Dolphin in Windows 8?

[Runo]

Arm architecture sucks.
Instead of trying to find an alternativee to the riddiculous piece of shit that lithium batteries are they invest in making chips that use less power.What wee need is better power sources. Our curreentt batteries are heavy, degradable, havee poor capacity and potency and polute a lot when discarded.

[Shonumi]

(08-25-2012, 01:52 PM)Runo Wrote: Arm architecture sucks.

Try telling that to the manufacturers of smartphones, tablets, various embedded systems, etc...

(08-25-2012, 01:52 PM)Runo Wrote: Instead of trying to find an alternativee to the riddiculous piece of shit that lithium batteries are they invest in making chips that use less power.What wee need is better power sources. Our curreentt batteries are heavy, degradable, havee poor capacity and potency and polute a lot when discarded.

Building better batteries is a double-edged sword. While you will be able to give a device more power, you have to think of what will happen once people know they've got more juice. Developers start creating applications that use more power (games, things that use network connections come to mind). Users, in turn, start pushing the power consumption of their devices. Personally, I don't see why both approaches can't be taken (better architecture and batteries).

[AnyOldName3]

They are taking both approaches. Phones were using Nickle Metal-Hydride batteries not so many years ago, and now we've reached Lithium-Polymer batteries. The issue is that storing power is difficult.

It also doesn't help that people expect new generations of phones to be more powerful, so battery development is already working to balance out the increase in processor power draw. Adding two more cores to a CPU will make it draw more power, no matter how well designed it is.

[NaturalViolence]

Quote: Adding two more cores to a CPU will make it draw more power, no matter how well designed it is.

Barely. All modern arm cpus support clock gating, power gating, and dynamic clockrate throttling. The combination of the three results in a very small increase in power consumption unless the extra cores are actually used by applications.

Quote:Arm architecture sucks.

ARM is just an instruction set architecture. Modern arm microarchitectures "suck" because they're designed to operate at extremely low TDPs.

[AnyOldName3]

Which makes me wonder: if someone were to make a high performance ARM CPU, how fast would it be when compared to a high performance x86 CPU?

[NaturalViolence]

Time to derail this thread.

Quote:Which makes me wonder: if someone were to make a high performance ARM CPU, how fast would it be when compared to a high performance x86 CPU?

Nobody is going to do that because there is no market for it. All of the companies that tried to break into the PC market in the 1980s and 1990s with high performance non-x86 cpus failed, even if/when their cpus were superior to current x86 cpus in every way. They were all either obliterated or managed to get out of the market fast enough to survive and never look back. All of the major cpu manufacturers that still exist were either never dumb enough to try it or tried it and failed so they aren't dumb enough to try it again. The only exception to this is PowerPC, which managed to compete in the PC market through the AIM alliance (using apple computers).

A little history of PowerPC in the PC marketplace:
The AIM alliance (an alliance between apple, IBM, and Motorola) was formed in 1991 to try and produce a PC and OS that would challenge the wintel (windows with x86 Intel) PC in the marketplace (wintel having already become the dominant architecture for PCs at that point). It failed to do so due to a number of problems too long to list here but one useful project that they worked on did succeed, PowerPC, the cpus that were going to be used in their new PC architecture. PowerPC used a ISA that was basically a slightly toned down version of the Power ISA that IBM had been using since 1990, a single chip microprocessor was developed by a joint team of Motorola and IBM engineers to implement this new ISA with a microarchitecture that was small enough and cheap enough for use in a PC. Apple switched its Macintosh line of computers to using PowerPC cpus developed my AIM, which wasn't such a big deal for apple since IBM and Motorola were manufacturing them and Motorola had made all of the cpus for all previous generations of Macintosh computers at that point so the two companies had a good relationship with each other. The first three generations of PowerPC processors were developed and manufactured by both Motorola and IBM. The fourth generation was mostly designed by Motorola and only manufactured by Motorola, IBM chose not to use it. It was plagued with manufacturing problems and due to poor yields they were forced to clock it lower than they had anticipated to bring the yields up. Apple begged IBM to help. As a result Apple dumped Motorola in 2003 when they switched to the PowerPC 970 series (better known as the PowerPC G5 series) which was an IBM design because Motorola's designs "failed to meet their expectations" (poor yields due to manufacturing problems. This effectively dissolved the AIM alliance. The next year, 2004, Motorola exited the chip manufacturing business by spinning off its semiconductor business as an independent company called Freescale Semiconductor. They then formed Power.org that same year, a new alliance between Freescale, IBM, and AMCC to replace the AIM alliance. Apple continued using the PowerPC G5 cpus developed by IBM in their Macintosh computers up until 2006. The G5 series had also been plagued by manufacturing issues that caused them to miss their intended clock rates due to issues with yield. Manufacturing issues also caused the G6 to be delayed. Finally apple said fuck it and switched to x86 cpus developed by Intel in 2006. And that is the story of the only successful ISA for PCs besides x86 in the 1990s and new millennium.

As for how fast a high performance ARM cpu would be. That's not a good question to ask because the ISA isn't the only thing that determines performance. The microarchitecture and manufacturing are more important. And there are many different companies that COULD develop such a microarchitecture. If you got all of these companies to do it they would all end up with different designs that would perform very differently especially with different types of applications.

There are a number of companies that are planning on developing ARM cpus intended for low budget servers. However since ARM v7 is a 32 bit ISA it's limited to 4GB of addressable memory space and is therefore highly impractical for servers at the moment. Most companies won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. This will change soon when ARM v8 comes out which will move the ARM ISA from being a 32 bit ISA to a 64 bit ISA. At which point we will likely see major companies trying to develop ARM v8 cpus for the server marketplace. Since ARM cores tend to be smaller/simpler due to the simpler ISA they should in theory be able to use higher core counts at lower clock rates while keeping power consumption, size, and cost much lower than comparable x86 cpus (notice I said nothing about performance though since I would be speculating too much to make any predictions about performance).

[germanarce59]

(08-18-2012, 07:03 AM)SantaC Wrote: has anyone tried dolphin on windows 8? How does it run?

la verdad yo lo uso y es muy rápido hice pruevas y es unos 3 fps mas rápido es muy bueno y recomendable (su aspecto metro es genial)



I use the truth and is very fast and is evidence; made ​​about 3 fps faster is very good and recommended (they look great metro)

[Axxer]

Since Google Translate failed germanarce, I'll translate:

Quote:la verdad yo lo uso y es muy rápido hice pruevas y es unos 3 fps mas rápido es muy bueno y recomendable (su aspecto metro es genial)

I use it and the truth is it is very fast and there is evidence and it is some 3 fps faster. it is very good and I recommend it (it's metro aspect is cool).

[Kazahaya]

I have been using Windows 8 and it is a little faster than Windows 7 using Dolphin 3.0 and PCSX2(just 1~3 FPS). The extra FPS is probably because i am not using in w8 the NOD32 firewall and Antivirus(i used version 6 Release Candidate in w7) since w8 comes with a integrated firewall and Antivirus(i hope both of them are good enough to prevent problems).
For me Metro is dispensable. I will keep using w8 for sometime and then probably go back to w7 since w8 don't add anything special for my daily use.

[Hippox77]

Why would anybody want to use Windows 8 over Windows 7? Just because it is new? That's just silly - and ignorant. Of course many people wont have a choice as Microsoft has a monopol on pre-installed OS in laptops. Talk about political business corruption! It's disguesting.

It's like rape. You don't want it? Too bad.

(08-30-2012, 02:19 AM)Kazahaya Wrote: I have been using Windows 8 and it is a little faster than Windows 7 using Dolphin 3.0 and PCSX2(just 1~3 FPS). The extra FPS is probably because i am not using in w8 the NOD32 firewall and Antivirus(i used version 6 Release Candidate in w7) since w8 comes with a integrated firewall and Antivirus(i hope both of them are good enough to prevent problems).
For me Metro is dispensable. I will keep using w8 for sometime and then probably go back to w7 since w8 don't add anything special for my daily use.

This could just as well be a placebo effect. We want new things to be better, and I don't see any hard facts about Windows 8 being faster to run Dolphin.