Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

GameCube on PowerMac G5?

sheik124

sheik124

Emutalk Member
i know questions similar to this have been asked (like n64 on athlon64 being better etc.) but could you run gamecube easier on a g5, i read somewhere that they were 128 bit but i checked on apple.com and it says they were 64-bit. shouldn't at least ONE ibm powerpc processor have an architecture similar to that of the PowerPC Gekko? maybe you could have hardware GC emulation on a pc like that, course, i don't know what i am talking about, someone clear this up for me please
 
C

cooliscool

Nintendo Zealot
It's 128-bit in the sense that it's two 64-bit processors working in sync. Being able to run a GCN emulator "better"? Maybe with LLE, but HLE will be like running it on any other processor afaik.
 
Reznor007

Reznor007

New member
Technically it will be faster to emulate Gamecube on a Mac because PowerPC can self virtualize...basically a hardware based emulation instead of software. For PC's you would have to fully emulate the chip, which is very slow.
 
M

mainframe19

Guest
maybe it whould be faster runing a software ngc emu in winxpro with 2 athlon64-bit cpus on a dual main board.or maybe in a linux os that can use up to 8 cpus from what i heard! like in redhat!
 
C

cooliscool

Nintendo Zealot
mainframe19 said:
maybe it whould be faster runing a software ngc emu in winxpro with 2 athlon64-bit cpus on a dual main board.or maybe in a linux os that can use up to 8 cpus from what i heard! like in redhat!
Click to expand...


lmfao
 
OP
sheik124

sheik124

Emutalk Member
cooliscool said:
It's 128-bit in the sense that it's two 64-bit processors working in sync. Being able to run a GCN emulator "better"? Maybe with LLE, but HLE will be like running it on any other processor afaik.
Click to expand...
heh, thats what i wanted to say
it was exactly what had crossed my mind, rather than emulating the games in software, just trying to emulate the gamecubes hardware, i'm sure some maniac out there can take a flipper chip, do some weird shit to it, and whip it onto an AGP 8x card, and voila!! *whispers* Gamecube, *yells* ON PC!! SCREW YOU NINTENDO!!
 
Remote

Remote

Active member
Moderator
I can whip it onto a AGP card but it won't do anything :p Anyways, if you want to play GC games - buy a GC :D
 
Tagrineth

Tagrineth

Dragony thingy
XD

GameCube isn't even 64-bit, anyway - the CPU can work on 64 bits at once, but no single value is ever greater than 32 bits. :flowers:

Are any of the "G#" processors based on PowerPC 970?
 
Reznor007

Reznor007

New member
G5 was basically designed around the 970. Apple gets credit for the first true 64bit consumer system since Athlon64 wasn't available yet.
 
Tagrineth

Tagrineth

Dragony thingy
Reznor007 said:
G5 was basically designed around the 970. Apple gets credit for the first true 64bit consumer system since Athlon64 wasn't available yet.
Click to expand...

Ah, hmm. Well, in that case G5 could probably run some stock GCN code, but probably not enough to pass code through directly. Gekko has quite a few custom functions.
 
Reznor007

Reznor007

New member
Tagrineth said:
Ah, hmm. Well, in that case G5 could probably run some stock GCN code, but probably not enough to pass code through directly. Gekko has quite a few custom functions.
Click to expand...

Most of the core instructions would run just fine. Actually, I think almost all will...You can download the PPC 750cx manual from the IBM site, it covers it pretty well. Any opcodes that aren't supported could be easily trapped and emulated though. PPC is much better than x86 in that respect.
 
blight

blight

New member
natively running binaries for other environments (like running windows binaries in linux) isn't really emulation and that's why it's so fast... with a mac like said before it might be possible that the binary coding of the core instructions is even exactly the same so that one would only have to map the exe into memory and jump to it's entry point... but "emulating" GC specific instructions would be a bit harder because some 2 byte instruction might have to be replaced by 4 2 byte instructions which would then change the offset of all following code - thus one would have to relocate and relink the code (kinda like CXBX does it... ;))
such a thing would sure be nice, and anyway a mac would be better for emulating GC cuz it has more power ;)
even if not ran directly but emulated a gecko dynarec for a mac would be easier to implement and more effective i think... x86's just outdated - all modern consoles (except xbox) use risc based CPUs.. ;)
 
Tagrineth

Tagrineth

Dragony thingy
blight said:
natively running binaries for other environments (like running windows binaries in linux) isn't really emulation and that's why it's so fast... with a mac like said before it might be possible that the binary coding of the core instructions is even exactly the same so that one would only have to map the exe into memory and jump to it's entry point... but "emulating" GC specific instructions would be a bit harder because some 2 byte instruction might have to be replaced by 4 2 byte instructions which would then change the offset of all following code - thus one would have to relocate and relink the code (kinda like CXBX does it... ;))
such a thing would sure be nice, and anyway a mac would be better for emulating GC cuz it has more power ;)
even if not ran directly but emulated a gecko dynarec for a mac would be easier to implement and more effective i think... x86's just outdated - all modern consoles (except xbox) use risc based CPUs.. ;)
Click to expand...

Wow, got something against x86 do we?

As a matter of fact, the actual "CPU" component of the PS2 (r5900i) is LESS efficient than current x86 implementations, if I'm not mistaken. ;) Food for thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top