Hello all,
I've tried some games using scale2x (-ef 1 option), but I can't seem to get
much above 20 fps on my Athlon XP 2000+. No matter if I run XV or X11 DGA, or
if I run donkey kong or streetfighter alpha 3, I still end up with about 20
fps. Is it just impossible to get more than that, or a
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:45:10 +0200
Pieter Hulshoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've tried some games using scale2x (-ef 1 option), but I can't seem to
> get much above 20 fps on my Athlon XP 2000+. No matter if I run XV or
> X11 DGA, or if I run donkey kong or streetfighter alpha
On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 20:45, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I've tried some games using scale2x (-ef 1 option), but I can't seem to get
> much above 20 fps on my Athlon XP 2000+. No matter if I run XV or X11 DGA, or
> if I run donkey kong or streetfighter alpha 3, I still end up with ab
> You could check 2 things: the color depth of your X server (xdpyinfo)
> and mtrr.
I've tried it with both 16 and 24 colours. I've also tried a bunch of compile
options, and managed to get donkey kong upto 52 fps now, but even that's
kinda low compared to what I've heard from others.
> Some ga
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 08:24:29PM +0200, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
>
> I was wondering: might it have anything to do with my hardware? I'm using a
> Radeon 9000 AIW (made by Hercules), and the standard XFree86 drivers (figured
> I didn't need 3D). Perhaps I should try the ATI drivers, or would I b
> I use a 7500 with the XFree86 drivers, and it works fine. I imagine the
> driver for the 9000 should be as good.
That's what I figured, so I thought I'd ask before going through a lot of
trouble. :)
> Could you show us the output when you run xmame with "-sc"? It might also
> pay to attach y
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 20:24, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
> > You could check 2 things: the color depth of your X server (xdpyinfo)
> > and mtrr.
>
> I've tried it with both 16 and 24 colours. I've also tried a bunch of compile
> options, and managed to get donkey kong upto 52 fps now, but even that's
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 20:24:29 +0200 Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
> I have no idea on how to check if mtrr is enabled, but the .config file
> created by make cloneconfig seems to suggest that it is.
cat /proc/mtrr
--
Erik
___
Xmame mailing list
[EMAIL PROTEC
> It should be enabled by default, but to be sure, you could check with
> dmesg if is enabled in your kernel, and look in your X server log for
> any error.
It is indeed enabled.
> My bad, i've confused the scale2x option with scale, the first should be
> a little more cpu intensive... =)
> I'm g
On Mon, 2003-09-22 at 22:19, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
> > It should be enabled by default, but to be sure, you could check with
> > dmesg if is enabled in your kernel, and look in your X server log for
> > any error.
>
> It is indeed enabled.
>
> > My bad, i've confused the scale2x option with scal
mine is doing this too. when I use -x11 1, my semi-transparent top panel
is always visible in xmame, and it moves the beginning of the xmame
fullscreen down approximately 30 pixels (the size of my panel). it
didn't happen with GNOME 2.2, but started with GNOME 2.3.2, I believe.
2.4 stable does the
> Well, with the "-ef 1" option enabled, the best i can get is near 30/40
> fps with dkong (it's the only rom i've tried cause i can't find the HD
> with roms). Without the "ef" option, the fps are in the order of
> hundreds fps (with "-x11 0" above 500 fps), and this is an athlon XP
> 2200+ (1800
> > I have no idea on how to check if mtrr is enabled, but the .config file
> > created by make cloneconfig seems to suggest that it is.
> cat /proc/mtrr
Thanx. :) It is indeed enabled.
Regards,
Pieter Hulshoff
___
Xmame mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:21:05AM +0200, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
>
> > You absolutely need the "ef 1" enabled? =)
>
> Well, yeah! I'm doing some preliminary investigations for a project I can't
> talk too much about yet. :)
With -x11-mode 2 and no -ef, you'll get a similar look with much better
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 06:27, Lawrence Gold wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:21:05AM +0200, Pieter Hulshoff wrote:
> >
> > > You absolutely need the "ef 1" enabled? =)
> >
> > Well, yeah! I'm doing some preliminary investigations for a project I can't
> > talk too much about yet. :)
>
> With
> Uff, the 500 fps figures of dkong of yesterday night was a my mistake
> (it was above 300 fps =):
> Seems that with X11 windowed output i've the best result using -ef 1...
Your testresults resemble mine on my machine (yours is slightly faster). It
seems to be impossible for me to get decent fra
> I may give those ATI drivers a try after all.
Ok, that was a short try. I managed to get normal functionality to work, but
no DRI, and as such I couldn't get any activity out of MAME either. Oh well,
perhaps I'll give it another try on some of the other computers I have at
home *sigh*. Sure w
Hello all,
Just did a few more experiments, and to my utter amazement I managed to get
full 60 fps with -ef 1 using a Morphix boot cd, and my normal xmame DGA
setup. Do I really have to start doubting my SuSE distribution, or is there
another thing lurking beneath the surface? I'll keep you pos
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Maybe it's using a 2.6-beta kernel?
I'm running 2.6-test5-mm4 here right now and I couldn't believe the
speed improvements in X when I first booted it! It almost feels like
doubling the MHz! ;) Raw stuff like compilation etc is about the same
speed
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Per Wigren wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Maybe it's using a 2.6-beta kernel?
> I'm running 2.6-test5-mm4 here right now and I couldn't believe the
> speed improvements in X when I first booted it! It almost feels like
> doubling the MHz! ;) Raw
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 04:26:31PM -0400, Keenan Wilkie wrote:
>
> Oh, I do get an odd occurance with xmame. It doesn't seem to like sharing
> audio resources -- in fact, if I switch to something other than the xmame
> window and go back, my audio is gone and I get a massive helping of broken
> p
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Lawrence Gold wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 04:26:31PM -0400, Keenan Wilkie wrote:
> >
> > Oh, I do get an odd occurance with xmame. It doesn't seem to like sharing
> > audio resources -- in fact, if I switch to something other than the xmame
> > window and go back, my aud
> I suppose that this gets a little offtopic for the mailing list, but I
> must ask what you did to get such a performance increase. I decided to
> try out the test kernel (on test6 now), but I've not noticed any X
> improvements. I have noticed that things tend to slow down a little more
> than
Hello all,
Interesting enough, using SDL I do get pretty good performance using -ef 1.
I'm still using the same hardware, still using the same video drivers, but
now that I use SDL i.s.o. DGA or XV I get pretty good framerates (close to 60
fps on most games).
On another note: if I'm NOT using
>
> On another note: if I'm NOT using X, but use xmame.SDL directly from the
> console, how can I get more resolutions available than just the one my
> console is running in (1024x768)? Under X I have all my X resolutions
> available (xmame.SDL -listmodes shows them all), but under my console I
onl
> The framebuffer console and X manage resolutions in a completely distinct
> manner altogether.
Thanx on all the info. It was educational. :) Unfortunately, I can't seem to
get much response from fbset, other than some nice error messages. I'll
Google for some info on them to see if I can fix
Simon Roby wrote:
> but the man pages for 'fbset' should tell you more (if you
> actually have fbset, some distros include it by default but if not I don't
> know where to get it)
http://linux-fbdev.org
Regards,
Norberto
--
"To be a nemesis, you have to actively try to destroy something, don't
27 matches
Mail list logo
