Software Support > GroovyMAME

Groovymame Win 10 Sound Dips (Slowdown)

<< < (2/3) > >>

Calamity:
Set syncaudio 0 in mame.ini.

lilshawn:
it's really hard to apples to apple compare CPU's especially with how synthetic testing is. (test optimization by certain manufacturers has been known to happen and benchmarking CPU's is really only for clout and not really representative of actual workloads CPUs do on a daily basis.

about the best you can do is compare single core performance on any CPU you choose to consider.

i always come back to "cpu.userbenchmark.com" to do cpu comparisons. it's testing methodology is a little more down to earth with testing that caters to both the strengths of CPU's and their weaknesses.

take for instance, comparing the Q6600 and the E8500. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-Intel-Core2-Duo-E8500/1980vsm13


most benchmarks (including this one) put the CPU's nearly neck and neck in terms of overall performance... and the consensus of the people seems to agree. I have seen people reccomend either one of these CPU's for this and that... The E8500 effective speed is 1% faster than the Q6600 according to userbenchmark so at first glance it seems like it's a non-issue and it seems like they would perform the same...

but if you look at the single core performance.. the E8500 has single core performance 50% faster than the Q6600, and dual core speeds 30% faster than the Q6600 despite the E8500 being a dual core CPU and the Q6600 being quad core. and only a 600 mhz difference in the clock speed.

the only reason the Q6600 makes up this huge gap is in parallel computing where multicore processors really shine... where despite the core speeds being only 600mhz slower than the E8500, it has more of them, and is able to use those cores to do the same "work" with 2x the cores as the E8500.

trev1976:
Thanks again , I do have a E8500 knocking about so might pop that back in and try the sync audio setting :)

Zebidee:
Yes, more cores doesn't necessarily mean increased performance, and you have to look at how the computer will be used. The CPU benchmark sites are great.

For all those reasons, last year I replaced a Q6600 CPU (came essentially "free" with a second-hand AsRock 775 mainboard I'd purchased) with an E8500 (and new heat sink) before fitting it all into a MAME PC I was building.

I've built about 5 MAME PCs using similar parts (and running Windows 7 and CRT_emudriver) as general purpose gaming systems that I can just throw into a cab. Found permanent homes for 2-3 so far.


--- Quote from: trev1976 on March 07, 2024, 04:13:25 pm ---Thanks again , I do have a E8500 knocking about so might pop that back in and try the sync audio setting :)

--- End quote ---

Good plan  :cheers:

lilshawn:

--- Quote from: lilshawn on March 07, 2024, 01:03:39 pm ---with testing that caters to both the strengths of CPU's and their weaknesses.

--- End quote ---

sorry, my ADHD is going to make me clarify this statement more.

if i'm using a computer for mainly re-coding audio or video files or I'm using a multi-core/multi-thread application... I would compare cpu's and look at their multithreaded and multicore performance... since it's possible a technically "slower" multicore speed can still outperform another CPU. (due to process changes, L2 amounts, etc) this is where the multi core testing comparison between CPU's  at userbenchmark comes in handy.

if i'm using a computer for single threaded applications, more cores can be useful in that i can process multiple threads at the same time. but i am more interested in the single core speeds to get those threads moving than trying to do multiple things at the same time. this is where the single thread comparisons come in handy.

most sites just plunk a "benchmark" number like "6246" next to a cpu, and that's what it would be "rated" at, and people would use these numbers to compare one cpu to another.

... but that number doesn't tell the whole story and is subjective to the test(s) performed. (just the same as the Q6600 vs E8500 comparison i example'd above.) They would be assigned "benchmark numbers" comparatively close to each other... in fact passmark scores "1813" for the Q6600 and "1257" for the E8500... and in the grand scheme of things, you'd be tempted to think the Q6600 was some 15% better... but these 2 CPU's are optimised for 2 different tasks and the E8500 outperforms the Q6600 handily in single core loads because it's strong in those suits... and it would only be in multi-core loads that the Q6600 is strong in, would perform better.

this is why apples to apples comparisons are so hard to get... and why i appreciate in particular the work and testing that userbenchmark does in supplying this kind of information.

TL;DR - more not always betterer

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page