Would these specs be able to handle Project64?

[crimsonnight]

Operating System Genuine Windows Vista Business (Service Pack 1)
Instant-On OS XMB (Xross Media Bar)
Chipset Intel® System Controller Hub US15W
Processor Intel® Atom™ Z520 Processor
Processor Speed 1.33 GHz
L2 Cache 512 KB
Memory 2 GB
Memory Speed 533 MHz
Memory Type DDR2 SDRAM (1 x 2048MB on board)
Hard Drive Capacity 60 GB
Hard Drive Speed 4200 rpm
Screen Resolution 1600 x 768
Graphics Card Mobile Intel® Graphics Media Accelerator 500, with up to 384MB shared system memory
Graphics Memory Available Total available graphics memory approx. 760MB

Please let me know if these specs are enough to be able to handle N64 and/or Playstation emulation - thank you!

*EDIT* Details on the graphics chip: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA#GMA_500

[Agozer]

With Jabo's Direct3D6 graphics plugin, yes. With the default graphics plugin, most likely no. You might get some serious slowdown too. Do some testing yourself. Playstation emulation - perhaps, but possibly severe graphics issues, and slowdown with *decent* plugins. Test yourself.

What I'm saying is that your basic setup is just fine, but that Intel integrated chip will drag it down a lot. You should steer clear of using Intel's chips with emulation, period.

[crimsonnight]

Thank you for the advice,

Im planning to use Windows Readyboost to help speed things up when I buy the UMPC - is there anything else i can do/buy to improve things?

*EDIT* how much would it help (if at all) if I upgraded to the model with a 1.6GHz Processor?

*EDIT 2* I think this chip may be different though? quotes from wiki: "a flexible, programmable architecture that supports shader-based technology, 2D, 3D and advanced 3D graphics"

[Agozer]

Now that you mention it (and thanks to that Wikipedia article), it seems that Intel might have finally learned a few lessons in regards to what it takes to create a better integrated graphics chip, as opposed to their earlier attempts which are, bluntly speaking, utter trash when used with emulators that emulate 3D hardware. The fact that the GMA apparently has hardware vertex shaders is a colossal improvement in itself, although hardware T&L support have been lacking for a good while now - don't know what's its status is in the GMA500.

Having said that, I'm still not prepared to praise these GMA chips based on Wiki articles and spec sheets alone, so we're back to my original advice: Test it yourself. Preferably with both the default graphics plugin and Glide64 (Glide64 being considered the best N64 graphics plugin by many atm - should work with Intel's chips now too, better than Jabo's Direct3D8 does).

As far as your processor goes: I don't really know how much difference a ~300Mhz clock speed does, but the faster your processor is, the better. Still, I wouldn't change my machine's processor just to get an N64 emulator running smoother without having any data on how my current slower processor performs (that's just opinion, though). It's not like N64 and PSX are the most demanding emulators out there, in terms of raw number-crunching power.

[crimsonnight]

Thanks again ^^

Sorry, I don't think I properly mentioned it - but I don't actually own the UMPC, I'm considering purchasing it, and if it can handle N64 emulation then I'm pretty much sold >.< are you pretty confident it could?

[Agozer]

Well, if you haven't purchase done yet, I'd still recommend very strongly that you get a computer with an actual video card instead of an integrated solution; you'll be much happier with that.

[crimsonnight]

Basically, the main two things Im looking for is size and battery life, as I'm downgrading from a power laptop (alienware) which just became a pain to lug around - the only things i used it for on the go was a couple of basic mmos (pangya + grand chase) and emulation - so as long as it can handle those things even at a basic level, i'll be more than happy buying a Viao P Series UMPC (especially as im already a little in love with them lol) but if it can't then I'm screwed >.<

[Miretank]

is that an eeepc crimson?

[crimsonnight]

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644608896

[p_025]

To say something of my experiences before I upgraded my desktop, and with my laptop; you're going to want something better than an integrated Intel graphics chip. Those things are terrible when it comes to OpenGL rendering. Also 1.33GHz is a bit slow of a processor. It'll run the thing, but forget about complex games like Banjo-Tooie or Perfect Dark. And why do people keep making threads like this? Don't ask us if your computer sucks, try the emulator yourself.

[crimsonnight]

because I haven't bought it yet lol, and wanna make sure it can handle it before I do...

also if u check out the wiki link, this chip seems to b different...

[Agozer]

Well, first of all, you shouldn't base whether to buy a laptop desktop on such a marginal question as "Does it run N64 and PSX emulators well". Surely you aren't going to buy one just for that?

Please tell me that you aren't.

[crimsonnight]

lol ;)

ofc not - I am a big gamer though, so it is actually a big deal to me if it can run emulators + basic mmos, 'cause thats one of the main things i use my laptop for when i'm away...

+ If I can use those emulators on the go then I can cancel my Pandora order

[the master 123]

Most likely the atom processor would be more of limit than the graphic card as the atom processor is a power\cost cut design that isn't has fast as a pentium m\pentium 3(probably) at 1 ghz. though the 500 is far form idea has low clock speed and other factors(few shader units) the emulation probably will be the limit to cpu as 64\ps1 emutalor is more cpu demanding, however this relative weak graphic card might cause some performance issue in pc games. It should run ps1 game fine however due to ps1 lower end hardware compare to the n64.
I side note I only factor xp as vista will reduce overall performance due to the extra resource load and from what a read the atom processor is more idea for windows xp.

[crimsonnight]

ty for ur advice master ^^

just got it this evening, so i've been able to test it - firstly, it runs! ^^
im getting around 30-40 fps in the garden of super mario 64 and around 50 in the castle - thats when using jabo's 8.1.6 graphics plugin. I tried using the 6.1.5.2 version like Agozer suggested but im pretty sure that decreased the framrate a bit.

OK, so now my mission is to increase the framrate - Firstly, would anyone recommend using any other grapics plaugins that my be more suitable for my specs or stick with jabo's? and if so, what options can I fiddle with to increase framrate?

Thank you ^^

[Pyromanik]

Most likely the atom processor would be more of limit than the graphic card

No.





Jabo's plugin is pretty damn good, so I doubt you'll find anything 'better' around.
But that doesn't mean you can't experiment!
Rice would be my first suggestion :)

[the master 123]

First of all did you use a program like fraps or project 64 fps counter. If you use frap most 64 games ran at about 20-30 frame per second average. If you are using project 64 fps(which stand for field per second, or something like that) then it should be around 60fps as the number you telling use sound to low even for the hardware\ operating system for the game you talking about. Default plugins(jabos) will be enough for majority of games(at least that i tried) even for that poor graphic card. Also with fraps a got framerate at 30 average for super mario 64 which is what I would expect. I'm sorry if i may had confuse the above poster I meant that in 64 emulation the processor would limit the graphic card, pc games however the graphic card would be limit be for the processor. sorry, I was never good in English in school.

[imspecial]

depending on the game 1964 may be faster as I believe it has lower specs.

Also wouldn't an emulator like UltraHLE be able to run whatever games it can run at nearly full speed? As it was developed for computers with like 1/2 the specs of your UMPC? (I may be completely wrong on this as UltraHLE was long before I started emulating)

[Pyromanik]

First of all did you use a program like fraps or project 64 fps counter. If you use frap most 64 games ran at about 20-30 frame per second average. If you are using project 64 fps(which stand for field per second, or something like that) then it should be around 60fps as the number you telling use sound to low even for the hardware\ operating system for the game you talking about. Default plugins(jabos) will be enough for majority of games(at least that i tried) even for that poor graphic card. Also with fraps a got framerate at 30 average for super mario 64 which is what I would expect. sorry if I might had confuse the above poster I meant that in 64 emulation the processor would limit the graphic card, pc games however the graphic card would be limit be for the processor.

I think you confused every poster.
Is English your first language?

FPS stands for Frames Per Second.

The problem is often that emulators show two different video stats, FPS and VI/s.
One measures the vertical interrupts per second, and in theory gives the framerate... but the physical framerate can often be somewhat different.

This is where having a program like fraps can help.

You could always try the glide plugin (with wrapper)... that will also give an accurate FPS readout. It may also be beneficial being engineered for lower spec machines. However it depends on what kind of game you're wanting to play too I guess...

Here is a screenshot of OOT opening sequence with glide64 to illustrate the two different numbers:
http://pyromanik.riistar.org/emu/fps.jpg



I don't see crimson's numbers as being particularly low for the type of hardware you're using. Remember it's not a graphics card, it's an integrated chip. It's using some of the system memory for itself, and this causes a deficit on both sides of the emulation.

Anyway, as per my above suggestion, there is nothing stopping you from testing alternative plugins.
Here is a recent copy of Aristotle's Mudlord & Rice plugin.
Rice Video 6.1.6 (http://pyromanik.riistar.org/emu/Aristotle_Mudlord_Rice_Video_6.1.6.zip)

[the master 123]

In project 64 1.6 counter fps don't stand for frames per second but it is instead it similar to 1942 vi/s counter. Though this is a integrated chip that has extreme low core clock(according to spec 100-200 mhz core clock) this shouldn't be a limiting factor for 64 emulator as long as the memory bandwidth is enough(on my laptop there is no major difference between my gma 950 and the nvidia geforce 7400 in cpu memory bandwidth). If this chip is like other intel graphic card, the amount of memory the card has will depend on the need of the amount of memory needed by the graphic card. However since this is vista ,if not don't already, disabling the aero effect might give some performance gain not only in 64 emulator but in overall computer performance.

[Clements]

I have a netbook (Samsung NC10) with similar specs as that box, and N64 emulation works okay, especially with the right plugin setup. Make sure you have all the power management stuff disabled if you have any enabled, and try using Jabo's D3D6 as suggested before.

[crimsonnight]

Hi, sorry for the delayed reply - thanks everyone for all ur advice!

Sorry about the confusion with frames per second, i have noticed that the newest version of project64 has renamed it to v/i

I've been fiddling around with different emulators, and the one that seems to be able to run mario 64 at full speed is 1964 - there seem to be some graphical issues though, i think it's something to do with transparencies or something as some textures seem to be flickering and not displaying properly, anyone got any idea on how to fix this?

someone suggested UltraHLE - i tried that but it said i needed 'glide2x.gll' so i downlaoded it, but now when i open it nothing at all happens?

[Pyromanik]

No, that's not a good idea. *HLE projects are extremely old and outdated. It's not recommended to try anymore.

Plugins are interchangable between most emulators, so feel free to experiment with ones you already know work well (such as Jabo's).
1964 is getting a bit aged now, so it may be a factor that the graphical issues are what is actually providing your extra performance.
However it's still a very good emulator.

As suggested before, Rice is a good video plugin, as is GLN64.
As for sound: Azimer's is a very good option.
As is his emulator, Apollo (if you havn't tried it already). However with this one you will need to use either Schibo's audio plugin or Azimer's, as the emulator itself does not support sound decoding internally.

[crimsonnight]

ty again pyro ^^

i tried apollo, but none of the video plugins are giving me a solid result, i have tried GLN64 with various different emulators and it seems to have graphical issues and causes quite a bit of slow-down... azimer's sound plugin seems to be pretty good though

so atm the 1964 set-up still seems to be best, is there any options i can select under the settings menu to sort out the grapical errors i am experiencing with it?

are there any low-spec audio/visual plugins out there which may be better for me to use?

ty again ^^

[Pyromanik]

I'm not too big on video plugins.
I tend to stick to Rice because it works the best for me.

Besides in PJ64 of course, then I use Jabo's.

Sorry I can't be of much help there :/


Just play around disabling more 'advanced ' features, like antistropic filtering, if the plugin has any... also things like playing in a smaller resolution may help. Other than that, it's pretty much testing until you find the one that works best (which also includes older versions of the same plugin sometimes).