haven't run an Intel chip since I was running my P3 600 back in school.

To be fair though, Intel does have a value line that does compete with the AMD on price quite nicely.  Unfortunately, it usually lags on performance.

FrizzleFried:


--- Quote from: bkenobi on December 31, 2009, 09:54:53 am ---With the poor cooling that we know exists inside a cab, why would you overstress things by overclocking?  It seems to me that the best course of action (for a cab installation) is to get the best bang for your buck (or the fastest if that's your choice) setup and leave it at stock speeds.  Since you have to upgrade cooling anyway, adding the extra heat from overclocking would be tough to deal with short of liquid cooling, right?   :dunno

--- End quote ---

Been running my Core2Duo at 3.7ghz up from 3.00ghz since day one...going on about a year and a half now.  Plus,  who says cabs have to have poor ventilation?  All it takes is a couple 120mm fans.

solid12345:

I have an e8400 core duo that my friend OC'ed to 4.05 GHZ, nothing but a basic fan running on top of it and been using it for a year and a half with no heating problems, just amazing.  I'd love to use it as a MAME machine as it can even run Gauntlet Legends pretty damn well but alas it is much more needed for my freelance design work.

Erik:

Thanks for posting!  I was wondering about the Gauntlet Legends numbers (184%+ fps) Does it remain playable throughout or does it drop to low fps sometimes and disturb the gameplay?

u_rebelscum:

Thanks!  Great to see numbers, side to side.  I didn't think PhenomII could split with a core2 at the same Ghz.  A couple thoughts...


--- Quote from: massive88 on December 31, 2009, 09:09:13 am ---I have two very similar computers, one is running a core2 Duo at 3.2 Ghz overclock, with 2 gig ram, and WinXP 64-bit.  My other computer is running an AMD Phenom II X3 at 3.19 Ghz overclock, with 2 gig ram, and Win7 64-bit...
--- End quote ---

Close, but not quite apple to apples.  It's great to see both running at same Ghz & memory, but two core vs three core.  I'm not sure how much difference this makes, but....  A few games in mame can use 3+ cores fairly well, while most games only use the first two well.  I wonder how those better threaded games match to 2 vs 3 core numbers.  (I did a quick search for a list of well threaded games, but no luck.)  Can you run these again with -nomt, to test which games can use the extra cores more?

I'm pretty sure the OS difference it's much, as you said, but I would how much?  0%?  5%?  +2% to -2%, depending on game?


--- Quote ---I ran Mame 0.132, compiled freshly from source using Headkaze's Compiler, with the hiscore diff patch applied.  For the AMD I optomized for AMD 64, and for the Core 2 build I optimized for Core 2.  Both builds were done as well with 64-bit processor and Dual Core checked.
--- End quote ---

I wonder how mame 0.136, precompiled binary d/l from mamedev.org, compares.  (With -str, you don't have to worry about nag screens, and hiscore was removed because of the bugs it added to mame.)


--- Quote ---I ran two batteries of tests, one using 240 seconds of run time, and another using 440 seconds.  After looking at the data though, there is nothing additional provided by the additional, longer runs.
--- End quote ---

Thanks for running the longer tests.  I've been suspisous of JohnIV's 90 second tests. 


--- Quote ---Here is the string used:

vmame.exe -noautoframeskip -frameskip 0 -seconds_to_run 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -video ddraw -skip_gameinfo -effect none -nowaitvsync -noread config -mt [ROMNAME]
--- End quote ---

Why ddraw?  The default since 0.107 has been d3d, MS depreciated ddraw in dx8, and most cards are better at d3d now a days.

Than again, the mameUI benchmarks show little difference between -video none and -video d3d.  Is it the same with ddraw and your video cards?


--- Quote ---Any thoughts or additional tests anyone wants to see?

--- End quote ---

This is just a summary of the requests I put throughout my post.  Don't worry about testing all games, and 120 or even 90 seconds might be good enough, but then the time wouldn't match your prior tests.

-nomt (to see which, if any, games run anything close to 2 or 3x faster, depending CPU)
-video d3d (to see if -ddraw is slowing anything down)
Official precompiled mame 0.136 binary (not optimized).

Lastly, can you try running dolphin?  It's still primary, and you'll need mame than 0.134 or newer.  Very big CPU hog.

Again, thanks for posting the numbers!

Pages: << < (2/8) > >>

Go to full version