![tyrian vs tyrian 2000 tyrian vs tyrian 2000](http://retrogamer.biz/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Tyrian-2000-7.png)
?Ĭan the culprit be incorrect video mangling? Both dosbox and OT use SDL so this seems to not be an issue.Imagine coming home to pure comfort.
![tyrian vs tyrian 2000 tyrian vs tyrian 2000](http://www.discountpaintball.com/assets/images/vforce-grill-paintball-mask-thermal-se-tyrian-500-675-22328.jpg)
Tyrian vs tyrian 2000 code#
I'm tempted to speculate that this difference is the speedup in the "core" code (supposing it's not a fluctuation). even assuming huge prices to pay to work in a GUI-driven world, the CPU usage should be no higher than 20%, or 45% on a 1Ghz processor, end even this is pretending that a 1Ghz processor to be just ten 486s.īut looking at it from a different perspective, what is that part of OpenTyrian that continues taking basically the same footprint on all levels? OT eats 5% less CPU in Asteroid for me. it should then have similar performance than the original implementation. Dosbox runs alot of machinery under the hood and is somewhat justified in taking so much power. This means that, in the most favourable scenario, each instruction becomes slower than the most intensive native instruction. Now, coming back to the point: remember that dosbox is essentially an emulator. Seems to also have a small benefit ranging at 50-70%, locked again at 1.8Ghz. The low workload causes entering 1Ghz mode periodically, leading to the higher CPU usage on a per-second basis. It is so simplier TD has minor slowdowns (I suppose due to dosbox yelding after finishing its work too early). I remember holes was basically a punishment as a first bonus, so I think this is how it's supposed to work. The level, compared to dosbox speed is lighting fast. Strangely enough, there's no more stuttering (doxbox probably locked core).Įxhibits the same performance pattern being at 65-75% range, locked at 1.8Ghz. CPU usage fluctuates heavily between 30% and 80% with the CPU going to 1Ghz for large amounts of time. The game is playable, albeit a bit slower. This multi-layer madness seems to take its toll on the poor dosbox. OT seems to manage its mouse focus in a rather odd way (are apps supposed to focus when not on top?). But the experience is improved so it's a good deal right? It's still alot of power for a 320x200 x2 window. Seems to be much smoother, CPU being almost always in the 60-75% range, 1Ghz operation never kicks in, meaning that CPU usage is higher.
![tyrian vs tyrian 2000 tyrian vs tyrian 2000](https://i.imgur.com/8EPLXUk.png)
Stuttering seems to occur because of some disk access or maybe due to DosboxVM switching cores? Dosbox assumes QWERTY keyboard layout for character input.
![tyrian vs tyrian 2000 tyrian vs tyrian 2000](https://mujsoubor.cz/arkady/data/mujsoubor.cz/appimages/02/2534_7718.jpg)
CPU usage is typically between 40% and 80% most of the time (with CPU going down to 1Ghz rather often). Plays ok-ish, albeit with some sporadic sound stuttering and slowdowns. Using PowerMon essentially made me think again at my previous statement about the advantages as I was rather shocked by the results.Īfter some observation, I'm not even sure OpenTyrian really wins. this time I went for a more similar comparison. I also compared CPU usage using AMD PowerMon this time, which is typically a few percentage points off the task manager (everybody knows it's not always accurate, as it probably isn't powermon but I keep Cool&Quiet under control). I played Tyrian, holes (which I think to be one the most "layer intensive" levels in the original game) and Asteroid2 with similar equipment. I initially ran the tests with hq2x but the results were odd to say the least. OT doesn't have a detail level but it looks like pentium, scaler is 2x as scale2x seems to perform some smarter filtering. I set my dosbox to 22000 cycles with scaler normal2x and pentium detail. To compare original tyrian in dosbox (from now on TD) and opentyrian (OT) I wanted, this time, to compare accurately. I think it is worth explaining why I consider this a gray win as opposed to a hands down comparison. In my previous message, I wrote that " Open has some advanteges such a lower CPU usage (although it isn't much of a win considering it's running native)".