Major slow downs every couple of minutes (FULL SCREEN)

[bourn3]

I have Project64 1.6. An HP Pavilion DV9000 laptop with vista. 3GB of ram, Nvidia with 1gb shared video memory and dual core 2.0ghz processor. I think this is more than enough to play a little 64 emulator.

When I start the game everything runs perfect 60 fps but every once in a while the game will drop to like 10 fps and the sound will skip and will be distorted of course. It's not a typical slow down like you would get in the original game where there is alot of action on screen. It just happens almost at random...

The game I'm playing the most right now is conker's bad fur day. I tried Goldeneye and it's even worse it happens more frequently. Weird because it technically is less demanding/advanced. But I guess that's not how emulators work.

Full screen runs at 1400X900 it's the only setting I changed and slow downs were here even at 800x600 full screen... so its NOT the problem. If the rez was too high it would be always slow but its 60 fps and then randomly slows down dramatically during like 5-10 seconds...then goes back to normal.

Anyone knows what's the problem here? Thanks.

 

[X-Fi6]

It could be things like a heavy anti-virus program in the background. Try to eliminate all programs possible from the Task Manager's Processes tab.

 

[!REVENGE!]

I didnt know a laptop was powerful enough to run Vista... I could just barely run Ocarina of time with 3 ghz when I had Vista.

Uninstall Vista and you should be fine.

 

[squall_leonhart]

wrong answer.

OP, disable Aero Glass when using Project64, and if the laptop is dual core, set project64.exe to affinity 0 in task manager.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

I have Project64 1.6. An HP Pavilion DV9000 laptop with vista. 3GB of ram, Nvidia with 1gb shared video memory and dual core 2.0ghz processor. I think this is more than enough to play a little 64 emulator.

That's way more than enough to run most games without slowdowns!

Except for Goldeneye, it always requires a higher processor core speed and even with the *REAL* Nintendo 64, there's slowdowns, just not as much.

I heard that Goldeneye 007 was so processor taxing that it requires the CPU to be OC'ed in the Nintendo 64 to prevent the occasional slowdowns in the *REAL* Nintendo 64!

And if you get slowdowns in other games, you may require a video upgrade.

Also, get rid of extra software running in the background!

And there's the possibility that SuperFetch (or similar name) requires more than 1 GB of RAM to work properly!
You may be required to disable SuperFetch. (or similar name)

 

[bourn3]

wrong answer.

OP, disable Aero Glass when using Project64, and if the laptop is dual core, set project64.exe to affinity 0 in task manager.

I set the affinity to CPU 0 in the task manager but I did not find an Areo Glass option in P64. Where is it located exactly?

Edit: Lol I just realised it's the transparency effect on vista.

Edit 2: Golden eye is still lagging as hell is this normal?

I didnt know a laptop was powerful enough to run Vista... I could just barely run Ocarina of time with 3 ghz when I had Vista.

Uninstall Vista and you should be fine.

All laptops today have vista preloaded on them except netbooks. Like im gonna get in the trouble of installing xp and all the drivers just for N64 emulation. As for your 3ghz its pretty much meaningless..without the other specs.

 

[!REVENGE!]

Edit 2: Golden eye is still lagging as hell is this normal?

Hellanormal, I'm surprised you can run any game smoothly. Even on my 3 ghz with XP, and an nvidia 8500 GT, Goldeneye still lags a bit occasionally on intense scenes.

All laptops today have vista preloaded on them except netbooks. Like im gonna get in the trouble of installing xp and all the drivers just for N64 emulation. As for your 3ghz its pretty much meaningless..without the other specs.

Not much trouble. In fact, the boosted performance will be well worth it. All you do is find the audio/drivers pack XP edition, install, and you're set. I got a dualcore Pentium D, 1 GB RAM, if you backtrack thru my posts you'll find a thread where I've listed all specs if you're interested.

Now, if someone told me they got a 2.5 ghz or 3 ghz machine that runs Vista "smoothly", that'd be believable, as most things would run fine for all intents and purposes. But I'm finding it hard to grasp that a LAPTOP can even handle the shitload of overhead thanks to the badly-designed OS let alone do any N64 emulation...

I heard laptops come with a different, faster edition of Vista, but that was a year ago. Who knows what kinda tweaks they've made since...

 

[bourn3]

Hellanormal, I'm surprised you can run any game smoothly. Even on my 3 ghz with XP, and an nvidia 8500 GT, Goldeneye still lags a bit occasionally on intense scenes.



Not much trouble. In fact, the boosted performance will be well worth it. All you do is find the audio/drivers pack XP edition, install, and you're set. I got a dualcore Pentium D, 1 GB RAM, if you backtrack thru my posts you'll find a thread where I've listed all specs if you're interested.

Now, if someone told me they got a 2.5 ghz or 3 ghz machine that runs Vista "smoothly", that'd be believable, as most things would run fine for all intents and purposes. But I'm finding it hard to grasp that a LAPTOP can even handle the shitload of overhead thanks to the badly-designed OS let alone do any N64 emulation...

I heard laptops come with a different, faster edition of Vista, but that was a year ago. Who knows what kinda tweaks they've made since...

If you have a dual core computer you don't need to have 2.5ghz to run vista smoothly. I'm not a computer expert but the processor speeds doesn't just depend on the frequency. I've seen laptops with 1.6ghz intel core duo and they run really fast. Intels are faster for a fact than Turions dual core so another person with the same specs but with an intel will most likely run applications faster than me.

Depends on what processor and how much ram you have because I know vista is heavy on ram. Btw laptops nowadays are way more powerful than you think and they are getting cheaper and cheaper as the technology gets more affordable. It's really advancing fast.

 

[!REVENGE!]

I know it doesn't just depend on the frequency. Anyone know a way to calculate the MIPS your comp is capable of?

And I know laptops are getting more powerful, but that's not the point. Laptops will never be as fast as desktops with the same lifespan. Vista takes up 1 GHz just for the OS to run, meaning you have only 1.5 GHz free cycles to run your N64 roms, which should be enough for most under a VGA resolution and no interpolation, not to mention no Goldeneye. XP takes 300 MHz, so you would then have 2.2 GHz left for Project64 which may still be a little below the requirement to run Goldeneye smoothly as, again, my 3 ghz with windows XP cannot run it at full FPS on very intense parts.

 

[the master 123]

I have Project64 1.6. An HP Pavilion DV9000 laptop with vista. 3GB of ram, Nvidia with 1gb shared video memory and dual core 2.0ghz processor.

That is the key thing that this is a dual core so vista shouldn't be a problem, Is this a recent problem. It might that you graphic card drivers(nvidia control panel option should show this as I have a nvidia card to) that in Anisotropic filtering and full scene antialasing are force enable for full screen in the control panel and cause the slowdown in fullscreen.
Calculating mips is not that useful as it generally application depend in term of performance, example my processor will outperform a celeren d in 7-zip without use of 2 core, however under that same hardware my processor will lose in a sciencemark benchmark.

 

[!REVENGE!]

That is the key thing that this is a dual core so vista shouldn't be a problem.

So what? I got a dualcore too, what's your point?

Calculating mips is not that useful as it generally application depend in term of performance, example my processor will outperform a celeren d in 7-zip without use of 2 core, however under that same hardware my processor will lose in a sciencemark benchmark.

Ok, what routine do you suggest?

 

[the master 123]

the point is that the game has a full core run on rather than the having the os and program running on the same processor\core.

There really isn't any real routine for mips or overall performance for general application as it is application and processor clock\architecture depended(in my example my processor has a weak fpu compared to the celeron d because of it been based on the pentium 3 fpu(according to my research) and the sciencemark benchmark was mostly fpu based. however a turion or intel dual core(1 or 2) at 2gh in most case would compare in single thead program like project 64 like a pentium 4 about 2.6-3.0 depending on the program. A pentium d would need to be about 2.6-3.0 for it to be able to beat it as well again this is application depend.

 

[!REVENGE!]

A dualcore offers a limited alleviation to Vista's code bloat. I have a 3 ghz dualcore and my performance with Vista installed was comparable to my old 1.5 ghz single-core system with XP.

I know I read somewhere that laptops come with a simpler build of Vista that takes up less resources, 'cuz the overhead would be unacceptable for a 1.5-2.5 ghz system where Vista eats up the majority of CPU/RAM.

There really isn't any real routine for mips or overall performance for general application as it is application and processor clock\architecture depended(in my example my processor has a weak fpu compared to the celeron d because of it been based on the pentium 3 fpu(according to my research) and the sciencemark benchmark was mostly fpu based. however a turion or intel dual core(1 or 2) at 2gh in most case would compare in single thead program like project 64 like a pentium 4 about 2.6-3.0 depending on the program. A pentium d would need to be about 2.6-3.0 for it to be able to beat it as well again this is application depend.

It's probably obvious by now that I aint no expert, but there MUST be a general-purpose benchmark system that determines in how many seconds/minutes a machine can complete a certain task (e.g. AES.) This would provide an accurate base for how competant a processor is. If your system beats mine by a couple seconds, then it would prove superior, no?

 

[the master 123]

Most comarasion have several benchmark that serve has a general purpose benchmarks. Now for you performance issue a dual core should offer a better performance however vista is a ram hog and it is possible that there isn't enough ram for vista in you computer(home premium requires 1gb but most people recommend 2 or more gb). Windows xp will work well with around 512mb to 1 gb of ram.

 

[!REVENGE!]

Most comarasion have several benchmark that serve has a general purpose benchmarks.

Now, not trying to be a dick, but I dont understand that sentence. Try again?

Now for you performance issue a dual core should offer a better performance however vista is a ram hog and it is possible that there isn't enough ram for vista in you computer(home premium requires 1gb but most people recommend 2 or more gb). Windows xp will work well with around 512mb to 1 gb of ram.

512 is more than enough for XP, it runs fine with about 256. I currently have 1 gb of ram, thus I cant validate how smoother my system would be with double the memory.

It would be great if Vista was optimized for current video cards so the GPU would do all the work and the OS would have less overhead, or maybe with future GPCPUs?

Either way, I still wouldnt use Vista/7 as they will introduce filters and all kinds of backdoors.

 

[the master 123]

Okay on benchmarking it generally better to use several benchmarks to get a general idea of overall performance of 2 processor. In my example the celeron [email protected] was in single thread sightly slower than my processor in general performance however there are programs that it would outperform it.

I had use xp base computer with 256 and upgrade it to 512 and saw a good performance gain. I generally have a lot of program running at once though. It depend on factors like amount of item at start up, and programs running that influence the performance gain for ram upgrade. I would agreed though on vista much higher graphic card though without a decent graphic card vista is really slow(even with one without a relatively high end processor is still run slow)

 

[!REVENGE!]

Do you know of any particular application that features a multibenchmarking system? preferably one that can be directed at a certain application to measure its performance?

I would agreed though on vista much higher graphic card though without a decent graphic card vista is really slow(even with one without a relatively high end processor is still run slow)

lol... again, no wisecrack intended but, I dont understand you, are you korean?

 

[the master 123]

sorry I from usa however I was never good in english in high school .
I would agreed though that vista has higher graphic card,processor, and ram requirement though and on low end hardware it wasn't as good as windows xp. well actually if you don't use direct 10 or have any game or other programs that requires vista(halo 2) windows xp is generally better due to it lower requirements.

I don't know any free software that would combine real life benchmarks however. You could use cpu reviews to get an idea how a 2 processor compare. However if you do several benchmark for cpu you want the other component as close as possible(ddr to ddr or ddr2 to dd2 at same speed for example) as it could influence the results. However SiSoftware as free benchmarking software though it Synthetic so it not as useful as program benchmarks however it as several test for cpu, memory, hard drive,... It also list other cpu that you could compare it.

 

[!REVENGE!]

I downloaded a free benchmarking tool, and the results were interesting. It says my processor is capable of 1250 Megaflops/s for a 1024x1024 matrix. I wonder if processors will continue to get better, although this computer that I bought is technically outdated as it dates back a couple years, it seems new CPUs on the market, especially those quad-cores dont seem to compete that well in proportion to how fucking expensive they are. I think weve pushed transistor-based processors to the limit. I hope to god I'm wrong, cuz thats just more reason to never use Vista.

But we'll wait and see how optical CPUs will perform.

 

[arnalion]

I know it doesn't just depend on the frequency. Anyone know a way to calculate the MIPS your comp is capable of?

And I know laptops are getting more powerful, but that's not the point. Laptops will never be as fast as desktops with the same lifespan. Vista takes up 1 GHz just for the OS to run, meaning you have only 1.5 GHz free cycles to run your N64 roms, which should be enough for most under a VGA resolution and no interpolation, not to mention no Goldeneye. XP takes 300 MHz, so you would then have 2.2 GHz left for Project64 which may still be a little below the requirement to run Goldeneye smoothly as, again, my 3 ghz with windows XP cannot run it at full FPS on very intense parts.

No it doesn't.
Check out the CPU load in the task manager and you'll see how much CPU power the OS requires.

An Intel Core 2 Duo at 2,6 GHz has probably the same performance as an Intel P4 at 7-8 GHz.
The new Intel i7 920 (2,67 GHz) has better performance than the Core 2 Quad Extreme QX9770 (3.2 GHz).