lot's

Core_normal is the normal std cpu core.
Core_full is much slower and shouldn't be used. (is used for pagefaults)
core_dynamic is our latest treasure. Dynamic recompilation of the asmbly.
With properly written code cpu cycles of 50000 can be reached where with normal core 10000 was the max.

Not all games work with it. (tight loops can halt that core)
Just stick with normal. If you need more speed try dynamic. But if the game doesn't work don't come here complaining.

Right now, though on my PIII/600, the 'normal' cpu core seems to have the highest performance of the three if I compile with -march=pentium3 -O3, and --enable-core-inline to configure. I'm certain that dynamic will get faster eventually, but for right now, normal is still giving me the best bang for my buck. 😉

It strongly depends on the game used.
if you disable logging of the dynamic core the results improve a lot!
for example: Interpose Xmas edition runs with core_normal at my pc at 10.000 cycles
with core_dynamic i can get to 44.000 cycles 😀

But most pmode games don't work right yet. Quite some cacheblock overruns and other errors.

That's why core_normal is the default and should be used.

I'd guess that yes, the results would improve by turning off the core logging with Dynamic. (I'm assuming you mean the output from the debug mode) I just haven't tried a recent CVS build without the debugger. 😀 Afterall, printing a line to the console, or logfile after practically every single opcode gets tedious on the processor, I'm sure. 😀

there is a define somewhere on the top of core_dynanic.cpp

Well the dynarec core is very promising, once the bugs and stuff are worked out it could mean full speed Pentium era games on high end Pentium IV systems!