athlon64 2800

[lodoss118]

i find it weird i am getting like 40-50fps in sfIII i have a geforcefx5600 (athlon64 2800)

and my p4 3.0 ghz intel p4 ran it at 60+fps constant (ati radeon 9700pro)

 

[Branz_mf]

ati radeon 9700pro > geforcefx5600 (geforce5600 sucks!!!! Try changing the video cards and see the diference)).

p4 3.0 ghz intel p4 > athlon64 2800 (Useless comparing cpu speed, mhz doesn't make much diferrence, what makes diference depends upon your video card you want to compare to.)

 

[madh83]

hate to burst your bubble, but chankast speed is mostly cpu depedent

 

[lodoss118]

hmm i c i put my radeon in and wow wat a difference get 60fps+ with soul calibur and sfIII

athlon2800 should be faster than a p4 3.0 right?

 

[Branz_mf]

athlon2800 should be faster than a p4 3.0 right?

No, in this case!!!! I compared an old Pure P4 1.8Ghz(Without HT) to Athlon Xp 2.4Ghz, and there was only a very small diference between the two processors. And I think it's useless comparing cpus just to see a mediocre 3fps faster than the other...

 

[General Plot]

Reminds me of a thread I've been spending a couple of days in....but that's another story. Remember, Chankast isn't optimized for that 64 bit addressing that your A64 has, so that in no way will help you in this situation. In order to take advantage of the 64 bit fully, your OS, and apps (this is software running on your 64 bit OS) must be utilizing that specific addressing, or guess what? No advantage in having that 64 bit cpu, at least when it comes to Chankast anyways.

 

[lodoss118]

talking about that, wats happening about the latest version i remeber going to some spanish site and some guy said that the people working on it split up and most of them found the opposite sex lol, i wish something cool in emulation news wise wouldhappen like another arcade emu being released model 3 weeeeeee

 

[cooliscool]

The A64's on-chip low latency MCH is very benifitial to speed, as well as its quick FPU. 64-bit isn't all the A64 got.

It should, in all honesty, be much faster than 40-50FPS.

 

[Doomulation]

No, in this case!!!! I compared an old Pure P4 1.8Ghz(Without HT) to Athlon Xp 2.4Ghz, and there was only a very small diference between the two processors. And I think it's useless comparing cpus just to see a mediocre 3fps faster than the other...

Don't start this...
And in fact, the XP 2.4 GHz should be lots faster than the P4 without HT. You must make sure you're doing real compares and have a good system with both, but whatever...
lodoss118: The AMD64 beats the P4 right now, so any AMD64 > P4, since you asked.

 

[cooliscool]

No, any AMD64 doesn't beat any P4. :yawn: I thought we killed that statement in our "other" thread.. a Socket 754 2800+ (the only 2800+) is not faster than a P4 3.0C.

 

[Branz_mf]

Don't start this...
And in fact, the XP 2.4 GHz should be lots faster than the P4 without HT. You must make sure you're doing real compares and have a good system with both, but whatever...
lodoss118: The AMD64 beats the P4 right now, so any AMD64 > P4, since you asked.

What about P4 64bits (already exists) against Atolon 64bits ?? Do u really think this atolon 64 will beat p4 again?

 

[Doomulation]

No, any AMD64 doesn't beat any P4. :yawn: I thought we killed that statement in our "other" thread.. a Socket 754 2800+ (the only 2800+) is not faster than a P4 3.0C.

Whatever...
Are we going to make this into another amd vs intel thread?

 

[General Plot]

Whatever...
Are we going to make this into another amd vs intel thread?

You're right doom. Probably should end this now before they move this thread to the Tech Talk thread.

 

[Stezo2k]

a Socket 754 2800+ (the only 2800+) is not faster than a P4 3.0C.

It would be very close in performance though and possibly beat it when used at it's full potential in win x64.... but yeah dooms right we shouldn't really argue

the FPS difference is more than likely due to the graphics cards and the drivers they're using, the a64 should be faster as its better for gaming and emulation performance

 

[PsyMan]

Believe it or not... Athlon XPs with Barton core, Athlon 64s, Athlon 64 mobiles (including Turions) and Pentium Ms perform way better than any other CPU with Chankast.
This doesn't mean that the other CPUs are worst. For some reason Chankast is optimized for these CPUs.

Here are some tests I made with Chankast v0.25 (640x480, Fullscreen, AA and AF disabled to avoid GPU related slowdowns):

|---------- CPU ------------|-- Video Card --| FPS (Mr. Driller) | FPS (Soul Calibur)|
|---------------------------|----------------|----------------|------------------|
|---- Pentium 4 3.02GHz ----|- GeForce 4 MX -|---- 60/60+ ---|----- ~45/60 -----|
|-- Athlon XP 3200+ 2.2GHz -|- GeForce 2 MX -|---- 60/60+ ---|------ 60/60+ ----|
|---- Pentium M 1.73GHz ----|-- Radeon X600 -|---- 60/60+ ---|----- ~50/60 -----|
|-- Athlon 64 3200+ 2GHz ---| Radeon 9800 Pro |---- 60/60+ ---|----- 60/60+ -----|

I know that it's weird but... That's it :\

PS: Tried at least two driver sets with each machine... The machine with the Pentium M had the worst RAM clock timings.

 

[STC-Fan]

You are all wrong, my Acorn A7000+ could run Chankast much faster. I am in no doubt that its 48MHz of ARM 710 RISC CPU could easily surpass the might of... OK, I'll stop now, this joke is getting a bit redundant, but I couldn't resist having a go anyway. =P