Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum

Main => Main Forum => Topic started by: Serpent on May 03, 2004, 04:33:30 am

Title: Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Serpent on May 03, 2004, 04:33:30 am: Can anyone tell me what performance gain will I obtain with an Athlon 64 3200 over an Athlon XP 3200? Are there any benchmarks comparing both CPUs as regards fps in MAME?
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Lilwolf on May 03, 2004, 07:54:27 am: 64 is better..

but not better price / performance. XP is still king in that regard.

btw, you can also expect another 5% when windows64 is out and someone starts an 64 build is made... between 2 - 8% I hear... but the question is if it will shine (8%) on the games that are already pushing your system or the other games)

I would buy an XP now, and put the extra money you save and buy another one in a year or so...
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Mugzilla on May 03, 2004, 08:42:21 am: Wow, you people go BIG on your processors for MAME!

I thought my Athlon XP 2200 was HUGE! The only reason I used it was I took it out of my home computer rig and gave my home machine a processor upgrade!
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Spaced Invader on May 03, 2004, 09:03:08 am: Some benchmarks...

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-05.html (http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-05.html)

tomshardware's always a good place to find benchmarks. ;)
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: patrickl on May 03, 2004, 09:32:55 am: I saw plenty of MAME benchmarks too. Allthough I can't seem to find them anymore. I found this benchmark page (http://www.classicgaming.com/mame32qa/bench.htm) though.

I doubt you'll need that much power for a lot of games though. Not much use in being able to play PacMan in 1700 or 1200 FPS
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: mr.Curmudgeon on May 03, 2004, 11:40:06 am: True. But if you plan on using other emulators in a cab, SNES, N64, etc...a faster CPU would be very useful. Plus, Mame seems to get slower with every build, so I guess planning for the future wouldn't be a bad idea either.
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Lilwolf on May 03, 2004, 12:58:10 pm: For most people... processor is MUCH more important for emulation then any other component.

The only more important factor is the 'free'... what you have laying around.. Always the first step... Then processor speed..

but a $15 video card is almost as good as a $400 for emulation...

but a $200 processor does show up...

then again... a $20 processor will play 95% of the games mame has no problem... a $200 will play 96%...

but 1% is a lot!
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Jakobud on May 03, 2004, 01:21:39 pm: Mame32qa benchmarks

http://www.classicgaming.com/mame32qa/bench.htm
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: patrickl on May 03, 2004, 01:50:47 pm: Yeah, that's the one I found too (3 messages up). But I thought there were many more.
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: Silentthunder on May 03, 2004, 08:34:09 pm: I am getting ready to buy a new PC. Do you think that the 64 chip will drop in price soon? Or do you think since the XP chips are still selling well, that they (64 chips) will still cost alot more in the near future?

This new PC that I am going to get will have to last me for the next few years, so I think I will just front the money and get the 64 intead of the XP. Of course....it will make me feel better with my investment while I am playing Doom III once it comes out ;)
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: JustMichael on May 03, 2004, 11:11:58 pm: I wouldn't expect the 64 chips to drop in price until probably Q4 of 2004.
Title: Re:Ahtlon XP vs Athlon 64
Post by: cack01 on May 04, 2004, 03:30:03 am: Also don't forget socket 939 will be out soon so buying a A64 right now is really a bad buy (in the long run).