Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I download source code from www.pcsx2.net, version 0.8.1.
I compiled it using VC2003 ,ICC8.1 and ICC9.0。But the version compiled by myserlf is much slower than the bin version from www.pcsx2.net.
The bin download from www.pcsx2.net (normal version no sse2) is about 20% faster than what I compiled by myself.
I have already optimized the compiler,o3 sse g6/g7 IPO and so on.
But it still slower than official bin.
How to optimize the compiler?
 

·
Familiar Face
Joined
·
4,971 Posts
That's strange, I managed to compile the 0.8.1 source in Visual Studio 2003, and I didn't notice any speed increase/decrease. Were there any errors in the compile log?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
No error, no special warning.
My cpu is ATHLON XP 3200+(barton). Display card is 9600XT.
When I use offical bin to run bios, the frame is about 40/S.
But when I use bin compiled by myself, the frame is down to 30/s.
I try to optimize my compiler, just 1 or 2 frame increase/decrease.
When I run game,it's also down from 22f/s to 18f/s (not 3d scene).
20~30% performance different, I can not understand it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
I tested again. running bios.
The official bin is 40F/S, ICC8.1/9.0 is 30F/S, VC++7.1/8.0 IS 25F/S.
Official bin size is 1.56K. icc build bin is 1.5~1.6K , vc build bin is 1.3k.
 

·
Familiar Face
Joined
·
4,971 Posts
Sounds rather strange to me. I wonder if the source code on the site is to the version 0.8 (before they fixed the bug) and not 0.8.1. I can't think of anything else.
 

·
A Square Fan!
Joined
·
592 Posts
I have compiled using vc 2003 and 2005 and I don't get any speed decrease.
Maybe is the release/debug version. You should get a 1.27MB~in vc using realse mode.
Test it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
TWave said:
I have compiled using vc 2003 and 2005 and I don't get any speed decrease.
Maybe is the release/debug version. You should get a 1.27MB~in vc using realse mode.
Test it.
Maybe is problem of CPU, I use AMD ATHLON XP 3200+.
If not optimizion, the size will be 1.27M but it's most slow.
I use gsdx9 plugin.
How about your Frames per second?
On my machine,running bios, official bin is 40~42f/s,icc bin is 30~32f/s, vc bin is 25~28f/s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
finally, I know the reason.
The official bin is compiled by gcc(DevC++).It's much faster than VC/ICC on AMD platform.
I use W32asm analyze the bin code. Gcc's(mingw) bin start-offset is 00000400 and VC/ICC's bin start-offset is 00001000.
The official bin start-offset is 00000400.
That's why the official bin is much faster than the bin compiled by myself.
My computer's CPU is AMD AthlonXP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
riverzhou said:
finally, I know the reason.
The official bin is compiled by gcc(DevC++).It's much faster than VC/ICC on AMD platform.
I use W32asm analyze the bin code. Gcc's(mingw) bin start-offset is 00000400 and VC/ICC's bin start-offset is 00001000.
The official bin start-offset is 00000400.
That's why the official bin is much faster than the bin compiled by myself.
My computer's CPU is AMD AthlonXP.
Ehh.. I have DevC++ and VS2005b2, and PCSX2 will compile in VS but not DevC++(I wish it would as I prefer DevC++). There is no DevC++ project file in the source and the current version of DevC++ gets an error when it tries to import the VC7.1 project file(although it says this is a bug in DevC++, so an older or newer version might work).
I did not know that DevC++ was faster for AMDs though, good for me though(AMD64).

Edit: I guess what Im asking is, how did you get it to compile in DevC++?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
BCM124 said:
Ehh.. I have DevC++ and VS2005b2, and PCSX2 will compile in VS but not DevC++(I wish it would as I prefer DevC++). There is no DevC++ project file in the source and the current version of DevC++ gets an error when it tries to import the VC7.1 project file(although it says this is a bug in DevC++, so an older or newer version might work).
I did not know that DevC++ was faster for AMDs though, good for me though(AMD64).

Edit: I guess what Im asking is, how did you get it to compile in DevC++?
The CVS source has DevC++ Project file.
The official bin is not build by DevC++ ,it's just build by MinGW.
The official source has MinGW makefile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Never Compile Whit ICC!!! For AMD Platform!!

Advanced Micro Devices is alleging that Intel sabotaged the performance of its CPUs by crafting a routine for its compiler to build programs along un-optimized -- and perhaps even dangerous -- code paths for AMD processors, all while optimizing performance for its own "Genuine Intel" chips.
Read HERE
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
U can copy windows\mingw directory from cvs source to official source.
The DevC++ will work fine. I have just tested.
U should look the windows\Makefile to learn how to optimize the mingw compiler.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
riverzhou said:
The bin I compiled,only for Athlon XP.
I think it the fastest bin for Athlon XP.
Don't ask me anything about it.
Just use it if you like.
Yo DONT YOU READ THE RUELS??
CVS BUILDS ARE NOT ALOWED HERE, SOME 16 YEARD OLD GUYS WILL START FLAMING ABOUT BUGS, AND THESE IS UNSOPORTED VERSION!!!!
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top