Build Your Own Arcade Controls Forum
Main => Software Forum => Topic started by: AceTKK on March 11, 2003, 01:26:19 am
-
I'm going to grab the new version of MAME tonight and I'm not sure which version to get. I would assume that I won't get any benefit by running the i686 optimized version on an AMD processor, but I'm not sure. What do you recommend?
thx,
-Ace-
-
Actually I think you will get some optimization. Anyway, only one way to really find out, get both, run an intesive game with verbose, see if there is significance in fps.
-
errrr... verbose???
-
I think that's F11 which brings up the fps at the top right corner of the screen. Make sure you have frameskip off or set to zero. Run a game that is cpu intensive (alot of the midway games are) and press F11. You should see some numbers at the top of the screen.
eg 60/60 means doing 60 fps out of a possible 60 fps, that's what you want it to run all the time (but it won't for some games). May get something like 32/60 where it is running nearly half as slow as it should.
Find some games which slow down and test them on both builds. You may find that one gives you a few more fps than the other which is always beneficial.
-
I use STUN Runner and Galaxy Fight for this purpose...they don't seem to run too well on my 1.4Ghz.
-
Try running fastmame instead. Unlike the i686 optimized version, as it could give you a noticable speed increase. It can be up to a maximum of 30% increase, while i686 version is only advertised to give a 3-5% increase in speed, and that's on a pentium chip....
www.geoshock.com (http://www.geoshock.com)
-
Try running fastmame instead. Unlike the i686 optimized version, as it could give you a noticable speed increase. It can be up to a maximum of 30% increase, while i686 version is only advertised to give a 3-5% increase in speed, and that's on a pentium chip....
www.geoshock.com (http://www.geoshock.com)
tell me more about this fastmame - is it legit? What do they do differently? How new is this (I haven't heard of it) ?
Heck I remember when compiling with proc optimization flags wasn't done by the mame team's binaries - some other mamer put out builds called Amame or pmame (depending on your processor)... *Shrug* (just sharing some history for no good reason)
Furthermore: where's the source to fast mame (just curious)?!
rampy
-
fastmame uses microsofts compilers. And it does a better job of optimizing the low level stuff
so yes, it does do a good increase. I hear that its more like 10% with spikes up to 30%.
but 10% is a HUGE differences when you need it.
I've never seen a difference on my athlons between the different normal compiles. So I only used the main one.
-
fastmame uses microsofts compilers. And it does a better job of optimizing the low level stuff
so yes, it does do a good increase. I hear that its more like 10% with spikes up to 30%.
but 10% is a HUGE differences when you need it.
I've never seen a difference on my athlons between the different normal compiles. So I only used the main one.
What he said :D
-
I have an Athlon XP 1800+ and just yesterday tested both the normal and the 686 optimized versions of mame. The 686 MAME was in fact slighlty slower than the std MAME... but I guess ymmv depending on your exact processor... you did not say you had an Athlon XP... so...
-
That's interesting Justin. I haven't gotten around to testing the two builds head-to-head yet, but I will report back when I have. My processor is a 1.4 Ghz. Thunderbird core, not the Palamino (XP) core.
-Ace-