Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Pj speed

Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
I was just wondering.
CpUMasteR and I have tried to compile the pj source. Afaik, we did it actually.
Now, for what I wonder, is that CpU said that it was faster than the officially built source. Maybe someone could check this out? I'd be glad to compile the source and put it up here if no one else can do it.

What do you say?

This is NOT a release! This is merly a test. If you use--don't go ask and blame us that it doesn't work!

Just so that newbies understand the whole :p
 
Last edited:
schibo

schibo

Emulator Developer
I actually posted a lengthy message about this, but removed it. If it is indeed faster, then something has been changed. It is likely due to a project setting change, source code revision(s), and/or you are using a different compiler altogether. Therefore, the problem is this: new builds, including a simple recompile as you suggest, require tons of rigorous testing. Smiff for one can surely tell you that bugs are not always immediately detectable. I would strongly dissuade the use of .NET as we've had issues with it in 1964, and in chats with Jabo, he said the same for pj. Some games simply will not work, among other problems. If someone gets the "official go ahead" to compile a new version, my 2 cents would be to use exactly the same compiler as was used for pj 1.4, which in all likelihood is VS6 with Service Pack 5, and keep pj's MSVC project settings unmodified.

-schibo
 
Hacktarux

Hacktarux

Emulator Developer
Moderator
Are you sure that this is really faster than the original ?
I can't understand how is it possible since pj use a dynamic recompiler : it should essentially execute the code created by itself and not the code generated by vc6 or vc.net.
Maybe it's the recompilation process that is faster but it should not affect anything in the game itself or maybe it's just one more spam.
 
schibo

schibo

Emulator Developer
Right. As far as 19 goes, profiling indicated that <1% of the time is actually spent in the exe, so speed improvement in pj should be comparatively miniscule. I say that cautiously though, considering events such as DMA, interrupts, exception handling, TLB operations, and dynamic creation of machine code occur in the exe.
 
sytaylor

sytaylor

Sy
theres always the possibilty that because they compiled it on their machines it was compiled more to their machines native liking? just a stab in the dark :)
 
Smiff

Smiff

Emutalk Member
Hacktarux makes a good point, also I have a build compiled with .NET (by someone who knows what he's doing.. ahem) and no it doesn't work right.. nasty nasty stuff.. we can do without these floating around.
 
S

Slougi

New member
I agree. .NET messes timing up completely, and in many games the controls don't work at all or the character just does weird moves all the time.
 
OP
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
I'm using VC++ 6.0 and, well, I just wanted to test if it's faster. 'Cuz it might help ppl out.
Oh, and, was zil doing this in C? Since it compiles in C-mode, and maybe that's why it's faster.
 
Jabo

Jabo

Emulator Developer
Moderator
From what I've seen .NET has some optimization errors, also generally speaking any emulator that uses a recompiler spends most of its time in dynamically generated code so I'm not sure what it's better compiling techniques would translate to in frames-per-second. If someone would like to post some benchmarks it would be cool, from my own research I haven't seen anything signifigant in using .NET for any of my emulation work.
 
Dave2001

Dave2001

Moderator
I tried compiling PJ64 in VS .net and I didn't notice any difference. When I compiled my plugin, Glide64, in .net though, we did notice a significant speed increase. Things ran as fast on 1024x768 as they did on 640x480.

Attached are the PJ64 exe and the recompiler plugin, both compiled in Visual Studio .net. Try it for yourself, there is almost no speed increase.

Note: this archive is aced and zipped to make it small enough to fit :p sorry

btw, when I compiled, I made sure to set every optimization option i could find. Also, the file sizes are significantly larger than the original... i'm not quite sure why, but it's not debug info. Both were compiled on Release: External and i made sure debug info was off.
 
OP
Doomulation

Doomulation

?????????????????????????
Merick said:
Please forgive my ignorance, but what is .NET?
Click to expand...
Visual Studio .Net.
The newest version of stuff.
Visual Studio .NET is the newest version of Visual Studio that uses the technique called .NET
 
The Khan Artist

The Khan Artist

Warrior for God
Here's some statistics for the release version of Project64.exe 1.4:

Release size (packed with ASPack): 166KB.
Unpacked size: 482KB.
Repacked with UPX in --best mode: 177KB.
 
CpU MasteR

CpU MasteR

omg h4x
Doomulation said:
I was just wondering.
CpUMasteR and I have tried to compile the pj source. Afaik, we did it actually.
Now, for what I wonder, is that CpU said that it was faster than the officially built source.
Click to expand...

Thats the last time i open my mouth....

WHY? :sleepy:
 
Smiff

Smiff

Emutalk Member
this whole thread is one misunderstanding on top of another

please:

doomulation - stop causing trouble
everyone else here - stay cool
people just reading this - you're not missing anything

k that about wraps this up
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top