|
Retroarch and mame speed difference
#323411 - 03/16/14 08:17 PM
|
|
|
Hello,
On my desktop pc I use MAME with hlsl and it rocks. I have an older pc connected to my tv, but it cannot run most of the games I like with hlsl on. So I'm using Retroarch with shaders for those games and they work 100% faster sometimes.
But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
|
|
|
| Naoki |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 11/10/09
|
|
Posts: 1998
|
|
Loc: United Kingdom
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323428 - 03/17/14 01:22 AM
|
|
|
> Hello,
>
> On my desktop pc I use MAME with hlsl and it rocks. I have an older pc connected to
> my tv, but it cannot run most of the games I like with hlsl on. So I'm using
> Retroarch with shaders for those games and they work 100% faster sometimes.
>
> But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
>
> Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
Older PC probably has not as good specs and HLSL kills the speed unless your system is good enough. Specs?
|
----
On a quest for Digital 573 and Dancing Stage EuroMix 2
By gods I've found it!
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Naoki]
#323445 - 03/17/14 12:43 PM
|
|
|
> > Hello,
> >
> > On my desktop pc I use MAME with hlsl and it rocks. I have an older pc connected to
> > my tv, but it cannot run most of the games I like with hlsl on. So I'm using
> > Retroarch with shaders for those games and they work 100% faster sometimes.
> >
> > But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
> >
> > Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
>
> Older PC probably has not as good specs and HLSL kills the speed unless your system
> is good enough. Specs?
The older pc isn't good enough to run HLSL, that's why I use Retroarch with a shader(comparable to hlsl) which work is a lot faster in all the games I tried, besides Shienryu.
Any ideas why this game specifiably is different?
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323457 - 03/17/14 09:21 PM
|
|
|
> But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
>
> Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
I don't know anything about Retroarch or what code they're using to play Shienryu (FBA? Yabause? something custom?) but if MAME plays it better, play it in MAME 
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323524 - 03/18/14 06:09 PM
|
|
|
> > But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
> >
> > Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
>
> I don't know anything about Retroarch or what code they're using to play Shienryu
> (FBA? Yabause? something custom?) but if MAME plays it better, play it in MAME
They're using MAME, that's why it's weird...
|
|
|
Tafoid |
|
I keep on testing.. testing.. testing... into the future!
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/19/06
|
|
Posts: 3135
|
|
Loc: USA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323526 - 03/18/14 06:42 PM
|
|
|
> > > But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
> > >
> > > Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
> >
> > I don't know anything about Retroarch or what code they're using to play Shienryu
> > (FBA? Yabause? something custom?) but if MAME plays it better, play it in MAME
>
> They're using MAME, that's why it's weird...
Quoted from site: http://themaister.net/retroarch.html
"Currently there are libretro implementations for systems such as SNES, NES, GBA, GB/GBC, Genesis, and even arcade games (Final Burn Alpha)."
FBA is not MAME. FBA likely doesn't have a DRC core for the SH-2, the maincpu for ST-V games.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Tafoid]
#323536 - 03/18/14 09:24 PM
|
|
|
> > > > But for one game I like, Shienryu, Retroarch is actually slower.
> > > >
> > > > Any ideas why(and how to fix this)?
> > >
> > > I don't know anything about Retroarch or what code they're using to play Shienryu
> > > (FBA? Yabause? something custom?) but if MAME plays it better, play it in MAME
> >
> > They're using MAME, that's why it's weird...
>
> Quoted from site: http://themaister.net/retroarch.html
> "Currently there are libretro implementations for systems such as SNES, NES, GBA,
> GB/GBC, Genesis, and even arcade games (Final Burn Alpha)."
>
> FBA is not MAME. FBA likely doesn't have a DRC core for the SH-2, the maincpu for
> ST-V games.
Mame is also supported by Retroarch.
Check here:
http://www.libretro.com/index.php/ecosystem/
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323562 - 03/19/14 08:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323564 - 03/19/14 08:55 PM
|
|
|
> > Mame is also supported by Retroarch.
> > Check here:
> > http://www.libretro.com/index.php/ecosystem/
>
> That says nothing about which engine(s) run which games.
You can choose whichever engine you want to run any game supported by that engine(you can run neogeo with the mame engine or with the fba engine etc.)
But anyhow, FBA won't run stv games as far as I know.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323566 - 03/19/14 10:00 PM
|
|
|
Using retroarch to run MAME is never going to be optimal because their adapter layer is heavier weight than MAME's Windows and SDL interfaces and not designed for MAME anyway. You just have to live with that.
And because it's a quite-extensively modified fork of MAME, asking the retroarch guys what's wrong is going to be more fruitful than asking MAMEdev.
I'll just conclude once again: if genuine MAME plays the games better, play them in genuine MAME.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323583 - 03/20/14 09:17 AM
|
|
|
> Using retroarch to run MAME is never going to be optimal because their adapter layer
> is heavier weight than MAME's Windows and SDL interfaces and not designed for MAME
> anyway. You just have to live with that.
>
> And because it's a quite-extensively modified fork of MAME, asking the retroarch guys
> what's wrong is going to be more fruitful than asking MAMEdev.
>
> I'll just conclude once again: if genuine MAME plays the games better, play them in
> genuine MAME.
But that's the thing, I've tried 11 games, and out the those, only 1 worked better in MAME. All the 10 others worked faster on Retroarch.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323586 - 03/20/14 09:55 AM
|
|
|
> But that's the thing, I've tried 11 games, and out the those, only 1 worked better in
> MAME. All the 10 others worked faster on Retroarch.
Retroarch is using a hacked MAME core. No-one here knows what they've done to it. Ask the Retroatch people on the Retroarch boards.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#323587 - 03/20/14 11:00 AM
|
|
|
> Retroarch is using a hacked MAME core. No-one here knows what they've done to it. Ask
> the Retroatch people on the Retroarch boards.
Yeah I'd want to know exactly what svn revision they were using and compare it to that for a start. We've had plenty of changes recently that could slow things down, it might be that retroarch hasn't updated to that yet.
|
|
|
| Dullaron |
|
Diablo III - Dunard #1884
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 07/22/05
|
|
Posts: 6125
|
|
Loc: Fort Worth, Tx
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#323590 - 03/20/14 02:40 PM
|
|
|
> > But that's the thing, I've tried 11 games, and out the those, only 1 worked better
> in
> > MAME. All the 10 others worked faster on Retroarch.
>
> Retroarch is using a hacked MAME core. No-one here knows what they've done to it. Ask
> the Retroatch people on the Retroarch boards.
Yep. They are using speed hacks. 
|
W11 Home 64-bit + Nobara OS / AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT / AMD Ryzen 7 3700X 8-Core 3.59 GHz / RAM 64 GB
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: ]
#323597 - 03/20/14 08:58 PM
|
|
|
> Yeah I'd want to know exactly what svn revision they were using and compare it to
> that for a start. We've had plenty of changes recently that could slow things down,
> it might be that retroarch hasn't updated to that yet.
Except that his point of consternation is that MAME is *faster* than Retroarch for ST-V games.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323604 - 03/21/14 12:21 AM
|
|
|
what is the version of retroarch mame ?
mame-libretro(0.152)
mame2010-libretro(0.139)
mame2003-libretro(0.78)
mame-2003 is designed for many platform ( PlayStation3, Android, iOS, Blackberry,Xbox360 and PC ), with speed hack.
mame-2010 is a compromise with more recent drivers than 0.78 ,for ARM/X86 hardware only (PC,Android) , with no speed hack.
libretro-mame based on 0.152 , recent drivers, for ARM/X86 hardware only (PC,Android) ,with no speed hack.
the two last are not quite-extensively modified fork of MAME ,the modified code is for the OSD part and the makefile.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Dullaron]
#323611 - 03/21/14 03:21 AM
|
|
|
> > Retroarch is using a hacked MAME core. No-one here knows what they've done to it.
> Ask
> > the Retroatch people on the Retroarch boards.
>
Define hacked?
You can always check what has been done, it's still open source and everything is on github.
> Yep. They are using speed hacks.
Yep, speedhacks that were on older MAME versions and they are implemented only in the older versions.
It's a sad thing that you don't even consider checking it out before stating "facts". The fork is not extensively modified or anything. Actually it's a pretty shallow fork and the devs actually want to be able to merge upstream.
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323612 - 03/21/14 09:21 AM
|
|
|
> > Yeah I'd want to know exactly what svn revision they were using and compare it to
> > that for a start. We've had plenty of changes recently that could slow things down,
> > it might be that retroarch hasn't updated to that yet.
>
> Except that his point of consternation is that MAME is *faster* than Retroarch for
> ST-V games.
I think he was also asking why some arcade games emulated with Retroarch + filters were faster than MAME + HLSL.
As said elsewhere, anyway, Retroarch forks use several different MAME cores, going from v0.36b, to v0.78, v0.139 and v0.150, so the difference in speed might very well be due to some games being emulated with 0.36 or 0.78 (which in some cases would leave more PC resources free for filters)
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: etabeta]
#323616 - 03/21/14 11:29 AM
|
|
|
> > > Yeah I'd want to know exactly what svn revision they were using and compare it to
> > > that for a start. We've had plenty of changes recently that could slow things
> down,
> > > it might be that retroarch hasn't updated to that yet.
> >
> > Except that his point of consternation is that MAME is *faster* than Retroarch for
> > ST-V games.
>
> I think he was also asking why some arcade games emulated with Retroarch + filters
> were faster than MAME + HLSL.
> As said elsewhere, anyway, Retroarch forks use several different MAME cores, going
> from v0.36b, to v0.78, v0.139 and v0.150, so the difference in speed might very well
> be due to some games being emulated with 0.36 or 0.78 (which in some cases would
> leave more PC resources free for filters)
So the core is automatically chosen by Retroarch depending on the game?
I guess that's it.
thx
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: LRa]
#323617 - 03/21/14 01:51 PM
|
|
|
> > > > Yeah I'd want to know exactly what svn revision they were using and compare it
> to
> > > > that for a start. We've had plenty of changes recently that could slow things
> > down,
> > > > it might be that retroarch hasn't updated to that yet.
> > >
> > > Except that his point of consternation is that MAME is *faster* than Retroarch
> for
> > > ST-V games.
> >
> > I think he was also asking why some arcade games emulated with Retroarch + filters
> > were faster than MAME + HLSL.
> > As said elsewhere, anyway, Retroarch forks use several different MAME cores, going
> > from v0.36b, to v0.78, v0.139 and v0.150, so the difference in speed might very
> well
> > be due to some games being emulated with 0.36 or 0.78 (which in some cases would
> > leave more PC resources free for filters)
>
> So the core is automatically chosen by Retroarch depending on the game?
>
> I guess that's it.
>
> thx
No it isn't. unless you specifically selected 'Load Content (Detect Core)', and selected MAME 2010 or MAME 2003 instead of MAME when asked. But I'm pretty sure that is not the case here.
Anyway, the reason for most games performing faster on the libretro frontend than the official SDL version is most likely because libretro/RetroArch is just less resource intensive and just performs plain better - SDL is a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to the performance stakes. While I don't want to speak ill of other people's efforts, our frontend drivers are definitely more optimal than you'd find in your average standalone emu. It will be very hard trying to beat RA there.
STV-games performing slower might be down to us improperly hooking up the OSD part. I don't know if STV-games do anything special or if it uses multiple work threads - maybe the problem lies there.
Retrowork.c/retrosync.c and retrorender.c should all be properly checked one day.
Lastly - libretro-mame tries to be more or less bleeding edge and there are actually NO speedhacks anywhere - no main code is modified in any way - it just uses an OSD libretro layer instead of the SDL one.
Edited by squarepusher (03/21/14 02:01 PM)
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#323618 - 03/21/14 02:00 PM
|
|
|
> > But that's the thing, I've tried 11 games, and out the those, only 1 worked better
> in
> > MAME. All the 10 others worked faster on Retroarch.
>
> Retroarch is using a hacked MAME core.
No it doesn't. Define 'hacked'. Libretro-mame is as 'shallow' a fork as you'd possibly find.
|
|
|
| R. Belmont |
|
Cuckoo for IGAvania
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 9716
|
|
Loc: ECV-197 The Orville
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: squarepusher]
#323621 - 03/21/14 05:09 PM
|
|
|
> Anyway, the reason for most games performing faster on the libretro frontend than the
> official SDL version is most likely because libretro/RetroArch is just less resource
> intensive and just performs plain better - SDL is a jack of all trades, master of
> none when it comes to the performance stakes.
Since the OP mentions HLSL specifically, he's not using the SDL OSD, but rather the Windows D3D9 one.
Back in the day our SDL/OpenGL OSD benched faster than our Windows/D3D9 OSD. D3D9's since been rewritten by someone with genuine AAA game GPU wrangling experience so that's likely no longer the case, but MAME on SDL is not slow.
> STV-games performing slower might be down to us improperly hooking up the OSD part. I
> don't know if STV-games do anything special or if it uses multiple work threads -
> maybe the problem lies there.
ST-V is purely single-threaded. You probably disabled the DRC somehow (it can be done both by #ifdef and by a run-time option).
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: R. Belmont]
#323624 - 03/21/14 06:46 PM
|
|
|
I'll take a look at DRC, thanks for the pointer
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: AndresSM]
#323627 - 03/21/14 09:49 PM
|
|
|
Drc is enable, for pc not android.
I know what i have done in this port
But you can look if you don't trust me
R-type
|
|
|
|
Re: Retroarch and mame speed difference
[Re: not6]
#323629 - 03/22/14 01:15 AM
|
|
|
I didn't know it was you man
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Retroarch and mame speed difference
Reply
[Re: 
