> Yeah, that's pretty much the way to go. The general MAME dev suggestion is any
> relatively recent i5, a decent amount of RAM so that Windows doesn't pitch a fit, and
> if you want to run with shaders enabled (which OP probably doesn't due to having a
> proper CRT), a half-decent graphics card.
Even a modern on-board video chipset will handle shaders fairly well if you're not going 4K, possibly even 1440 (which is something I should actually test out now that I think about it) and has been able to for about.. oh.. 10 years roughly. I was quite shocked to see that Intel's video was capable of decent MAME shader performance on the Sandy Bridge chips. Even a seriously underpowered 3GB GTX 1060 could hold up just fine with MAME.
i5 or Zen 3-based AMD equivalent, 8-16GB of RAM, and a reasonably good video system that can actually talk to the monitor.
> Nothing even approaching top-of-the-line is necessary. There's a huge performance
> gulf between "games that are playable on halfway-modern PCs" and "games that require
> more horsepower than a PC will likely ever have", so optimize for the former and not
> the latter. Nevertheless, it's important to not buy some worthless shit-box of a
> machine like a Raspberry Pi or a Core 2 Duo either.
Yeah. MAME-based Dreamcast/NAOMI, as one example, likely won't be playable any time soon so don't even try to optimize for that. You just find the most intensive thing on the MAME list that you want to run and optimize for that; as long as you're getting a steady 60 there, you're good to go.
The hard part is getting modern video hardware to talk to an arcade monitor.
---
Try checking the MAME manual at http://docs.mamedev.org
|
Index 
Flat 
Re: Starting Over
Reply
