which silent Radeon for a new arcade cabinet?

[kendjet]

Hello,


I'm building a new PC to be used as a dedicated "emulator" cabinet. I read that the graphics card doesn't really matter as long as it supports the Calamity drivers, since all emulators rely on the single threading capabilities of a CPU. I also saw that the 6.5 32bit drivers support mode modelines. Does this mean I'd better buy something like an X600 for compatibility reasons?

What I'm looking for in the Radeon is (in order of importance):

1) highest possible number of videomodes supported (I love my current AGP 9250-groovymame-UMSA setup but the cpu (13 years old) is far too slow to run games like Mortal Kombat)
2) a Radeon that's very quiet (e.g.fanless). I hate the noise coming from my current setup
3) able to play "demanding" games like the Dolphin ones, Street Fighter IV...
4) compatible with Windows 7 64-bit (I read people saying there's a lot of performance gain when running 64bit for some mulators


Thanks guys!

Already found a whole bunch of useful info on this forum :-)

[Sledge]

Check this site:
http://mame.3feetunder.com/windows-ati-crt-emudriver/
Get the best video card you can find that suits your needs from the list under Catalyst 9.3:

just remember, that genereally speaking, the faster the card, the hotter it will be.. and the more need for a fan on it..
So if you want a card that will play demanding games.. it will more than likely have a fan.
A HD2600pro will run SF4 quite well.. and you may be able to find some without fans.. or with quiet fans..

[Calamity]

There are fanless versions of HD 4550 and HD 4650, get one of those. These will be ready for W7 too when we finally move (only HD 2xxx, 3xxx & 4xxx will work in W7). The extra modes provided by the Emudriver 6.5 - 32-bits is no longer a relevant factor since you use GroovyMAME, as dynamic modelines can do whatever refresh you need out of a very reasonable mode list.

[kendjet]

wow that was a fast answer :-) Thanks a lot guys, highly appreciated, will look into your suggestions !

[krick]

4) compatible with Windows 7 64-bit (I read people saying there's a lot of performance gain when running 64bit for some emulators

This is slightly off-topic for your thread, but I just wanted to note that there is a Windows XP 64-bit edition, which happens to work great with 64-bit versions of MAME and gives you a big speed boost in many games.  The upside is that it works with old hardware and is easy to customize for a cabinet. The downside is that it can be hard to find a copy.

So you don't HAVE to go to Windows 7 if you don't really want to.  The speed differences between MAME running on 64-bit versions of XP and 64-bit Windows 7 are statistically insignificant.

The biggest performance factors with MAME (not necessarily in this order)...

1) CPU clock speed (multiple cores matter very little - more than 2 is probably a waste)
2) CPU architecture - newer chips are better, and Intel totally smokes AMD in MAME.  Like 30% faster in some drivers.  Really.
3) Using a 64-bit operating system with a 64-bit build of MAME

[Sledge]

So you don't HAVE to go to Windows 7 if you don't really want to.

though if you have an SSD in your cab, you really should go to win7.. this is the main reason why i did..

[Calamity]

though if you have an SSD in your cab, you really should go to win7.. this is the main reason why i did..

This has been discussed before. You CAN use SSD with XP 64. And what you gain on boot time, you loose by far with video driver initialization (dramatically much slower in W7 when using a long list of modelines).

[krick]

This has been discussed before. You CAN use SSD with XP 64.

One trick with using an SSD with XP (32 or 64) is buying a brand that offers a utility that allows you to run TRIM since the OS won't do it for you.

Two brands that I know of that do are Intel (SSD Toolbox) and Samsung (SSD Magician).   I'm sure there are others, but do your research before buying an SSD.

[Sledge]

though if you have an SSD in your cab, you really should go to win7.. this is the main reason why i did..

This has been discussed before. You CAN use SSD with XP 64. And what you gain on boot time, you loose by far with video driver initialization (dramatically much slower in W7 when using a long list of modelines).

Yeah i know you CAN..
that's why i said you SHOULD go to win 7... not HAVE to... it's just easier in a lot of respects..
though i didn't know that about the video driver taking longer..

[Calamity]

Yes, I should have been mode prudent on my statement. You should certainly consider W7 if you have SSD in mind. However, I just want to warn people about the fact that when the Emudriver for W7 is released, maybe the investment on SSD is wasted money due to how slow Cat 13.1 becomes when using a long list of custom modes... it can easily freeze your system for 10-15 seconds before you can use the desktop.

[Sledge]

Yes, I should have been mode prudent on my statement. You should certainly consider W7 if you have SSD in mind. However, I just want to warn people about the fact that when the Emudriver for W7 is released, maybe the investment on SSD is wasted money due to how slow Cat 13.1 becomes when using a long list of custom modes... it can easily freeze your system for 10-15 seconds before you can use the desktop.

Would it not also be the same when using a HDD?
So the arguement could also be made that we would benefit greatly from having an SSD as we're waiting long enough for the video driver as it is.. why add a slow HDD to the mix as well..

[Calamity]

My point is:

XP-64 + HDD boot time = W7-64 + SSD boot time

 

[Dr.Venom]

Yes, I should have been mode prudent on my statement. You should certainly consider W7 if you have SSD in mind. However, I just want to warn people about the fact that when the Emudriver for W7 is released, maybe the investment on SSD is wasted money due to how slow Cat 13.1 becomes when using a long list of custom modes... it can easily freeze your system for 10-15 seconds before you can use the desktop.

Calamity,

Is there a lineair relation between the number of modelines and the delay?  E.g. does it take 5 seconds to load 60 modelines on startup and 10 seconds for 120 modelines, or is there some tip-off point after which loading takes much longer?

[cools]

I remain to be convinced as to the merit of W7 over XP for a MAME cab...

[Calamity]

Is there a lineair relation between the number of modelines and the delay?  E.g. does it take 5 seconds to load 60 modelines on startup and 10 seconds for 120 modelines, or is there some tip-off point after which loading takes much longer?

Yes, I'd say that reducing the mode list helps a lot on this regard, not sure if linearly but it does. I think it has to do with the drivers validating each single mode against all the monitors attached.

[Sledge]

My point is:

XP-64 + HDD boot time = W7-64 + SSD boot time

 

Ahh
i see your point now ...

I remain to be convinced as to the merit of W7 over XP for a MAME cab...

Why? mine is working really well!

[adder]

The biggest performance factors with MAME (not necessarily in this order)...
1) CPU clock speed (multiple cores matter very little - more than 2 is probably a waste)

sorry for not being on topic with this thread:
im a bit confused as im using windows xp 32bit and mame 0.148 and my intel core 2 duo T7250 (2.00Ghz - 2M Cache 800 MHz FSB) performs better (not by a great deal, but better) than my intel pentium 4 cedar mill HT 651 (3.4Ghz - 2M Cache 800 MHz FSB)

[krick]

The biggest performance factors with MAME (not necessarily in this order)...
1) CPU clock speed (multiple cores matter very little - more than 2 is probably a waste)

sorry for not being on topic with this thread:
im a bit confused as im using windows xp 32bit and mame 0.148 and my intel core 2 duo T7250 (2.00Ghz - 2M Cache 800 MHz FSB) performs better (not by a great deal, but better) than my intel pentium 4 cedar mill HT 651 (3.4Ghz - 2M Cache 800 MHz FSB)

I said the points were "not necessarily in this order".  Look at point #2:

2) CPU architecture - newer chips are better...

Core2 duo is a much more efficient CPU architecture than Pentium 4, so the clock speeds aren't directly comparable.

In fact, the specs on both chips are otherwise very similar...  http://ark.intel.com/compare/27483,31728

But the newer core2 architecture, and having true dual cores makes it faster.
The P4 chip is older architecture and has one core with hyperthreading.

And check out the TDP.  86 watts for the P4, 35 watts for the Core2.  The Core2 runs way cooler.

You should try Windows XP 64bit.  I bet the Core2 pulls ahead even more.

[lordsnipe]

1) CPU clock speed (multiple cores matter very little - more than 2 is probably a waste)
2) CPU architecture - newer chips are better, and Intel totally smokes AMD in MAME.  Like 30% faster in some drivers.  Really.
3) Using a 64-bit operating system with a 64-bit build of MAME

More than dual cores being a waste has been quoted over and over and is actually incorrect. There was a post from Haze or R Belmont somewhere which says this, and I also have found upgrading from highly overclocked C2Ds (4-4.5Ghz) to Ivy i5 3570s (3.4 Ghz, with 3.8Ghz turbo) has given much better results.

For example, SF Rush in my driving cab is good with the i5, but not playable with my old setup (4.1Ghz C2D).
Time Crisis does not dip below 100% with the i5, but did with a 4.2Ghz C2D.

So clockspeed is important, but is not everything.

[cools]

I remain to be convinced as to the merit of W7 over XP for a MAME cab...

Why? mine is working really well!

Not disputing whether it works or not, but I'm wondering what the pros are?

[Sledge]

I remain to be convinced as to the merit of W7 over XP for a MAME cab...

Why? mine is working really well!

Not disputing whether it works or not, but I'm wondering what the pros are?

For me, i went to win 7 for the native SSD support..
and driver support for more modern hardware etc..
And for me it just seems a lot easier and faster

[cools]

Unsupported hardware makes sense, my MAME builds are done on the cheap with older kit 

[kendjet]

Regarding the processors and speed etc... Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I would think this might be a good guide to compare processors when looking @ MAME performance:

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html