Upgrading hardware HELP

[acidblue0]

I have a P4 2.8 and it's just not enough to play the games I really wanbt to play. What cpu do I need so I can run games like blitz etc?

[protokatie]

You wont be able to play most of the newer 3d games on existing hardware. I have read a few threads here where people had really really souped up machine and could just barely play blitz. You could try FastMAME, you may get more mileage with that.

[acidblue0]

So I will be wasting my money and time getting a super fast cpu etc?

[saurian333]

So I will be wasting my money and time getting a super fast cpu etc?

Depends on which games you're trying to play...

What protokatie was getting at is the fact that many games won't play on even the best machines.  If you list a few specifics, some of us might be able to help you out.

This actually reminds me of an idea I had; if it doesn't already exist (if it does, where is it?), there should be a wiki page or some other outlet where we can submit and compile our results for things like this.  It would be nice to try and get a fairly complete listing of what kind of system a particular game runs well on.  It would be a pretty big undertaking, since that varies a lot by MAME version, and PC hardware varies greatly.  I thought it would be an interesting thing to look into, though.

Perhaps just a thread where people can post their system specs with a list of games that don't run well for them would be a good start...?

[HaRuMaN]

Just build the fastest computer your budget will allow, and go from there.

[acidblue0]

I like to be able to play blitz. But I see your piont

[northerngames]

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=72776.0

[acidblue0]

I'm thinking heavy on getting a AMD Phenom II X4 965 Black Edition Quad Core Processor - 3.40GHz, Socket AM3, 6MB Cache, 2000MHz. This ought to make those roms screams!

[Thenasty]

Try this CPU. This might play it flawlessly, but then again, I might be wrong 


http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0312975

[acidblue0]

LOL 1000 bucks ouch

[acidblue0]

I found a good deal on a AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz Quad Core. Will this run blitz?

[northerngames]

uhh that link showed all the blitz ruuning in over drive with a cpu way less then what you guys are into now.

[u_rebelscum]

I found a good deal on a AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz Quad Core. Will this run blitz?

Check this thread benching a phenom II x3 3.2 Ghz out.  I think your 3.0 Ghz will be fast enough in general if you use a 64 bit OS & mame, but will have a few slow down spots.  Overclocking might help.

This actually reminds me of an idea I had; if it doesn't already exist (if it does, where is it?), there should be a wiki page or some other outlet where we can submit and compile our results for things like this....

Well, there's the old mame benchmark site.  The problems with it are:

• The recomended options are out of date, and don't reflect what most people use anymore
• You have to convert from the 100% current mame outputs to fps that older mame's output
• It doesn't have much data on current versions of mame
• It doesn't have much data on current computer hardware

If it was updated to match current mame better, I might give it a go again. 

A simple wiki page IMO isn't enough to hold benchmarks for dozens of games, on a dozen different CPUs with dozens of different Ghz, over dozens of different versions of mame, some in 32 bit, some 64.  This is database territory. 

[saurian333]

I found a good deal on a AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz Quad Core. Will this run blitz?

Check this thread benching a phenom II x3 3.2 Ghz out.  I think your 3.0 Ghz will be fast enough in general if you use a 64 bit OS & mame, but will have a few slow down spots.  Overclocking might help.

In reading that thread, note that there is little improvement in 3 cores over 2 cores.  A quad-core is probably not going to make much difference.  Better to go with a dual-core at a higher speed.  The games just can't all take advantage of multiple cores, and the ones that can generally don't go over 2.

A simple wiki page IMO isn't enough to hold benchmarks for dozens of games, on a dozen different CPUs with dozens of different Ghz, over dozens of different versions of mame, some in 32 bit, some 64.  This is database territory. 

Maybe not a "simple" page; you're right, a DB would be a much better medium for that.  I was thinking a wiki-like interface (and user-edibility) would be well-suited, but there could certainly be a SQL DB as the backend.  I might work on something like that when I have time.  Thanks for the link - it will be helpful seeing how it's been organized in the past, to get an idea of what to include.  (Also, I've actually been looking for specs for older MAME versions, so I can use that anyway. )

My idea for a search interface would be something allowing you to select items from the "CPU," "Graphics," and "Memory" categories, etc.  The only combinations of options allowed would be those of the systems people have submitted results for.  As more people submit, those who are searching can choose a better match for their own PC.  It would be tough to get going, but I have a feeling a lot of people might use it.

[acidblue0]

I went ahead and bought it. AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz Quad + Asus M3A78-EM NIB

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320468626099&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT

[saurian333]

I went ahead and bought it. AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0GHz Quad + Asus M3A78-EM NIB

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=320468626099&ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT

OK...even if the quad-core doesn't do much for you, that's a pretty damn decent price.

[acidblue0]

Yeah it is. I got my fingers crossed hoping the games I like to play will work on this cpu.

[acidblue0]

When new MB and cpu get to me will I be able to just plug hard drive in and boot up? Hope I don't have to reformat

[Gamester]

When new MB and cpu get to me will I be able to just plug hard drive in and boot up? Hope I don't have to reformat

It won't be that simple.  Since you're replacing the motherboard and going with a completely different type of CPU, there will be all sorts of drivers missing when you boot up.  In fact, it may not even boot into Windows at all. 

Any time I make a change as drastic as a complete MB & CPU swap, I always install a fresh copy of Windows.  I've been doing this stuff over over 20 years, and I've just found it to be by far the cleanest approach.  Time consuming, yes, but better in the end...

[saurian333]

When new MB and cpu get to me will I be able to just plug hard drive in and boot up? Hope I don't have to reformat

Oh...you're an upgrade virgin, huh?

Gamester is absolutely right.  Best route is a fresh copy of Windows.  If you just swap in the HDD, you'll be lucky if you can get into Windows.  And in the event that you do, you'll have so many problems to fix that it's just not worth it.  You could try to install over the top of the existing Windows, but I wouldn't put money on your other data remaining intact.

If you don't have a means of backing up your entire HDD, I would suggest getting another small HDD somewhere (60-100GB).  Smaller drives can be found very cheap on eBay, and many online retailers.  Use the small drive in the new system to install Windows on.  Then you can plug in your current one as a secondary drive.  That's the happiest medium between cheap/safe/easy.

Obviously the cleaner way is to back up any "extra files" (music, ROMs, etc.) from the current drive, then do your reformat/installation, and copy whatever you need onto the new installation.

Another possibility is to create a new partition on your current drive and move your extra files over there, leaving only Windows on the first one.  When you reinstall Windows, you only need to format the one partition, leaving your data intact.  However, that's only an option if you have more free space than your extra files will take up (need free space to create a partition).

[protokatie]

Speaking of multiple drives for Windows and programs, another good thing to do is add another small Hdd that is used for the pagefile. Or, if you are using 2 hdds, put windows and programs on one, and your data and the pagefile on the second one (partition the second one so the pagefile has its own partition).

I know I am going farther from the thread here, but I wonder why there isnt a commercial device out there that is basically a set of say 8 GB of old PC133 RAM on a SATA controller for use as a pagefile partition... Is PC133 Ram costly now that it is not really made anymore? Regardless, even if it was say 4 GB of DDR2, it could be added to a 32 bit system as a Ram/hdd to be used for the pagefile, which would be a major speed boost over having to use an Hdd pagefile with the limited ~3.5 Gb of ram a 32 bit system can have. Hmm, yeah. 32 bit with 3.5 GB RAM and 4 GB of pagefile space that operates at SATA bus speeds... That would be nice. </derail>

[DeLuSioNal29]

If you really have your heart set on playing Blitz, try running the Dreamcast version.  I believe it has improved graphics when compared to the arcade as a bonus.  Gameplay is exactly the same.  I have it running on my arcade using NullDC.

DeLuSioNaL29

[acidblue0]

Hmmm never thought about running the DC version.

[saurian333]

I know I am going farther from the thread here, but I wonder why there isnt a commercial device out there that is basically a set of say 8 GB of old PC133 RAM on a SATA controller for use as a pagefile partition... Is PC133 Ram costly now that it is not really made anymore? Regardless, even if it was say 4 GB of DDR2, it could be added to a 32 bit system as a Ram/hdd to be used for the pagefile, which would be a major speed boost over having to use an Hdd pagefile with the limited ~3.5 Gb of ram a 32 bit system can have. Hmm, yeah. 32 bit with 3.5 GB RAM and 4 GB of pagefile space that operates at SATA bus speeds... That would be nice. </derail>

Mmm...that would be slick.  I like the way you think.   I have seen PCI-E cards that do that, though...that would be potentially even faster (depending on which specification, etc.).

[bkenobi]

Something like this?

http://www.ddrdrive.com/

[saurian333]

Yeah, that's it.  That particular one (don't know if there are others) runs real expensive ($1500 when it came out less than a year ago, apparently) and is limited to 4GB.  So one might be better off getting a good SSD.  But the concept could be much faster than the SATA bus speed, assuming you were using at least PCIe 2.0 x8 (would have to go to x16 to top SATA3).

Are we going to stay on this long enough to start a thread?

Sorry, acidblue0, we lost your original topic somewhere...lol.

[Haze]

When new MB and cpu get to me will I be able to just plug hard drive in and boot up? Hope I don't have to reformat

It won't be that simple.  Since you're replacing the motherboard and going with a completely different type of CPU, there will be all sorts of drivers missing when you boot up.  In fact, it may not even boot into Windows at all. 

Any time I make a change as drastic as a complete MB & CPU swap, I always install a fresh copy of Windows.  I've been doing this stuff over over 20 years, and I've just found it to be by far the cleanest approach.  Time consuming, yes, but better in the end...

With modern OS and systems this is less of an issue than it used to be.

I moved a HDD from a 100% AMD system (XP3000+, ATI graphics) into a brand new Intel based system, completely different chipset, Sata drives, Nvidia graphics etc. and there were no issues.  It booted (XP), installed the drivers it needed, and just worked even if there probably wasn't a single common component between the systems.  Back in the Windows 98 days this was a huge issue but these days it's less of one.

Of course, if you're buying a 64-bit system and your previous OS was a 32-bit version you'll probably want to reinstall anyway.

[saurian333]

With modern OS and systems this is less of an issue than it used to be.

I moved a HDD from a 100% AMD system (XP3000+, ATI graphics) into a brand new Intel based system, completely different chipset, Sata drives, Nvidia graphics etc. and there were no issues.  It booted (XP), installed the drivers it needed, and just worked even if there probably wasn't a single common component between the systems.  Back in the Windows 98 days this was a huge issue but these days it's less of one.

Interesting.  I guess it shows you don't know anything until you actually try it.    I certainly wouldn't have expected that from XP.

Of course, if you're buying a 64-bit system and your previous OS was a 32-bit version you'll probably want to reinstall anyway.

Meh.  64-bit Windows isn't all it's cracked up to be.  Unless every peripheral you own is less than 2 years old, good luck finding drivers.  Even some newer hardware is difficult to get working.  Unless you have more than 3GB RAM, it's not even worth it.  And even then, I'd question it.  (I have 4, and I still stuck with 32-bit Win7.)

Linux is another story.  64-bit Ubuntu screams on my machine, and video encoding/transcoding (for one example) shows notable improvement over the 32-bit version.

[bigjase]

I run the N64 version of Blitz and I have a pretty crappy PC. My dad actually played this for about a day straight this weekend. 

[J.Max]

I have a E8400 running at stock 3.0 GHz and Blitz runs just fine.  A very slight sound stutter occasionally, but otherwise perfect.

[Haze]

With modern OS and systems this is less of an issue than it used to be.

I moved a HDD from a 100% AMD system (XP3000+, ATI graphics) into a brand new Intel based system, completely different chipset, Sata drives, Nvidia graphics etc. and there were no issues.  It booted (XP), installed the drivers it needed, and just worked even if there probably wasn't a single common component between the systems.  Back in the Windows 98 days this was a huge issue but these days it's less of one.

Interesting.  I guess it shows you don't know anything until you actually try it.    I certainly wouldn't have expected that from XP.

Of course, if you're buying a 64-bit system and your previous OS was a 32-bit version you'll probably want to reinstall anyway.

Meh.  64-bit Windows isn't all it's cracked up to be.  Unless every peripheral you own is less than 2 years old, good luck finding drivers.  Even some newer hardware is difficult to get working.  Unless you have more than 3GB RAM, it's not even worth it.  And even then, I'd question it.  (I have 4, and I still stuck with 32-bit Win7.)

Linux is another story.  64-bit Ubuntu screams on my machine, and video encoding/transcoding (for one example) shows notable improvement over the 32-bit version.

Well, I've found 64-bit Windows to have far better driver support for my hardware than 64-bit Linux, but experiences will differ.

The main reason you'll want 64-bit for MAME tho is that you'll get a 15-25% performance boost across the board

[Gamester]

When new MB and cpu get to me will I be able to just plug hard drive in and boot up? Hope I don't have to reformat

It won't be that simple.  Since you're replacing the motherboard and going with a completely different type of CPU, there will be all sorts of drivers missing when you boot up.  In fact, it may not even boot into Windows at all.  

Any time I make a change as drastic as a complete MB & CPU swap, I always install a fresh copy of Windows.  I've been doing this stuff over over 20 years, and I've just found it to be by far the cleanest approach.  Time consuming, yes, but better in the end...

With modern OS and systems this is less of an issue than it used to be.

I moved a HDD from a 100% AMD system (XP3000+, ATI graphics) into a brand new Intel based system, completely different chipset, Sata drives, Nvidia graphics etc. and there were no issues.  It booted (XP), installed the drivers it needed, and just worked even if there probably wasn't a single common component between the systems.  Back in the Windows 98 days this was a huge issue but these days it's less of one.

Of course, if you're buying a 64-bit system and your previous OS was a 32-bit version you'll probably want to reinstall anyway.

Well, I can assure you it's been a problem much more recently than Windows 98, though as you say, it has improved since then.  However, I went through this EXACT process only a few days ago (upgraded my MB, CPU, RAM), and XP would not EVEN BOOT.  Yes, there are always ways to MAKE it work, but in my experience, it is always better to do a fresh load when making such drastic hardware changes.  I've experienced first hand situations where, yes, the OS seemed to load up fine and load new drivers, but there were often weird performance or stability problems that would surface down the road.

Yes, to some degree YMMV, and if he wants to try using his existing install first, that's fine, but I'm just saying it's very possible that he will encounter issues at some point related to the change, if not right off the bat.

[acidblue0]

It won't hurt nothing if I try putting hard drive on new board and try booting up?

[Gamester]

Nah, it shouldn't hurt anything.  Like I said though, some problems may not be immediately apparent...

[saurian333]

It won't hurt nothing if I try putting hard drive on new board and try booting up?

No, shouldn't hurt.  You might get lucky and not have to do any more than that, so it's worth a shot.

Well, I've found 64-bit Windows to have far better driver support for my hardware than 64-bit Linux, but experiences will differ.

The main reason you'll want 64-bit for MAME tho is that you'll get a 15-25% performance boost across the board

I'll concede that I haven't experimented with 64-bit MAME; that's an important point considering the subject.

Yes, mileage always varies depending on hardware when it comes to Windows v. Linux.  On my current machines, I personally have much more trouble with Windows 7, and even more with the 64-bit version.  Everything works in Linux (32 or 64), although I lose the ability to run the vast majority of my PC games (but also gaining the benefit of exceptionally improved performance and stability).  I've had other systems that were simply better suited to Windows.  That's just the way it is, I guess.

[acidblue0]

The ATI Radeon™ HD 3200 GPU built in on MB. Will this work fine mame?

[protokatie]

The ATI Radeon™ HD 3200 GPU built in on MB. Will this work fine mame?

MAME doesn't use any GPU acceleration so any somewhat recent GPU will work (recent being sometime in the last decade or maybe 20 years...).

[saurian333]

The ATI Radeon™ HD 3200 GPU built in on MB. Will this work fine mame?

MAME doesn't use any GPU acceleration so any somewhat recent GPU will work (recent being sometime in the last decade or maybe 20 years...).

Yep, anything with decent 2D will work great.  That chipset should be fine.

[acidblue0]

Well I got everything in. I'm installing XP as I type. Overclocking the quad CPU to 3.6ghz. So far so good. Can't wait till I can run mame for first time on it! Formatting a 2 TB drive is taking all day ARGGGGG. At 85% Is there a way to have a LCD with cpu temp so I can keep a eye on it?

[Havok]

Get something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811998066&cm_re=temperature_display-_-11-998-066-_-Product

[acidblue0]

Get something like this:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811998066&cm_re=temperature_display-_-11-998-066-_-Product

Yeah Thats what I need. Also the onboard video card on MB won't work. I just tried running mame and It didn't like it.

[saurian333]

What does it have onboard?  It shouldn't take much to run MAME; can you give a more specific error?

[mlalena]

For some software solutions, you should also look at AMD Power Monitor & CPU ID Hardware Monitor. On my PC, the Gigabyte Easy Tune software will sound audio alarms if the CPU gets too hot. Not sure if Asus or AMD have something similar with their tools.