Author
| BlueMSX is very fast emulator on Windows with Pentium 4 (with Hyper-Threading Technology)
|
fs5500 msx friend Posts: 9 | Posted: September 08 2004, 20:02   |
I replaced Pentium 4 2.0A (FSB 400) with Pentium 4 2.4C (FSB 800 with Hyper-Threading Technology)
And I tested it with Windows XP.
On Pentium 4 2.0A without HT, Maximum Emulation Speed didn't be over than 1000% (35.7MHz)
On Pentium 4 Celeron 2.4A without HT, Also Maximum Emulation Speed is nearly same as on Pentium 4 2.0A.
But with Pentium 4 2.4C with HT, Its perfomance is very excellent.
The occupation of CPU usage is nearly 0.1% with 35.7MHz option.
Maybe BlueMSX is optimized with HT CPU well.
So it is very fast than other emulator.
I wanted to get more speed on blueMSX. (over 10x)
But anyway, it is very fast emulator on windows than other emulator.
|
|
[D-Tail]
 msx guru Posts: 3020 | Posted: September 08 2004, 20:21   |
NLMSX is also quite a fast emulator... But hey, isn't it remarkable that we need a ~GHz PC to emulate an 'old' and 'outdated' 'slow' computer system?  |
|
fs5500 msx friend Posts: 9 | Posted: September 08 2004, 20:35   |
NLSX can't be implemented 1000% of original MSX speed on 2.4C
|
|
flyguille msx master Posts: 1225 | Posted: September 08 2004, 21:11   |
maybe the famous FMSX the original one that runs on a 486!!!!
i gues, can run at 10.000% !!!!
|
|
flyguille msx master Posts: 1225 | Posted: September 08 2004, 21:13   |
ahh, nop, the BrMSX is the faster of all!!!
in a P1 200mhz, the speed is several times faster than the original msx speed.
|
|
[D-Tail]
 msx guru Posts: 3020 | Posted: September 08 2004, 23:21   |
lol  ... Nah, gimme a real MSX  |
|
IC msx professional Posts: 538 | Posted: September 08 2004, 23:41   |
I think openMSX is the top noch of them all.. Has a nice speed, and emulates quite accurate..
For the sound I use blueMSX atm though... My SoundblasterLive + Xp is somewhat off in openMSX
But MultiThreating rulez in a way.. Running an Emul only costs me 0.1% cpu atm
|
|
GuyveR800 msx guru Posts: 3048 | Posted: September 08 2004, 23:44   |
fs5500 is comparing apples and oranges ^^;
On IRC he's also famous for making these kinds of statements... :\
|
|
fs5500 msx friend Posts: 9 | Posted: September 09 2004, 04:30   |
>>fs5500 is comparing apples and oranges ^^;
>>On IRC he's also famous for making these kinds of statements...
What do you want to talk about?
I have a question, What is IRC?
I've never gone to IRC.
>>But MultiThreating rulez in a way.. Running an Emul only costs me 0.1% cpu
atm
That's right.
I talked about "BlueMSX is very fast emulator on Windows with Pentium 4 (with Hyper-Threading Technology)" , not very best emulator or not fast emulator on other platform.
Without HT, maybe BlueMSX won't be fast than other emulator.
But with HT, BlueMSX is very fast.
I tested many of MSX emulator on HT optimized CPU.
Maybe there is why blueMSX is optimized for HT CPU.
|
|
dvik msx master Posts: 1344 | Posted: September 09 2004, 06:04   |
I can understand that blueMSX runs quite well on a HT CPU. The execution is splitted into two threads that does about the same amount of work. One thread is doing the emulation part and the other does video related tasks.
This design was not made with HT in mind but to get higher priority to the emulation and audio compared to video. Even though there are other emulators that runs faster on a non HT CPU (NLMSX and BRMSX are two very good examples) blueMSX runs fairly well on a slower PC (it depends a bit on the hardware configuration as I know some users experience problems on slower PCs). Especially the emulation part and audio runs smooth at quite slow PC (but then of course the video part suffers).
|
|
[D-Tail]
 msx guru Posts: 3020 | Posted: September 09 2004, 09:07   |
Well, BlueMSX doesn't run 'fairly well' on my Pentium III 600MMX, while NLMSX does the trick even in Turbo R mode (with scanlines enabled, that is  ) |
|
dvik msx master Posts: 1344 | Posted: September 09 2004, 09:20   |
In my last post I just explained why the design is the way it is and as I said, blueMSX does not work good on all slow PCs. I have no problem running for example bombaman with moonsound and TV emulation on both my 600MHz PIII's while I can't run any moonsound games/demos with NLMSX on these PCs. I know that both NLMSX and BRMSX are less CPU intesive than blueMSX and I'm not trying to argue about that. PCs are quite different and I'm not supprised that blueMSX has problems on some of them.
|
|
GuyveR800 msx guru Posts: 3048 | Posted: September 09 2004, 13:12   |
Quote:
| >>fs5500 is comparing apples and oranges ^^;
>>On IRC he's also famous for making these kinds of statements...
What do you want to talk about?
I have a question, What is IRC?
I've never gone to IRC.
|
Liar!
Maybe I should post the logs of the time when you changed nicknames and seriously pretended to not know Quibus in order to infiltrate in the openMSX team, just after you started a propaganda war against it. |
|
IC msx professional Posts: 538 | Posted: September 09 2004, 15:15   |
Quote:
| I have a question, What is IRC?
I've never gone to IRC.
|
Internet Relay Chat.. But I think you already know that...  |
|
Sonic_aka_T
 msx guru Posts: 2269 | Posted: September 09 2004, 15:18   |
*sigh* People, please... Peace, love, and J-War running naked through a field of flowers... okay?
|
|
|
|
|