Machine Specs

[Lekendri]

Hi All,

As stated in the Machine specs thread, I have two machines that I currently run PCem on.
My main PC FX-8150 8 logical processors @4GHz, 16GB RAM, Sapphire R9-270 Dual-X 2GB GFX, OS Win10 Pro x64
and laptop i5 4 logical processors @2.6GHz, 8GB RAM, Intel HD5500 GFX, OS Win10 Pro x64


I had a previous thread regarding building/compiling myself, which I am now able to do, and have had a great time dowloading the new sources every few days and recompiling on both machines.
However, I'm finding myself a bit stuck. I have Windows 98 installed on an image created on my main PC on the following configuration:
Award 430VX, ATi Mach64 GX 4MB, Intel Mobile PMMX 120, infinite cache, Fast VLB/PCI, SB16, 256MB RAM, 3.5" FDD, Voodoo 4/4/2 Bilinear+recompiler.
Running on my main PC, the 430VX configuration above runs at between 35%-45% once W98 is loaded and idle. I've tried both DD and D3D and D3D wins by about a 3% increase.
When checking the host performance, it shows 1 of the 8 logical processors at near enough 100%, 5 with minimal usage and 2 at around 25%, and PCem listed at using 14% of available processing power. On the i5 running the same configuration with the same HDD image, it is idling at around 80%, with 2 logical processors averaging between 55-65%, 1 averaging 30ish% and the last at 20%, with an overall usage by PCem of around 25% of the processing power.

Both machines have all available logical processors set in affinity, and even when I change the priority to real time on my main PC I only see a 5-10% increase.

Are there any build time options to put in the makefile that may be beneficial to AMD processors?
Maybe something to add to the MinGW makefile? A switch, or something....

[Zacker]

PCem probably only uses one core, and the FX 8350 is horrible at single-core tasks.
80% at W98 desktop, though. That's quite weird.
Tone down to 128MB RAM, 70-133MHz non-MMX pentium and try again.
Also, get the official V11 binary and use that as a baseline to see if your compile has an increase or decrease in performance.

[Lekendri]

On the official v11 at NonMMX P133, W98 is idling between 74-84% on the FX-8150. Which is a vast improvement to the 35-45% with P133MMX. The RAM has not made any difference in the running speed. On my build from source on 19/06/16 02:17 GMT+1 I am getting less variance in speed, but still 76%-80%.
I've just noticed also that it doesn't get higher than 80% at POST with either build.
No difference in the processor usage whilst using either, I'm guessing single core it is, which is why my crappy i5 laptop with less than half the spec is outperforming it.
Push down to P100/66, and POST is at 100%, and the only time it dips below 99% is at the Windows 98 Loading screen, and idling at OS at 100-102%.
Doing anything is another matter, so it's just a case of finding where it's comfortable running the apps now.
I would suggest multiple core usage as a feature for v12, but from what I can gather that would require a hell of a lot of re-coding. So, I'll make do with my awful at single core processes processor for now on what is still the most complete PC experience of yester-decade, and maybe spend some money on the next PC

[SarahWalker]

It isn't possible to spread out emulation of a single processor over multiple cores. Flat out impossible. So no, that won't happen in V12.

PCem does use additional cores for accelerated graphics cards though, particularly Voodoo.

[Zacker]

It isn't possible to spread out emulation of a single processor over multiple cores. Flat out impossible. So no, that won't happen in V12.

PCem does use additional cores for accelerated graphics cards though, particularly Voodoo.

How 'bout..... Dual Processors!
On a serious note, though, some old applications can really use that extra processing power(not games) and if in ANY WAY, v1x supports 2x Pentium Pros I will be very impressed.

[omarsis81]

Hmm, interesting... what applications can take advantage of a dual Pentium Pro setup? I guess not that many... sure, Windows NT, but... what apps?

[SarahWalker]

Dual CPU emulation isn't something I'm planning on adding at any point in the future.

[omarsis81]

Dual CPU emulation isn't something I'm planning on adding at any point in the future.

That's understandable. Dual CPU for gaming wasn't implemented until 2005, and games from that time work with current OSes

[leilei]

Well........ it was possible to use dual CPUs in Quake3 back in 1999 (r_smp). You're probably thinking of dual core

[omarsis81]

Well........ it was possible to use dual CPUs in Quake3 back in 1999 (r_smp). You're probably thinking of dual core

Yes, but, very, very few games, likely 5 or less before 2005. Quake 3 SMP was very unstable and didn't show any performance benefit from what I have tested (on a dual Pentium II 450)