Page 2 of 2

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:51 pm
by jirka
Thanks, will try it as soon as possible.

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:40 am
by jirka
Works nicely. Just tested it on my O2. Many thanks!

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:52 am
by heavyfuel
The first post mentions core=simple which is not fast... Does the dynamic core work on non-x86 systems or is it for x86 only?

It should be much faster since it dynamically recompiles the code instead of intepreting it instruction by instruction like normal/simple...

Instead of setting fixed cycles I'd try cycles=max when the maximum available performance is desired.

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:38 am
by jirka
heavyfuel wrote:The first post mentions core=simple which is not fast... Does the dynamic core work on non-x86 systems or is it for x86 only?


The "auto" and the "full" are not available. Just the "simple", the "normal" and the "auto" ones. And there is no noticeabe speed difference (is seems to me that the "simple" gives a slightly better speed).

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2017 7:44 pm
by Intuition
Oh, I'll have to fire this up. Love me some old school Sierra games like Space Quest and King's Quest. Lucasfilm Games. Etc. The 300 Mhz o2 does have a few Scumm games on it already though. Pretty fun.

Re: DOSBox performance

Posted: Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:04 pm
by necron2600
For Sierra adventure games.. you are still better off with scummvm than dosbox.
One thing the openGL build of dosbox provides is the ability to enlarge the screen (x2, x3, etc..) but at a small performance hit. But it makes games like Global Conquest, Darklands, etc.. better to play when on 1920x1200 resolution IRIX desktop.