VOGONS

Search

Common searches

Search results

Display options

Display options

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-18, 13:41

kixs wrote: Fair enough... Most probably 1400, but there can be variants: 1) hacked multiplier, 2) hypothetic super-motherboard allowing 210 x 7.5, 3) hypothetic motherboard with fractional FSB allowing something like 165.8 x 9.5. And it's not good to have the need to solve puzzles with FSB and …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-18, 12:45

Qbix wrote: maybe you accidently hit ctrl-f12 ? As max isn't the fastest DOSBox can go. 105% cycles gives me +3%, not 10%. kixs wrote: I think it's quite obvious that he used Tualatin P3 1400S overclocked to 1575. While I don't think, as I had Intel CPU overclocked +50%.

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-18, 12:20

Thanks for your results, guys. Even though I did put AIDA64 cpu info in the final screenshots, I was closing it, running demos, then opening it, taking screenshot, closing it, running next demo, etc, etc. Then it's not AIDA who's taken 10% of your CPU power, for example CPU-Z gets 7% fps on my …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 21:48

So the displayed frequency in my screenshots, is what speed it is at, -at all times-, even if the dosbox window is in focus or not. I did however make sure to click on the window and make it in-focus for my later tests, the 3-each with screenshots. Focus on the game's windows has to be not only for …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 21:14

The earlier tests (The first one I had listed) was with tons of background crap running (Chrome, fraps, AIDA64, download managers, steam, chat clients, trillian, mirc, etc.) GeorgeMan had similar miracle above, - loss of ~10% with cleaner memory. For example, if AIDA had no opened window previously …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 19:55

New run Thanks for new run. You mentioned 2.9 GHz, but as I've understood you intended to run the CPU at standard frequency 2.8. I've written standard frequency 2.8 as results are same as at slower CPU, so I conceded that frequency 2.9 could be incorrectly shown somewhere. You may check the …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 14:40

Thanks all for your results. Actually I disabled ethernet, did a restart, closed them but the FPS in all tests were ~10% lower. Interesting. If in your experiments with applications having a negative load you'll get a higher fps, then feel free to post new results. Meanwhile I'll use the current …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 11:25

GeorgeMan wrote: which are only: Corsair Link, AMD Catalyst, Hard disk sentintel, Intel RST Hardware monitoring software like Sentintel and Corsair Link take resources. These both could eaten up to 5-10% of fps. If you technically can to measure without them, please do it.

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 10:22

CPU mostly stayed at 3.9 GHz with some dips down to 3.8 GHz. <...> Let me know if you need more information from me, or if you want me to rerun with different settings. If during measuring in demos there existed some monitoring GHz application like CPU-Z, then without this application your fps may …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-17, 09:23

Timedemo 1: 23.8 Timedemo 2: 36.3 Timedemo 3: 46.3 Thanks, but your results look as not valid. As fps look strange, - so it's required to follow the described testing process accurately. If you have run 3 different demos: it's needed to run demo1 for 3 times by a command "timedemo demo1" and then …

Re: Big anniversary coming

Posted on 2015-05-15, 21:49

Some of the bug fixes in here are quite significant, especially the aspect correction, which has been improved greatly from 0.74. You must understand that DOS games were meant to be played on a 4:3 monitor, not a 16:9 monitor as is the standard today. Aspect correction is needed because pixels at …

Re: DOSBox Feature Request Thread

Posted on 2015-05-15, 09:30

1) When run with -noconsole command the DOSBox creates stderr.txt, stdout.txt The offer is to make a switch/option to turn off creating of these files. Or to set absence of these files by default (when run with -noconsole) and then a switch/option to turn them on for those who needs them. 2) Many …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-13, 22:59

Tried the latest EmuCR build, managed to get a whopping 1 frame per second more 35fps SVN 3914 gave me same fps. And ykhwong's gave same after set video options as 0.74 defaults. I'd rather keep my money for when truly significant CPUs arrive and DDR4 becomes mainstream. While I'm waiting for new …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-13, 21:35

No, I overclocked it to 4GHz and disabled Turbo. My OS is the same as above, Win 8.1 x64. Thank you. I wonder if the latest SVN builds improve perfomance somewhat, might be cool to give that a try. Not a bad source about CPU for games is thg . According to a chart I saw for GTA 5, for additional $ …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-13, 20:31

I got an 8320 yesterday, by default it scores 31.5fps. Pushing it to 8350 levels (4GHz), it manages to score 34fps 4 GHz is its turbo mode (current frequency should to show something like cpu-z). You've got 34 fps on overclocked (and hence maybe at turbo > 4 GHz) or on standard base frequency 3.5 …

Re: Quake SB16 no sound in DOS

Posted on 2015-05-13, 14:44

in DOS
If sound in w9x works and other DOS games work with your settings of card like base, irq, dma then try other Quake install files. If other games don't work too, then check your card's settings: base, irq and dma in device manager of win 9x. Maybe there are conflicts with other devices with settings …

Re: automatic openinh of a new file with same *.exe

Posted on 2015-05-12, 23:28

I solved my problem with this batch Your .bat makes in essence what did my variant for random .ext, while yours have additonal disk writes and hence should be slower. I see no advantage of it and have no idea what you've found wrong with my solution. But I'm glad then even worse code satisfies. Was …

Re: DOSBox 0.74 CPU Benchmark (Quake)

Posted on 2015-05-11, 20:59

leileilol Your offers do not make the benchmark meaningfuly easier or more comfortable for a single tester. upd: I've added some automation commands in case someone will want to spare a couple of clickings and have additional messing with files.

Page 42 of 43

Go to top of page Go to top of page
Close window
Close window