Main > Main Forum

4Ghz Core 2 Duo vs M.A.M.E. 0.120 (benchmark results)

<< < (6/104) > >>

metahacker:
hmmm, now i wonder how the 64 bit mame would compare to 32 bit

taz you are our benchmarking hero :).

u_rebelscum:

--- Quote from: metahacker on October 29, 2007, 04:58:34 pm ---isnt mame with -mt just 2 threads ?  with the second thread just doing framebuffer stuff.

--- End quote ---

Old news.  Aaron found a way to split some parts of the emulation into variable number of threads back in 0.119u3: :notworthy:


--- Code: ---Added support for controlling multithreading behavior through an
environment variable OSDPROCESSORS. To override the default behavior,
set OSDPROCESSORS equal to the number of logical processors you wish
the OSD layer to pretend you have. [Aaron Giles]
--- End code ---

And 0.120u1 improves it even more.  If you have a quad code set OSDPROCESSORS=4.  It won't be four times as fast, but I hear it will be faster for most slow games.

taz-nz:
Well here they are M.A.M.E. 0.120u1 PM optimised benchmark scores:

Scores with 0.120 in front were benchmark with official I686 optimised MAME 0.120
Scores with 0.120u1 in front were benchmark with my build of PM optimised MAME 0.120u1

I use the same command line as I did for the 0.120 benchmarks but using "set OSDPROCESSORS=2"  command before tests (not even sure if I using it right but it seems to work  :dunno)

Anyway here are the results:

- 1492      
0.120      5570.54%   3342.32fps


gaelco3d.c
- radikalb   
0.120      88.21%      52.93fps          
0.120u1      117.74%      70.64fps

- speedup   
0.120      102.93%      61.76fps   
0.120u1      127.66%      76.60fps

- surfplnt   
0.120      91.29%      54.77fps   
0.120u1      112.79%      67.67fps


Mediagx.c
- a51site4   
0.120      185.95%      111.57fps   
0.120u1      186.04%      111.62fps


medvunit.c
- crusnusa   
0.120      225.23%      128.38fps   
0.120u1      220.16%      125.49fps

- crusnwld   
0.120      229.70%      130.93fps   
0.120u1      221.42%      126.21fps

- offroadc   
0.120      395.36%      225.36fps   
0.120u1      365.57%      208.38fps   

- wargods   
0.120      376.85%      214.80fps   
0.120u1      330.00%      188.10fps


namcos22.c
- airco22b
0.120      97.73%      58.64fps    
0.120u1      110.64%     66.38fps

- alpinerd   
0.120      42.36%      25.42fps   
0.120u1      65.95%      39.57fps

- cybrcomm   
0.120      67.79%      40.68fps   
0.120u1      95.78%      57.49fps

- cybrcycc   
0.120      125.69%      75.41fps   
0.120u1      157.40%      94.44fps

- propcycl   
0.120      70.44%      42.50fps   
0.120u1      100.39%      60.23fps

- raveracw   
0.120      53.70%      32.22fps   
0.120u1      81.37%      48.82fps

- ridgerac   
0.120      75.84%      45.50fps   
0.120u1      108.13%      64.88fps

- timecris   
0.120      70.84%      42.50fps   
0.120u1      101.81%      61.09fps


Seattle.c   
- biofreak
0.120      91.78%      55.07fps
0.120u1      101.70%      57.97fps

- blitz      
0.120      122.34%      73.40fps   
0.120u1      127.38%      72.61fps

- blitz2k   
0.120      121.94%      69.51fps   
0.120u1      123.73%      70.52fps

- blitz99   
0.120      120.27%      68.55fps   
0.120u1      120.26%      68.55fps

- calspeed   
0.120      146.21%      83.34fps   
0.120u1      165.08%      94.10fps

- carnevil
0.120      241.11%      137.43fps   
0.120u1      221.69%      126.36fps

- hyprdriv   
0.120      140.84%      80.28fps   
0.120u1      144.27%      82.23fps

- mace      
0.120      173.23%      98.74fps   
0.120u1      186.67%      106.40fps

- sfrush   
0.120      144.95%      82.62fps   
0.120u1      152.01%      86.64fps

- wg3dh      
0.120      253.19%      144.32fps   
0.120u1      265.32%      151.23fps


Vegas.c
- gauntdl
0.120      108.58%     61.89fps    
0.120u1      110.06%      62.73fps

-gauntleg
0.120      108.57%      61.88fps
0.120u1      111.60%      63.61fps

- tenthdeg   
0.120u1      62.03%      35.36fps   
0.120u1      67.42%      38.43fps


model2.c
- Daytona         
0.120      120.15%      72.06fps   
0.120u1      120.08%      72.05fps


hornet.c
- gradius4   
0.120      112.04%      67.91fps
0.120u1      fails instantly with memory error


Model3.c
- scud      
0.120      40.98%      24.59fps   
0.120u1      44.21%      26.53fps


namcos21.c   
- starblad
0.120      140.06%      84.03fps
0.120u1      139.95%      83.97fps


--- Quote from: Tiger-Heli on October 29, 2007, 10:06:12 am ---Just out of curiosity, how does Star Wars Trilogy do.

--- End quote ---

-swtrilgy (Emulation need a lot of work still major graphics issues)
0.120u1      61.66%      39.97fps



--- Quote from: metahacker on October 29, 2007, 05:50:07 pm ---hmmm, now i wonder how the 64 bit mame would compare to 32 bit

taz you are our benchmarking hero :).

--- End quote ---

Thanks, 64bit MAME benchmarks to follow in a couple of days. Hoping to find time tomorrow night to install Vista Ultimate 64bit in dual boot with XP Pro, if that all goes well then I just have to work out how to compile 64bit versions of MAME. Once I've got those two things sorted I'll run all the benchmarks again in 64bit and any new ROMs people request.

If anyone has any other hints or trick to improving MAME preformance let me know.


taz-nz:

--- Quote from: metahacker on October 29, 2007, 04:58:34 pm ---isnt mame with -mt just 2 threads ?  with the second thread just doing framebuffer stuff.

--- End quote ---

You are correct but it's still good for about 5% improvement in score so I use it.


--- Quote from: metahacker on October 29, 2007, 04:58:34 pm ---im not sure what else would be left for the other cpus to do other than 'run' disk i/o on CHDs or eat up cycles in AC97 ?  i would think the mame helper thread would not busy up the 2nd core enough to need a 3rd or 4th. 

--- End quote ---


the 2nd, 3rd and 4th core of a quad core are going to be doing nothing but play hot patato with windows services in the background with 90% of mame roms, but with the few that are Multithreaded now, the 2nd Core get a real work out and in theory the 3rd and 4th will get in on the some of the action too.


--- Quote from: metahacker on October 29, 2007, 04:58:34 pm ---btw 500 fsb is ---smurfing--- hot.  nice work on your set up dood im impressed.

im runnin a e6600 @ 3.4 here on my desktop.  abit in9 32x max (i dont recommend it, unless u just want the cool BIOS-driven LEDs mounted under the mobo stock :))  had to crank ~1.7v into it tho, for whatever reason.  scythe infinity 120.  1 total fan in the system besides psu.  no nb/sb mods besides as5, no fans.

c2ds are mean.  reminds me of the old celeron 300A, but even better.

i hope i can get something comparable to your results with my new 2.66 6750. i dont think i'll be hittin any 4GHz tho. 

it sure is inspiring to see your results, though....

and apparently 120u1 pentium-M optimized is where the party's at....

--- End quote ---

Sounds like your not do to bad yourself on the overclocking front, but 1.7v ouch, bet that makes the core temp ramp up like hell under load.

My mate still has a Celeron 300A overclocked @ 450mhz running as a gateway server on his home network, been overclocked for so many years it doesn't run stock clock anymore.

E6750 are good to about 3.6-3.8ghz with air, you really need a good water cooling kit to take them any higher, but there are some that get lucky and make it all the way to 4.0ghz on air alone.

Tiger-Heli:

--- Quote from: taz-nz on October 30, 2007, 05:55:35 am ----swtrilgy (Emulation need a lot of work still major graphics issues)
0.120u1      61.66%      39.97fps

--- End quote ---
Thanks - that's actually better than I expected!!!

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version