Loading the cartridge into RAM

gerrit · Sep 22, 2003

How many people don't use the "Load Cartridge into RAM" feature?

I'm thinking of removing the option to run a cartridge "off disk" instead of loading it into RAM first. I think this is a feature that has lost it's usefulness in the age of computers requiring 256MBs of RAM =)

Tell me what you think.

- Gerrit

Rented Mule · Sep 22, 2003

gerrit said:
How many people don't use the "Load Cartridge into RAM" feature?

I'm thinking of removing the option to run a cartridge "off disk" instead of loading it into RAM first. I think this is a feature that has lost it's usefulness in the age of computers requiring 256MBs of RAM =)

Tell me what you think.

- Gerrit

What did it do anyways? Did it speed up access time to the ROM? Isn't loading the ROM into RAM a good thing? If it doesn't provide all that much speed, it might as well be taken out.

OT: what goodies do you have in store for the next version (besides HID and > 640x480 resolutions...which are in themselves amazing features).

nephalim · Sep 23, 2003

Exactly, loading a ROM into RAM is almost a requirement, there's no reason not to do it unless your computer is too below specs to emulate the N64 in the first place...he is talking about removing the option so that it's always loaded into RAM first, not the other way around.

apexad · Sep 23, 2003

I voted, I'd say have it always load into RAM. As you pointed out most have 256MB RAM, many probably have more.

Computers will only get faster from this point on, so it makes sense to not have the load from HD Option.

gerrit · Sep 23, 2003

I'm talking about removing the option to not load the cartridges into RAM. In general, loading a cartidge into RAM should be faster, but sixtyforce has a special little caching function that basically makes the performance hit from loading off disk negligable. (The speed difference isn't even measurable with the FPS counter.)

The thing is, from time to time as I rewrite stuff, I find the "cartridge on disk" feature getting in the way. I've been tempted to just yank it out so I don't have to worry about it or test it anymore. That's why I want to know if anyone finds it useful...

As for the next version, I don't know exactly what features will make it in (or not), because I have a pretty good idea when I want it released, but I don't know what features will be ready

So far.. I've implemented some new exceptions in the core which has gotten Turok running perfectly. (There may be others, but Turok is the only one I know for sure has been fixed by this.)

- Gerrit

Rented Mule · Sep 24, 2003

gerrit said:
I'm talking about removing the option to not load the cartridges into RAM. In general, loading a cartidge into RAM should be faster, but sixtyforce has a special little caching function that basically makes the performance hit from loading off disk negligable. (The speed difference isn't even measurable with the FPS counter.)

The thing is, from time to time as I rewrite stuff, I find the "cartridge on disk" feature getting in the way. I've been tempted to just yank it out so I don't have to worry about it or test it anymore. That's why I want to know if anyone finds it useful...

As for the next version, I don't know exactly what features will make it in (or not), because I have a pretty good idea when I want it released, but I don't know what features will be ready So far.. I've implemented some new exceptions in the core which has gotten Turok running perfectly. (There may be others, but Turok is the only one I know for sure has been fixed by this.)

- Gerrit

Well...get rid of that load in RAM feature.

super late edit: and by that I mean get rid of the option...so the rom *always* loads in ram

erise · Sep 27, 2003

I think that you should remove the option to run games off the disk, especially if it slows sixtyforce progress. Almost everyone should have enough RAM by now anyway, or if not, could buy some for really cheap.

Geoz · Oct 4, 2003

erise said:
I think that you should remove the option to run games off the disk, especially if it slows sixtyforce progress. Almost everyone should have enough RAM by now anyway, or if not, could buy some for really cheap.

I remember 60force alwayz had the load into ram feature, but i never used it cos i had 192mb ram in my old imac DV :evil: but you know if it slow development trash it. Its fine i really dont care if its always loaded into ram or onto the HDD it makes no (or hardly) any difference anyway

gerrit · Oct 13, 2003

RIP File-Mapping Cartridges

There was a time and place for file-mapping cartridges, and it was somewhere back in the late 90s when an extra 8MBs of RAM cost a pretty penny.

Today, on Mac OS X, the virtual memory system can do an equivelant job if memory is tight, so goodbye dear file-mapping!

I killed this feature early this morning as it was going to take quite a bit of work to bring it forward under sixtyforce's new threading.

Sadly, you will probably not be missed. Most people probably ever even knew who you were, or what you were doing there.

- Gerrit

Rented Mule · Oct 14, 2003

gerrit said:
I killed this feature early this morning as it was going to take quite a bit of work to bring it forward under sixtyforce's new threading.

- Gerrit

What do you mean 'new threading'? Does this mean sixtyforce will make good use of dual processor G4s and G5s?

If so, you = god!
If not, explain...

You still = god

Doomulation · Oct 15, 2003

Errr...no, that's not what he means. You see, threads are provided by windows. A thread is simply, you can say another process. The cpu skips between these and execute them, yes? The thing what is good with them is that they can have diffrent priorities. Low or very high, making good use of the processor power for some code and little for some.

That is threading, and that's the new system he's going to use.

Rented Mule · Oct 15, 2003

Doomulation said:
Errr...no, that's not what he means. You see, threads are provided by windows. A thread is simply, you can say another process. The cpu skips between these and execute them, yes? The thing what is good with them is that they can have diffrent priorities. Low or very high, making good use of the processor power for some code and little for some.

That is threading, and that's the new system he's going to use.

As far as I understand, if a program has 2 threads or more, they can be shared between processors. At the moment, I think sixtyforce does everything on one thread. This saturates one of my poor Dual 800MHz G4's processor and leaves the other doing nothing. If sixtyforce had more than one thread, these threads could be split across both processors and allow them to use more available CPU time (and allow sixtyforce to run a bit faster).

Or are we talking about different kind of threading?

Doomulation · Oct 16, 2003

What if the computer only has one processor? Having multiple ones isn't common. Besides that, windows will try to balance the load on both cpus by assigning them specific tasks on the threads (I think?).

Rented Mule · Oct 16, 2003

Doomulation said:
What if the computer only has one processor? Having multiple ones isn't common. Besides that, windows will try to balance the load on both cpus by assigning them specific tasks on the threads (I think?).

Well...yeah, if the computer only has one processor then what you're describing makes perfect sense. Different priority threads will all run on one processor but the processor will give more importance to the thread that has a higher priority.

Multiple CPUs on Mac is actually more common than not. Apple has been shipping dual processor G4 PowerMacs for about 3 years now and now a dual processor G5 is available. There also was a time when the whole lineup of G4 PowerMacs were duals...which means you didn't have a choice but to buy a dual cpu computers from Apple (unless you went low-end with an iMac, or portable with a PowerBook or iBook.)

Lizard Blade · Oct 17, 2003

Why does Doomulation keep making references to Windows in this thread? With a few exceptions (eMac, iMac, Powerbooks) all of Apple's recent computers have been multi CPU.

Geoz · Oct 17, 2003

Lizard Blade said:
Why does Doomulation keep making references to Windows in this thread? With a few exceptions (eMac, iMac, Powerbooks) all of Apple's recent computers have been multi CPU.

Is a Dual 1 Ghz G4 Mac the same as 2 Ghz then? Cos thats what i have (well it's my Dad's), but i put it down as 1 Ghz is that correct or should i change it to 2.

Rented Mule · Oct 17, 2003

Geoz said:
Is a Dual 1 Ghz G4 Mac the same as 2 Ghz then? Cos thats what i have (well it's my Dad's), but i put it down as 1 Ghz is that correct or should i change it to 2.

For the sake of the example, we'll use your Dual 1GHz G4 compared to say a hypothetical 2GHz G4.

If an application is threaded properly, it can make use of both processors in the Dual 1GHz G4 and theoretically reach a speed equivalent to 2GHz.

If the application isn't threaded, it won't be able to make use of the second processor. So your Dual 1GHz G4 would act like a single 1GHz G4 (it's still a good investment though to have a dual processor Mac because OS X will make sure other important processes run on the other CPU if you app is taking up 100% of a CPU.)

So up until Gerrit's next release...sixtyforce's performance is limited by the speed of one CPU regardless of the fact that there was another right next to it that could potentially give it more speed.

gerrit · Oct 19, 2003

new threading

sixtyforce 0.7.0 uses multiple threads, but not very efficently. (Basically, only one thread can be running at any given time.)

I've been working on a new threading system to overlap processing whereever I can. There are a number of advantages to this, but it's not going to double the speed on dual-processor Macs. (Although it might give a small speed increase on all systems.)

It's one of those ideas that I just have to try and implement before I'll know how it will work.

- Gerrit

gerrit · Oct 19, 2003

sixtyforce on EmuTalk

Lizard Blade said:
Why does Doomulation keep making references to Windows in this thread? With a few exceptions (eMac, iMac, Powerbooks) all of Apple's recent computers have been multi CPU.

sixtyforce is the first, and only, Mac emulator to have its own forum on EmuTalk -- don't be surprised if people here assume it's for Windows. Don't worry, they'll quickly figure out it's not

I personally think putting a sixtyforce forum in the middle of a Windows emulator site is A Good Thing. Anything that helps Mac emulators gain more respect can't hurt...

- Gerrit

apexad · Oct 21, 2003

gerrit said:
sixtyforce is the first, and only, Mac emulator to have its own forum on EmuTalk -- don't be surprised if people here assume it's for Windows. Don't worry, they'll quickly figure out it's not

I personally think putting a sixtyforce forum in the middle of a Windows emulator site is A Good Thing. Anything that helps Mac emulators gain more respect can't hurt...

- Gerrit

whoever said www.emulation64.com was a windows emulator site? It's an N64 emulation site that has branche to ps2, xbox, dreamcast, and gamecube.

Anyway, besides that, I agree, the sixtyforce forum is a very welcome thing, and I'm glad it's here.

Loading the cartridge into RAM

Do you ever turn off "Loading into RAM"?

Yes, I don't have very much memory in my machine.

No, I don't.

I don't know what this feature is, and I don't think I've used it.

New member

New member

Psychic Vampire

New member

New member

New member

New member

De Master

New member

New member

?????????????????????????

New member

?????????????????????????

New member

New member

De Master

New member

New member

New member

New member