----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Roby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [Xmame] speed: xmame vs mame32 - Got the message :)
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Piotr Wajnberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 12:03 PM > Subject: Re: [Xmame] speed: xmame vs mame32 - Got the message :) > > > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2002 11:40:01 -0500 > > Poletti Don <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I find that xmame.x11 with DGA mode is the fastest > > > xmame but mame32 is faster on my machine. > > > > It's only true for default game resolutions with 1:1 aspect ratio like > > 320x224. When you start stretching it (to twice the size for > > example) DGA cannot keep pace with xv, even in yuv mode instead of rgb > > which is even faster. Last time I checked svgalib and x11-dga > > versions are as fast as mame32 but slower than the xv version. (tested > > with -noth -noafs -ftr 10000 and looking at the average frame rate). > > > > If you want to run non 1:1 games in the correct aspect ratio under DGA, > there's always the possibility of adding weird modes to your X config (see > the xmame faq). Personally, I run Capcom CPS games in their native resolution > (384x224) and it looks very, very nice. :) (well, better than Windows > hardware scaling) > BTW, I forgot to add: I run a lot of stuff in DGA with -scale 2, and it is _definitely_ faster than xv anytime, as opposed to what you were saying. I guess this proves that different hardware/drivers can do a big difference. "Your mileage may vary" is particulary true here. _______________________________________________ Xmame mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://toybox.twisted.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/xmame
