james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
counter factor=frame skip= not full speed.
video card question
- Thread starter Rzeractor
- Start date
EnTrOpY
New member
Everything that I've read suggests that proper emulation is processor dependent and not video card dependent. I believe there's a section in the pj64 emulator FAQ that explains why this is. Basically, if you have a fairly fast system with plenty of RAM, you could cleanly run the emulator with any nVidia based card that's greater than or equal to the TNT chipset. I think that the performance difference that karth95 saw was primarily based on that he tossed his 3dfx card and went with something D3D dependent.
james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
no it was primarily the cpu. he went from a k6II-400 to an athlonXP 1800. thats over 3-4 time the speed of the k6. thats what gave him the most performance.
remember the cpu does 99% of the work in emulation. it has to emulate the various chips, decode the instruction into something that can be understood. decode and create the sound, and also the graphics.
the graphics card itself doesnt does very little work, all it does is display those graphics.
That is why you gain so little from upgrading your g/card, but so much from upgrading your cpu, and also your ram.
remember the cpu does 99% of the work in emulation. it has to emulate the various chips, decode the instruction into something that can be understood. decode and create the sound, and also the graphics.
the graphics card itself doesnt does very little work, all it does is display those graphics.
That is why you gain so little from upgrading your g/card, but so much from upgrading your cpu, and also your ram.
supergamer
Banned
A commodore has 5 mhz!
james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
an atari800xl has 1.79 mhz. i think. anyway what the hell did you post that for?
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
With such specs, especially 512 mb ram, all games will run flawlessly.
james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
.......not quite.its good. but my gf4 440mx is a real bottleneck to my athlonxp 1800Doomulation said:
it runs 90% of games at mediums detail with no speed loss. it strugles with GTA3 a little, and running Tenebrae (the quake mod) is a real no uless you like the 30fps i get lol.
gonna get me a p4 2.54 and a albatron gf4 4200ti. that should make a real difference
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
Oh yeah, the sdram is a bottleneck too. Getting ddr ram will increase the speed as well.
EnTrOpY
New member
>>In reply to 'james.miller':
I dunno... my system specs are less than half of yours and I run GTA3 flawlessly... or RTC Wolfenstein (a notorious pig on resources) w/ the highest quality detail textures enabled with virtually no lag whatsoever... I think something else may be slowing you down.
I dunno... my system specs are less than half of yours and I run GTA3 flawlessly... or RTC Wolfenstein (a notorious pig on resources) w/ the highest quality detail textures enabled with virtually no lag whatsoever... I think something else may be slowing you down.
james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
i doubt that some how......
at what res 320x240?
i highly doubt you can run at the highest settings.
like i said i doubt that very much.
beside my 3dmark is in the middle of the field as far as gf4 440mx's & athlonxp 1800+'s go - wich would be a great deal faster than yours.
installed all the speed up patches have you? thought soEnTrOpY said:
at what res 320x240?
i highly doubt you can run at the highest settings.
like i said i doubt that very much.
beside my 3dmark is in the middle of the field as far as gf4 440mx's & athlonxp 1800+'s go - wich would be a great deal faster than yours.
supergamer
Banned
To 0N1 L1nK
If you want to play all games very good, you'll need a amd XP 1700+, 256 mb ram, good video hardware (geforce4 titanium 4200 or newer, ati radeon 8500 or newer) and if you want to play all games perfect you'll need a amd XP 2100+, 512 mb ram and a geforce4 titanium 4600 or ati radeon 9700 pro.
If you want to play all games very good, you'll need a amd XP 1700+, 256 mb ram, good video hardware (geforce4 titanium 4200 or newer, ati radeon 8500 or newer) and if you want to play all games perfect you'll need a amd XP 2100+, 512 mb ram and a geforce4 titanium 4600 or ati radeon 9700 pro.
EnTrOpY
New member
>>In reply to 'james.miller':
Everything specified is running as-is strait out of the box - no patches, cheat codes, etc.
You may have a point about the resolution, as I typically do all my gaming at 800x600 (anything higher just gives me a headache - even on a 20" monitor).
The only modification I've done recently was the GF2 to Quadro 2 mod (moving resistors R121>R122 & R123>R124 respectively) to make the card detect as a Quadro2 and use the Quadro drivers instead. But this mod really didn't have that much of an effect on performance.
As for bench marks, I believe they make for a good reference point, but I wouldn't blindly believe in them as the end-all be-all in determining what type of equipment I should be running my games on for the simple fact that gaming companies market their games to meet the PC specs that the average person would likely own and would probably not exclusively market a game that will only run well on the latest PC that just flew off the assembly line two minutes ago (emulation being an obvious exception).
Everything specified is running as-is strait out of the box - no patches, cheat codes, etc.
You may have a point about the resolution, as I typically do all my gaming at 800x600 (anything higher just gives me a headache - even on a 20" monitor).
The only modification I've done recently was the GF2 to Quadro 2 mod (moving resistors R121>R122 & R123>R124 respectively) to make the card detect as a Quadro2 and use the Quadro drivers instead. But this mod really didn't have that much of an effect on performance.
As for bench marks, I believe they make for a good reference point, but I wouldn't blindly believe in them as the end-all be-all in determining what type of equipment I should be running my games on for the simple fact that gaming companies market their games to meet the PC specs that the average person would likely own and would probably not exclusively market a game that will only run well on the latest PC that just flew off the assembly line two minutes ago (emulation being an obvious exception).
james.miller
HELL YES. IT'S ME!
no pII-600 will run gta3 flawlessly. period.
as for benchmarks - no that are not the be-all and end-all, but they are a good indication - especially 3dmark2001se.
as for RTC wolfenstien - no way. quake 3 yes you could run smoothly but not RTCW
as for benchmarks - no that are not the be-all and end-all, but they are a good indication - especially 3dmark2001se.
as for RTC wolfenstien - no way. quake 3 yes you could run smoothly but not RTCW
CasCraven
New member
Returning to 64 emulation:
Despite the fact that my whole system may as well be considered a bottleneck to any hardware being discussed here, I'm experiencing severe slowdowns with OpenGL plugins as opposed to those running on DirectX/D3D, on which most games run fine, but with a few errors (notably, white squares under cars in Mario Cart with Jabo's D3D6v1.5, no transparency, and other things). Cpu speed is somewhat of an issue, but the GFX card is pathetic - a moble version of the ATI Rage Pro card, possibly integrated into the MB by dell and just using the ATI processing chip (it happens ocasionally). Is this card not OpenGL accelerated? - is there even such a thing at all? Another system (AMD athalon 1GHz, 128DDR, Nvidia Vanta LT 16MB, etc) runs 1964's OpenGL plugin far faster than Jabo's D3D, and with much greater accuracy. Is it the card's archetecture or something else? Both systems have DirecX8.1, and although a bit dated as far as the latest specs, have the potential to run most things with reasonable speed. Any opinions?
Despite the fact that my whole system may as well be considered a bottleneck to any hardware being discussed here, I'm experiencing severe slowdowns with OpenGL plugins as opposed to those running on DirectX/D3D, on which most games run fine, but with a few errors (notably, white squares under cars in Mario Cart with Jabo's D3D6v1.5, no transparency, and other things). Cpu speed is somewhat of an issue, but the GFX card is pathetic - a moble version of the ATI Rage Pro card, possibly integrated into the MB by dell and just using the ATI processing chip (it happens ocasionally). Is this card not OpenGL accelerated? - is there even such a thing at all? Another system (AMD athalon 1GHz, 128DDR, Nvidia Vanta LT 16MB, etc) runs 1964's OpenGL plugin far faster than Jabo's D3D, and with much greater accuracy. Is it the card's archetecture or something else? Both systems have DirecX8.1, and although a bit dated as far as the latest specs, have the potential to run most things with reasonable speed. Any opinions?
Doomulation
?????????????????????????
The ATI cards is mostly crap (not new new ones, though ^_^). They don't support directx nor opengl very well for n64 emulation afaik.
supergamer
Banned
OpenGL is supported on an ATI rage pro. Go to www.ati.com and download the newest drivers. Anything does work (set your desktop to 16-bit colors to use 1964 OpenGL).
supergamer
Banned
I know. Direct X support is up to 32 bit color, and OpenGL with a maximum of 16 bit!