Main > Software Forum

With which prior mame versions did the slowdown begin?

<< < (3/7) > >>

Anubis_au:
I can't debate which release of MAME was a slowdown from the previous, but I can tell you this: I ran advmame 0.77 for years, and 99.9% of games played perfectly, did not slow down at all, or feel sluggish etc. Its one of the reasons for me now, trying to find a way to still being able to keep that old romset kicking in a new cab.

The one exeption was Mortal Kombat the movie, which was sluggish, but I think it may have been more to do with my system than the MAME version I used. It was a P3 800MHz, 128M RAM, and a 4MB video card. Every other game played brilliant.

Aurich:
Straight from the horse's mouth...

SGT:
Ouch.  Pacman FPS dropped 42% from version .037 to .113

AaronGiles:

--- Quote from: SGT on April 03, 2007, 05:42:31 pm ---Ouch.  Pacman FPS dropped 42% from version .037 to .113

--- End quote ---
And putting it that way just shows that you pretty much missed the whole point of my post. You'll notice that Pac-Man still runs at 3x the speed it needs to on very modest hardware. When I do the Rastan comparison I'm sure you'll see a much smaller speed drop over the same period, because MAME is now optimized more for games of that era than for games of the Pac-Man era, which pretty much any hardware can handle without breaking a sweat.

SGT:

--- Quote from: AaronGiles on April 03, 2007, 06:25:51 pm --- that way just shows that you pretty much missed the whole point of my post. You'll notice that Pac-Man still runs at 3x the speed it needs to on very modest hardware. When I do the Rastan comparison I'm sure you'll see a much smaller speed drop over the same period, because MAME is now optimized more for games of that era than for games of the Pac-Man era, which pretty much any hardware can handle without breaking a sweat.

--- End quote ---

No disrespect was intended.  I understand that we only need 60 fps.  I just did not think that Pacman had dropped that much.  I realize that Pacman still runs much faster than is needed with .113.  Wasn't trying to spin your results nor would I want to make too many assumptions from statistics from only one game.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version