Few questions

[the master 123]

First of all what does this "Copy Framebuffer to RDRAM" do.
second maybe newer(note I said newer) intel video card aren't below min requirements. I was able to play perfect dark at 1280*800 with antitropic filtering 4x on(full screen antialaising was gray though) without slow down, I was about to windows it at 800*600(screen size issue stop me form taking it higher as I use a 13" notebook) and goto about 59-61fps. I use a Mobile Intel 945GM Express Chipset Family with my sig specs. I use a duel card system build in for notebook. Maybe my results are a strange glitch with a duel core processor or something, I can get snapshot of the fps if someone wants and this is with default video plugins.

[Doomulation]

For your first question, basically it copies the entire screen to the graphics card every frame, which results in a big slowdown (though it seems GF8800GX is unaffected). You shouldn't use it unless absolutely necessary.
I don't understand your second question.

[cooliscool]

On my 7900GT (565/1.6GHz) with 93.81 drivers, if any level of AA is enabled, Copy Framebuffer to RDRAM results in no slowdown.

[squall_leonhart]

thats because the framebuffer is not emulated correctly with AA turned on, its a limitation of the plugin.

[the master 123]

My seconds question is if intel card are below requirement then why did my intel gma 945 run perfect dark at the high resolution with antitropic filtering 4x on(full screen antialaising was gray though) as was able to use Copy Framebuffer to RDRAM without problems with the video card(since it integrated though that could be the reason), and with defeult plugins

[mudlord]

My seconds question is if intel card are below requirement then why did my intel gma 945 run perfect dark at the high resolution with antitropic filtering 4x on(full screen antialaising was gray though) as was able to use Copy Framebuffer to RDRAM without problems with the video card(since it integrated though that could be the reason), and with defeult plugins

Because with integrated video cards, the RAM used is system RAM, thus no texture copies between VRAM<>RAM, therefore, there is zero speed hit when reading every single frame.


thats because the framebuffer is not emulated correctly with AA turned on, its a limitation of the plugin.

More like a video card limitation ( OpenGL 2.0 has extensions for antialiasing framebuffers). I find it quite perplexing why something hasn't been before with this, with N64 video plugins.

[the master 123]

I don't have copy to framebuffer on because there no reason to leave it on though but that would explain why my nvidia card use it own memory would be around 20-25 fps and my intel card would be normal with that option. My last question is what you didn't answer why the intel card I use was able to play perfect dark at such high settings even though the card was below requirement (framebuffer turn off) just lucky or something else. strange though that I remember having aa on but I do have the extension setting normal in my control panel for my nivida card on though as my card can goto opengl 2.

[mudlord]

I suppose I wasnt being clear enough......:plain:

Like I explained, the reason why Perfect Dark runs so well for you is because of the way your integrated chip uses your system RAM to store textures...And the fact that the GMA900 series supports shaders (and the other things Jabo's plugin uses)..So, not all integrated chips are crap (just the majority)....

As for the OpenGL 2.0 thing I explained, antialiasing framebuffers is done through OGL_ext_framebuffer_object_multisample. My comment was relating to why plugin devs haven't bothered to implement something like that, when the graphics APIs are mature enough to handle those sort of things.....

[the master 123]

PJ64 help file states that any intel vid card is under the minimum system requirements. (http://emutalk.net/showthread.php?p=300659#post300659)
I don't have framebuffer on. but under what that post points my card is below requrements. what is the lowest of intel, nvidia, and ati of integreated card that would be able to run project 64 at good setting for most of the games. as my sister would like to get a notebook because of her computers age(and the fact that it probbaly going to brake down soon as at least 1 of her hard drive is making a adnormal noise.

[Clements]

We recommend ATI 9500 or above and NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 or above to fully support all current graphics plugins. These cards support PS2.0 and have decent driver support. For a brand new laptop nowadays, you will generally find stuff with ATI X200 or GeForce 61x0 integrated - this, and anything better is good enough for PJ64. Avoid Intel graphics, since they won't work as good or as fast as ATI/NVIDIA cards, and lack various eye-candy features.

[squall_leonhart]

I suppose I wasnt being clear enough......:plain:

Like I explained, the reason why Perfect Dark runs so well for you is because of the way your integrated chip uses your system RAM to store textures...And the fact that the GMA900 series supports shaders (and the other things Jabo's plugin uses)..So, not all integrated chips are crap (just the majority)....

As for the OpenGL 2.0 thing I explained, antialiasing framebuffers is done through OGL_ext_framebuffer_object_multisample. My comment was relating to why plugin devs haven't bothered to implement something like that, when the graphics APIs are mature enough to handle those sort of things.....

Jabo said a while back that Opengl at the time, wasn't mature enough to do so, and it would be harder to do the same features in that opengl plugin then Dx... atleast i think thats what he said...

[the master 123]

actually the intel card I metion does support pixel shader 2 I found that out at the intel site. I do know though that aa isn't support by the intel card and antitropic filtering only goes to 4x while my nvidia card can go to 16x(I can even play f-zero with 60fps(frame per second as a measured with fraps) with the max aa.

[mudlord]

squall:

It must have been a while back then, because API's definately have changed a fair bit though over the past few months, even though OpenGL still sucks for doing blending stuff without shaders....but it has improved quite a bit when it comes to framebuffers and for GLSL too (like it now has blitting capabilities for framebuffers too, and the most recent version of OpenGL has geometry shaders).

[Doomulation]

actually the intel card I metion does support pixel shader 2 I found that out at the intel site. I do know though that aa isn't support by the intel card and antitropic filtering only goes to 4x while my nvidia card can go to 16x(I can even play f-zero with 60fps(frame per second as a measured with fraps) with the max aa.

Newer intel cards do, but do they support PS3? I think not.
The point is that integrated cards are just a little behind tech. Especially Intel ones. nVidia/ATI integrated aren't half bad though.
PS1.x is of the past now, and so it's expected that every card nowadays supports PS2, which is probably why the card does.

[Clements]

actually the intel card I metion does support pixel shader 2 I found that out at the intel site. I do know though that aa isn't support by the intel card and antitropic filtering only goes to 4x while my nvidia card can go to 16x(I can even play f-zero with 60fps(frame per second as a measured with fraps) with the max aa.

Technically the Intel GMA series support PS2.0, but the performance, compatibility, quality settings and driver support in real-life situations does not get close to PS2.0 enabled ATI/NVIDIA cards. Its the same scenario with newer VIA cards that technically support PS2.0 but tend to have big problems when running apps that use shaders. Most of the betatesters now and in the past use or have used ATI/NVIDIA cards.

[the master 123]

that true, I was indeed able to play the game at high setting with the intel card however It gray out option like aa and only went to 4x in antitropic filtering. I know my nvidia card is in the recommend(I hope it more powerful than a geforce fx series card) also it support vertex and pixel shader 3. One last question (I think) if a card used turbocache for memory and have no memory of it own would it run at normal speed with the framebuffer option on.

[squall_leonhart]

errr actually.... from what i've heard of thatr chip, it only supports Pixel shaders, the vertex shaders are emulated.....

[the master 123]

the intel or nvidia, according to this site (http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-Go-7400.2143.0.html) it has 3 vertex pipelines.

[Clements]

He means the Intel GMA chip, and he is correct that the vertex shaders are emulated. The chip also lacks Hardware T&L as well.

[the master 123]

oh, I know that I was use this (http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/)page for reference. I use my nvida card for gaming unless I need battery life and the game can run smoothly on the intel card(like project 64 or XIII)

[squall_leonhart]

all nvidia graphic cards have hardware accelerated vertex and pixel pipelines.

But,

a Turbo cache card will still suffer the same limitation of slow framebuffering ,.. atleast i think it would...

[Doomulation]

But,

a Turbo cache card will still suffer the same limitation of slow framebuffering ,.. atleast i think it would...

Why would it? The slow speed comes from copying the contents in to the GPU. With TurboCache, the card uses system memory, does it not? Then I don't see why it would be slow.

[squall_leonhart]

Turbocache cards still have a small amount of Vram on the card.

also, the Framebuffer info still has to be rendered via the cards GPU, so it would still have the limitations of being passed across the slower chipset.