sd:emulation_benchmarks
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| sd:emulation_benchmarks [2026/05/16 00:15] – appledog | sd:emulation_benchmarks [2026/05/16 00:24] (current) – appledog | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
| These Pentium-specific traits were exploited via Abrash' | These Pentium-specific traits were exploited via Abrash' | ||
| - | |||
| - | //Lesson learned, the biggest improvement besides raw MIPS is a good PPU/GPU.// | ||
| == Profiling Experiments | == Profiling Experiments | ||
| - | Taken on an i7-12700k, a basic " | + | Taken on an i7-12700k, a basic loop example executes at 55 MIPS in the WASM version and at 550 MIPS in the C version. However, there' |
| === MIPS isn't useful | === MIPS isn't useful | ||
| Line 75: | Line 73: | ||
| === Conclusion: CISC vs RISC | === Conclusion: CISC vs RISC | ||
| - | Time spent on the hot path is slow, while time spent in the hot path is fast. That is, just like the WASM version, the C version does best with CISC instructions. MIPS itself, is not as important as it seems. What matters is the quality of the instruction set; even at 1 MIPS, the WASM version can handle over 2,000 sprites per frame at 60fps, utterly destroying even the SNK Neo Geo (1990) in terms of arcade performance. | + | Time spent on the hot path is slow, while time spent in the hot path is fast. That is, just like the WASM version, the C version does best with CISC instructions. MIPS itself, is not as important as it seems. What matters |
| - | + | ||
| - | //Using a RISC-like ISA is only a requirement if you are emulating a particular architecture. It is not a good idea for a fantasy computer in general. A fantasy computer does better with CISC instructions.// | + | |
sd/emulation_benchmarks.1778890541.txt.gz · Last modified: by appledog
