The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Software Forum => Topic started by: haynor666 on January 01, 2015, 03:00:27 pm
-
Some time ago I decided to switch some games from D3D to ddraw but those games synced to 50% in interlaced and no interlaced resolutions. I've started examing ddraw mode by doing some test and I soon realized that HD4350 was much slower on windows xp x64 when I compare to windows 7 x64 but not only with ddraw but also d3d.
Here are some results on overclocked G3258 to 4,2 GHz with 5 different tests with just one game Muchi Muchi Pork:
-bench 250 ; pure cpu check
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -prescale 4 -resolution 1024x768@60 -switchres -mt ; d3d with multithreading
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -prescale 4 -resolution 1024x768@60 -switchres ; the same but on single core
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -resolution 640x480 -switchres -video ddraw -nohwstretch -mt ; ddraw with multithreading
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -resolution 640x480 -switchres -video ddraw -nohwstretch ; the same but on single core
Here are some results:
Windows7x64; Windows XP x64
bench
333% ; 331%
d3d mt
322% ; 292% (XP is slightly slower here)
d3d without mt
287% ; 179 % (difference is horrible)
ddraw mt
322% ; 276% (faster than d3d without mt)
ddraw without mt
306 ; 182% (again horrible difference)
but that's not enough because with ddraw without mt and even without any drivers installed (yeah, just as standard VGA card) mmpork can speed up to 227% (very bizarre). Even more bizarre behaviour can be observed when I use higher resolution than 640x480 using ddraw without mt. With 640x480 is 182 % but with 1024x768 it's just 75% !!!
What's going on here???
I've replaced HD4350 with GForce7200GS just to compare results on windows xp x64 and GForce7200GS works great, just like HD4350 on windows 7.
Problem is only on windows XP x64 using driver 9.3 (doesn't matter it's official or Calamity mod).
-
Hi Haynor, your 5 benchmarks seem quite logical to me win7 being more modern and robust it gets the lead in all the scenarios.
The fact that MAME runs good without driver is no surprise as the video card is only used for "post process", that is stretching , bilinear filtering, HLSL,etc... The video card is not used to process graphics, that is done by the CPU only. At 640x480 there is minimal driver functionality but enough power to stretch an output. Double the res and the vc starts struggling. It's logical.
Note that ddraw is the old "legacy" video system and d3d is the modern one. All in all d3d will always work better than ddraw because it uses your video card power so much better.
The only thing that can be really extracted from your datas is that your Gforce vc works better in a marginal scenario but I can't see a performance issue. Those two are low end video cards but are quite sufficient to run MAME, the real working power in this scenario is your CPU. Your Geforce is slightly better than the other to run MAME and that's about it.
You should get a look at Aaron Giles's blog as it contains tons of technical datas regarding MAME video system, especialy one regarding the difference between ddraw and d3d, this might enlight you.
-
Hi Haynor, your 5 benchmarks seem quite logical to me win7 being more modern, robust and better at managing ressources it gets the lead in all the scenarios. The same for d3d versus ddraw.
The fact that MAME runs good without driver is no surprise as the video card is only used for "post process", that is stretching , bilinear filtering, HLSL,etc... The video card is not used to process graphics, that is done by the CPU only. At 640x480 there is minimal driver functionality but enough power to stretch an output. Double the res and the vc starts struggling. It's logical and not a performance issue. In fact that's the only test where you don't run games at more than the designed game speed.
The only thing that can be really extracted from your datas is that your Gforce vc works better in a particulary marginal scenario but I can't see any performance issue. Those two are low end video cards but are quite sufficient to run MAME, the real working power in this regard is your CPU.
You should get a look at Aaron Giles's blog as it contains tons of technical datas regarding MAME video system, especialy one regarding the difference between ddraw and d3d, this might enlight you.
-
Not at all, ddraw should be faster on XP not slower.
But there one funny thing. After many tests over and over again sometimes when I start computer ddraw works fast but sometimes not.
Here are results from recent benchmark:
ddraw mt 640x480: 299 % (that's a big difference)
ddraw 640x480: (also a big difference)
So problem appears to be random or disabling EIST, C states helped. ups it's not the case :/
-
Did you check in dxdiag if you have both DDraw & D3D hardware acceleration enabled? Sometimes it's disabled due to driver installation issues.
-
It was enabled all time, even when I have those slowdowns. There is funny thing - when I have enabled ddraw hw accel white square move slowly on full screen but when I disable ddraw hw accel this square is moving fast on full screen.
-
It was enabled all time, even when I have those slowdowns. There is funny thing - when I have enabled ddraw hw accel white square move slowly on full screen but when I disable ddraw hw accel this square is moving fast on full screen.
Don't quite get what you mean by white square. Anyway, how did you enable/disable DDraw/D3D hardware acceleration? That's not something that can be done by the user in Windows, as far as I know.
-
I'm talking about ddraw tests in dxdiag app :)
In Windows XP x64 it can be disabled in dxdiag but in windows 7 it cannot be.
Here is example that I've found on net
(http://jamestombs.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dxdiag.jpg)
but on windows 7
(http://d2ro3qwxdn69cl.cloudfront.net/images/articles/0EME0000000PHPT.jpg)
-
In Windows XP x64 it can be disabled in dxdiag but in windows 7 it cannot be.
You're totally right, I forgot about that.
It looks like there's a problem with your system, at least with the video card.
-
Windows XP x64 and Asus 4350 (I have three cards and I tested two - one low profile and one normal) Because under Windows 7 performance is fine. But why sometimes when I power on PC everything is fine, then after reboot I have again slow ddraw ???
-
But why sometimes when I power on PC everything is fine, then after reboot I have again slow ddraw ???
That's the point. Software issues tend to be more deterministic. You won't be using any remote control software?
-
No, that a clean, fresh XP x64 install just like on second disk clean, fresh install of 7 x64.
I tried disabling power saving, EIST and many other options but still there is problem. Maybe Haswell compability with XP is not so good after all.
It's time to power on my previous arcade PC with E8500 overclocked and also Asus Radeon 4350.
-
Today I've received Gigabyte HD4550 with exactly the same driver problems still remains. Updating to 13.1 didn't help as well.
-
Are you use the stock drivers?
-
I used both, stock and yours. No difference. I'll get X300 next week and see if it's make difference.
-
Probably related issue?
http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142048.msg1472119.html (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,142048.msg1472119.html)
-
Yeah, somehow related but I have problem on XP x64 and he has problem on 7 x64 which is strange because on my 7 x64 ddraw works ok.
Some tests from my main PC with 4670k and GTX770.
-bench 240:
304%
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -prescale 4 -resolution 1024x768 -switchres -mt:
291%
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -prescale 4 -resolution 1024x768 -switchres:
291,6%
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -resolution 1024x768 -switchres -video ddraw -nohwstretch -mt
294.87%
-str 240 -nothrottle -nosleep -resolution 1024x768 -switchres -video ddraw -nohwstretch
270,4%
Basically I get normal and expected mesurements only with NVidia cards. With Radeon strange things happens. Sometimes works fine, sometimes not.
EDIT. I've found option responsible for slowdowns -nohwstretch. With hardware stretching speeds are much better but without hardware stretching everything is slow again which is very strange.
-
Last test which proves that something is wrong with ATI HD4xxx serie (might be others) on windows xp x64.
(http://s16.postimg.org/rfoecuupx/wyniki_mmpork.png) (http://s24.postimg.org/5amo53is5/wyniki_mmpork_e8500.png)
First batch of tests was on G3258 oveclocked, second batch was on E8500 overclocked. Two totally different PCs.
The last thing to do is test X300 on my hardware.
On the side note - model2 emu sound problems are only on Xp x64, 7 x64 but on XP x32 everything is fine.
-
hey Haynor did u get a chance to test the X300 yet?
im starting to lose faith in xp64 after reading around the forum and noticing the various posts about unpredictable/odd results with xp64 ::)
-
Yes, I tested X300 and problem is the same.
-
When you tried the X300 card, did you try both sets of x64 ATI drivers 6.5 and 9.3 ?
I'm curious if the issue is driver version related.
Is it possible that there's a windows update that's interfering with ATI drivers?
Can you try doing a clean XP x64 install with no updates?
You might also want to try starting with a clean factory XP x64 image, and use nLite to slipstream 5eraph's Windows XP x64 post-SP2 Update Pack
http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6400 (http://www.ryanvm.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6400)
-
My XP x64 image was clean/official - en_win_xp_pro_x64_with_sp2_vl_x13-41611. I didn't find any updates that could fix this or might be related to graphics cards.
Yes, I tried different drivers. Doesn't matter if are used official or Calamity.
-
Yes, I tried different drivers. Doesn't matter if are used official or Calamity.
I was specifically addressing the drivers you used to test the X300 card.
There are two versions of Calamity's driver for x64 that will work with the X300... 6.5 and 9.3
I was just curious if the issue exists in the older 6.5 driver as well.
-
Haynor i have windows xp64 installed here on my mame pc and currently an ati X300 card installed (i have a hd4550 also which i havnt got around to trying out yet). my pc has an E8400 3ghz core 2 duo in it.. crt_emudriver 9.3
do u want me to do any speed tests at all? .. let me know
-
I already tested mmpork on E8500 but feel free to test mmpork with commands mentioned couple posts above.
-
ok i did some tests but unfortunately i couldnt use all of your command line parameters due to my current setup.
but here's the results anyway:
setup:
Groovymame x64
E8400 intel core 2 duo 3ghz
ati X300
crt_emudriver 9.3
WinXP 64bit
mame game MMPORK - (vertical) - run in native res (320x240)
-nothrottle and -nosleep used in all tests
Results:
-bench 250 --- 199%
Direct 3D:
-str 240 -mt --- 158%
-str 240 --- 98%
DDraw:
-str 240 -mt --- 189%
-str 240 --- 146%
i would be interested to hear from anyone their thoughts on my test results :)
-
Using native or generally low resolutions will make difference smaller though still noticable, also you didn't use nohwstretch and that's also makes difference. The real test are on higher resolutions because mamy groovymame users are actually on 2560xX resolutions.
EDIT.
I've installed all updates on XP x64 but problem remain.
-
Hey Haynor I am using an ATI 4550 now, and XP64
I can do some tests if you like? if so, let me know what tests you would like me to do
-
adder, everything You need is in this topic but I think it does not makes sense. Nobody believes me and blaim my specific configurations. Problem was not resolved and I was forced to switch to XP x32. At least that way I still have decent configuration that can run 99 % of my games at 100% and Taito Type X/X2 games works as expected.