FAME Beta released!

[fox68k]

Hi everyone,

it was time to release a new version of FAME and ... why not a Beta one? ;D

It is just much more stable than previous one and it runs perfectly a considerable amount of Genesis games in GP/DC: Sonic 1-3, Golden Axe 2, Thunder Force IV, Rambo 3, Aladdin, Eternal Champions and Street of Rage 2 among many others

I would like to know about lastest development on GP/DC so if anyone is working in it out there, please let me know about progress

Documentation and download here.

Cheers.

[quzar]

Is this any faster than previous versions of fame? I tested fame from neo4all a2 against my newly compiled c68k and c68k was as fast as it.

[DARKGATE]

WOW, good possibility of see an AMIGA EMU and GENESIS work perfectly : ,
CHUIIIII, BLACKAURAAAA ;D worked :P . .

[fox68k]

[quote author=quzar link=board=dcemu;num=1108846091;start=0#1 date=02/20/05 at 00:15:03]Is this any faster than previous versions of fame? I tested fame from neo4all a2 against my newly compiled c68k and c68k was as fast as it.[/quote]

I did not test my core against any other yet, sorry

But BA pointed out about speed in GP with FAME sometime ago here.

[Christuserloeser]

Wow, that's fantastic news fox68k

[ron]

I'm sure that FAME is dramatically faster than C68K. Just think on arithmetics and calculations. Even Quzar if you are tuning as best as posible your C68K compilation , FAME seems to be a faster core. Anyway this doesn't meant that Stef´s core is worst than Fox68k, both cores are great glasses in wich look through

[quzar]

[quote author=ron link=board=dcemu;num=1108846091;start=0#5 date=02/20/05 at 21:42:06]I'm sure that FAME is dramatically faster than C68K. Just think on arithmetics and calculations. Even Quzar if you are tuning as best as posible your C68K compilation , FAME seems to be a faster core. Anyway this doesn't meant that Stef´s core is worst than Fox68k, both cores are great glasses in wich look through [/quote]

i made it so that NeoDC can interface with fame the same way that neo4all does, and have benchmarked c68k against FAME and they come out nearly identical with both leading by a ms or 2 at times, but on average going at the same rate. The difference probably is in the fact that c68k is 1/10 the size of fame.
I know this as a fact for i have seen it with my own eyes.

The only thing I really asked was wether or not this version was faster than the one included with neo4all alpha 2, because if it is, then maybe it would be noticably faster than c68k.

Also, what is this based on? Have you used c68k and fame side by side in the same application before? or is it from thinking that neo4all is 2x faster than neodc as most would be lead to believe?

[Stef]

If you want to test speed of C68K and FAME, you need to overclock *a lot* speed of 68000 CPU in NeoCD, because only in this case others parts become insignifiant.
Try to make it working at 240 Mhz (by multiplying number of cycles to do by 20) then compare how many FPS you have with C68K and FAME.
Normally FAME should anyway be faster, just think of flags calculations.
Making them in C can't be optimal, even if SH-X CPU assembly doesn't offers advantages of x86 CPU here...
If you measure C68K faster, then as mentionned Chui and Fox68K, there is probably a obscure bug in C68K which make it to leak some cycles.
But as C68K takes less memory than FAME, i guess FAME isn't a lot faster.

[quzar]

[quote author=Stef link=board=dcemu;num=1108846091;start=0#7 date=02/21/05 at 08:45:18]If you want to test speed of C68K and FAME, you need to overclock *a lot* speed of 68000 CPU in NeoCD, because only in this case others parts *become insignifiant.
Try to make it working at 240 Mhz (by multiplying number of cycles to do by 20) then compare how many FPS you have with C68K and FAME.
Normally FAME should anyway be faster, just think of flags calculations.
Making them in C can't be optimal, even if SH-X CPU assembly doesn't offers advantages of x86 CPU here...
If you measure C68K faster, then as mentionned Chui and Fox68K, there is probably a obscure bug in C68K which make it to leak some cycles.
But as C68K takes less memory than FAME, i guess FAME isn't a lot faster.
[/quote]
when i recompiled the version of c68k that you had compiled for ian and was distributed as a precompiled object, i was able to get it to run about 2x faster than it had been by compiling it at -Os -no-gcse. It's also about half the size as it was before.

I'll try that at some point though, running it at 10x the speed.

[Stef]

[quote author=quzar link=board=dcemu;num=1108846091;start=0#8 date=02/21/05 at 09:21:30]
when i recompiled the version of c68k that you had compiled for ian and was distributed as a precompiled object, i was able to get it to run about 2x faster than it had been by compiling it at -Os -no-gcse. It's also about half the size as it was before.

I'll try that at some point though, running it at 10x the speed.[/quote]

Be careful, sometime GCC just doesn't compile C68K correctly ! i know -Os flag does work on ealier 2.X version but not on 3.X for instance...
I'm really surprised you can even got the size code divised by 2 ! On my version, size down to 360 KB if i remember correclty, which is already pretty low...