Low FPS with Dolphin

[Falcon4ever]

I never insulted the authors and i never called them lazy, those are your words.

pff that's no insult, most emu authors are lazy ... they are almost like real people =]

 

[[SS] Starscream]

Then don't be a retard and insult the authors

First you make up things and put them in others peoples mouthes, then you try to use it against them as if they said it. You obviously do not know what you're talking about if you cannot remember what you said from one post to he next, After all that the rest of what you have to say is worthless.

I say it can be done with a good AMD64 processor and a 64bit OS, we will just have to wait till someone gets it right.

 

[kerkelenz]

Isnt it stated somewhere in the rules to stay on topic, because I dont think this is on topic, quite far from it actually..

 

[[SS] Starscream]

Nope, no such emulator. Emulation is hard and the GC architecture just eats away at resources. We'll be needing more cores to get faster emulation!

not really Doom. the 64 bits version of dolphin (unreleased) is already running quite fast in most games even on my system. A system like his should prolly run even faster.

Gekko's int right now is really promising in term of speed comparing with other emus. I won't say much about this right now....

Taken from another thread. I would think a beta tester knows how the thing plays right in front of him.

 

[Doomulation]

First you make up things and put them in others peoples mouthes, then you try to use it against them as if they said it. You obviously do not know what you're talking about if you cannot remember what you said from one post to he next, After all that the rest of what you have to say is worthless.

I say it can be done with a good AMD64 processor and a 64bit OS, we will just have to wait till someone gets it right.

I take it back. You are a retard. You don't listen to what others say.

Taken from another thread. I would think a beta tester knows how the thing plays right in front of him.

But it still contradicts what you say. 64-bit dolphin runs on two cores AFAIK. Having written a interpreter myself, I know a little about emulation. Though I haven't written a dynamic recompiler, I would still say that you can't get it working on a single core. We're talking about FULL speed here!

Dolphin and Gekko has achieved pretty good speeds now, but do they run on single core? I think not. Dunno much about Gekko, but Dolphin is dual core now AFAIK.

I'm tired of arguing this. So... who votes that GC emulation will run on a single core? Yay or nay?

 

[Toasty]

This is kind of a silly argument. A GC emulator will certainly run at full speed on a single core CPU - if the single-core CPU is fast enough. Just like a GC emulator will run at full speed on a dual-core CPU if it is fast enough. If the GC emulator happens to be multi-threaded, the clock speed of the dual-core CPU might not have to be quite as high as that of a single-core with the same architecture (perhaps even close to half). Right now it's a completely irrelevant point because there are no GC emulators (at least, no publicly available ones) that can run at full speed on today's single-core or dual-core processors.

Until there are, the only discussion that can be had is, "I think a well-optimized GC emulator will run on this CPU." While another person says, "No, no, NOOO. That won't work; I think a well-optimized GC emulator will only run on this CPU." Without an actual, well-optimized GC emulator with which to conduct tests it's a pointless argument.

That said, emulation tends to require at least an order of magnitude more power on the host platform than the emulated platform. So, at this point, some dual-core CPUs may have enough raw power, but with how difficult it is to program an application (particularly one as complicated as an emulator) to take full advantage of multiple processors, it's still going to be a daunting (if not impossible) task to get one up to full speed on them. Intel and AMD have retired most of their single-core efforts to budget lines and reserve the higher clock speeds for their mainstream and enthusiast lines (which are pretty much all multi-core CPUs). That being the case, if a mature GC emulator emerges in the near future, I doubt that current single-core CPUs will have the power to run it at full speed, at least initially.

That's not a failing in single-core CPUs, but rather a result of manufacturers devoting less attention to their budget lines. Eventually, as long as manufacturers keep making single-core CPUs and keep speeding up clock speeds and/or IPCs, I have no doubt that single-core CPUs will eventually be able to tackle this well-optimized GC emulator that doesn't quite exist yet. Anyway, that's my opinion. If yours differs from it, more power to you, but arguing about it and trying to use a vote to decide the requirements of future software will accomplish nothing.

 

[Tagrineth]

I love you toasty, be mine forever :flowers:

 

[Doomulation]

Eh... There's one thing we're forgetting here...
The reason we're going dual core (or more) is because we're hitting the limit on how much speed we can cram into a single core. Single cores just can't get much faster in terms of speed, at least not for long. It's physics and we can't do anything about that.
This is why I'm proposing that GC emulator will need at least dual core.

It may be possible to get said emulator to run on a single core maybe... long in the future when the architecture is much more refined and smaller and faster clock speeds. But at that point, we'll probably all use dual, quad core or maybe even more cores and single cores will be of the past, so there will be little use for any said emulator to run on a single core anyway...

This is just my theory, of course...

 

[Toasty]

That's a valid point and I agree with you. (Though only time will tell.) It's unfortunate that right now we're seeing a pattern with multiple cores similar to the one a few years ago with ever increasing clock speeds. Not that having more cores is a bad thing, but some tasks really can't benefit from multiple processors, and even when a task can be multi-threaded, that doesn't mean it will be easy to do. I'm hoping AMD's new architecture will be good competition against Core, because architecture improvements are really in everyone's best interest since we've kind of hit a clock speed barrier for the moment.

I love you toasty, be mine forever :flowers:

Aw, shucks. Add on another flower and we'll talk.

 

[[SS] Starscream]

I don't know why you guys are so hung up on two processors... you're forgetting about a 64bit OS's that can take up the slack. A 3.0GHZ AMD 64 processor should be able to run a GC emu when the emu is optimized in the future.

On another note, i don't think the devs will try to make it run full speed on one processor because that will take alot more optimizing and work than dual core, but it can be done.

 

[Doomulation]

I don't know why you guys are so hung up on two processors... you're forgetting about a 64bit OS's that can take up the slack. A 3.0GHZ AMD 64 processor should be able to run a GC emu when the emu is optimized in the future.

A 3 GHz AMD64 processor? Hardly. A new architecture long in the future? Perhaps.
Did we forget about 64-bit? No. Does it really help? Yes, but it's not a miracle. 64-bit dolphin still does not run full speed on two cores.
Remember that even with new architectures comes speed boosts of 50-60%, but this is not a miracle either. Don't expect everything to gain a speed boost such as that.

On another note, i don't think the devs will try to make it run full speed on one processor because that will take alot more optimizing and work than dual core, but it can be done.

Again, you're just guessing. Prove me it can be done and I'll believe you. Otherwise, stop pretending like you know. The keyword is maybe. MAYBE it can be done. There's no 100% guarantee.

 

[[SS] Starscream]

Prove to you? What should i write you a GC emulator right here in this thread? I don't have to prove anything to you and neither do you, just stop responding to my posts already, you're useless.

 

[Clements]

I am certainly not convinced that any GC emulator will run full speed on a 3GHz Athlon64 with at least half of the games. PCSX2 doesn't even run full speed with that CPU, or even an Athlon64 X2 with the majority of games with full dual-core, SSE2 optimisations and a dynarec - and a GC has more powerful hardware than a PS2. To me, that seems like an arbitrary guess with no evidence, or simply wishful thinking.

Athlon64 architecture is really crippled with regards to how many SSE operations it can handle in a single clock cycle, which slows the frame rate on PCSX2 considerably, and it will be the same with GC.

 

[pubjoe]

I believe that these are very early days in powerpc emulation. The developers are treading new ground in it's development. Correct me if I'm wrong (because I may well be), but isn't it to be expected that the gamecube's cpu emulation alone is going to be far from optimized. And certainly emulated at a high level.

Being able to run on a specifically powered (3ghz or whatever) cpu might technically be possible. And I presume that, running on a single core ppc processor is more easily possible. But I agree that the question is irrelevant.

But, Nintendo themselves are not much more qualified (if at all) to emulate their own console than experienced emulator developers are, nintendo, sega and sony have all employed known emulator developers in the past.

Well as a Game developer...
...and I personally think it would be easier to reverse engineer (or get a sourcecode) of a certain game and since they're all developed on PC's anyway, re-compile it for PC, after a lot of scripting that is.

The fact that gamecube games are developed in-house on workstations (not "PCs") is beside the point. They are not merely "compiled" for the GC. Nintendo game engines are written from the ground up for nintendo's set of hardware. A workstation is not a PC. And a "PC" is too loose a description anyway, a PC With one ppc processor, or ten x86 processors is still a PC... But it doesn't help compatibilty for us with our windows boxes does it?

And as for reverse engineering a game being easier? No such task would ever be considered for a modern game! What do you suggest? Bosh out a game a week? Simple as that. Or does somebody phone up shigeru miyamoto, and say "Shiggsy mate, how you doing? Have you still got the source code for that zelda game on the gamecube? I couldn't, er, borrow it could I? Yeah.. I just want to show it to the missus. ...Nice one!"

 

[Doomulation]

I believe that these are very early days in powerpc emulation. The developers are treading new ground in it's development. Correct me if I'm wrong (because I may well be), but isn't it to be expected that the gamecube's cpu emulation alone is going to be far from optimized. And certainly emulated at a high level.
Being able to run on a specifically powered (3ghz or whatever) cpu might technically be possible. And I presume that, running on a single core ppc processor is more easily possible. But I agree that the question is irrelevant.

Certainly, but there is to be expected overhead as well. One PP instruction can't just be executed with one x86 instruction. Further, there's no saying that even if that were true, the instructions would take an equal amount of cpu cycles. Remember that the gamecube's processor were created for games in mind. The x86 architecture isn't--it's created with general purpose in mind.
Even if the CPU did run on one processor, you still haven't considered the rest of the hardware the needs to be emulated.

 

[lightchris]

I am certainly not convinced that any GC emulator will run full speed on a 3GHz Athlon64 with at least half of the games. PCSX2 doesn't even run full speed with that CPU, or even an Athlon64 X2 with the majority of games with full dual-core, SSE2 optimisations and a dynarec - and a GC has more powerful hardware than a PS2. To me, that seems like an arbitrary guess with no evidence, or simply wishful thinking.

The Gamecube may be more powerful in some respects, espacially concerning the graphics chip (the Graphics Synthesizer has a very small featureset compared to the Flipper), but not in all. I figure the Emotion Engine with it's 2 Vector Units (with all needed to be synchronized) should be harder to emulate than the Gekko.

I'd say PCSX2 is already very good optimized for speed while Gamecube emulation just isn't so far yet.

 

[Clements]

The Gamecube may be more powerful in some respects

I would say most respects. The PS2 hardware has numerous limitations, especially in the graphics department (no hardware texture compression or anti-aliasing). Part of the reason why the GC version of Resident Evil 4 looked a lot better than the PS2 version. The PS2 may have a complex architecture, the GC is still a more powerful system overall, so will probably have higher requirements as a result. The fact that the Gekko is a PowerPC chip and not MIPS-based (like a number of other consoles that have already been well emulated such as Playstation and N64) makes it very difficult too. No notable console before the GC has a PowerPC chip. The PSCX2 team have a lot of experience with MIPS already (PCSX).

 

[lightchris]

I would say most respects.

Ok, you can put it this way.

The PS2 hardware has numerous limitations, especially in the graphics department (no hardware texture compression or anti-aliasing). Part of the reason why the GC version of Resident Evil 4 looked a lot better than the PS2 version.

The missing texture compression is indeed a huge disadvantage, especially when you consider the PS2 only has 4 MB of dedicated VRAM. Anti-Aliasing however is not, because it is used in virtually no game of the last console generation.
In my opinion the greatest disadvantage of the PS2 is that you've no appropiate texture filtering (because of the low VRAM and missing hardware mip mapping) which partially causes horrible flickering.

But I think a good part of the reason why the GC version of RE4 looked much better than the PS2 version is because the game was originally programmed for the GC and it's specifications; even a good port will never be as good as if you'd design the game form scratch for one console.
By the way: The PS2 version runs at a slightly higher resolution.

The PS2 may have a complex architecture, the GC is still a more powerful system overall, so will probably have higher requirements as a result. The fact that the Gekko is a PowerPC chip and not MIPS-based (like a number of other consoles that have already been well emulated such as Playstation and N64) makes it very difficult too. No notable console before the GC has such a chip. The PSCX2 team have a lot of experience with MIPS already (PCSX).

You've got a point there, but still it's harder to emulate a multiprocessor system than a singleprocessor system (for the coders as well as for the hardware that has to run the emulator). Maybe the more powerful Gekko makes up for the difference, but I think we both are not deep enough into the topic to be judging that (at least I am not).

 

[Clements]

Anti-Aliasing however is not, because it is used in virtually no game of the last console generation.

The Flipper has hardware support for FSAA, the PS2's GS does not (so will do it in software if at all). I am not aware of the number of games for GC that used it, but it is an example of a hardware advantage of the Flipper chip over the GS nonetheless.

You've got a point there, but still it's harder to emulate a multiprocessor system than a singleprocessor system (for the coders as well as for the hardware that has to run the emulator). Maybe the more powerful Gekko makes up for the difference, but I think we both are not deep enough into the topic to be judging that (at least I am not).

Technically, the GC is a 'multi-processor' system as well, in that it has a general purpose CPU (Gekko), dedicated GPU (Flipper) and also a DSP for sound. The PS2 may have more processors overall, but some additional functionality doesn't need to be emulated to play most games (such as Dev9, USB, Firewire, Hard drive and so on).

 

[lightchris]

The Flipper has hardware support for FSAA, the PS2's GS does not (so will do it in software if at all). I am not aware of the number of games for GC that used it, but it is an example of a hardware advantage of the Flipper chip over the GS nonetheless.

Yep but it doesn't make the hardware weaker for games or emulation because it isn't used anyway. By the way I'm not sure what sort of AA the Flipper can handle. If it's only supersampling with an ordererd grid the GS should be able to do the same (as does any graphics chip that can render sufficient resolutions).

Another advantage of the Flipper ist hardware support of bump mapping, while the biggest disadvantage imo is that it can't run full 32 bit color all the time which not seldom results in color banding.

Technically, the GC is a 'multi-processor' system as well, in that it has a general purpose CPU (Gekko), dedicated GPU (Flipper) and also a DSP for sound. The PS2 may have more processors overall, but some additional functionality doesn't need to be emulated to play most games (such as Dev9, USB, Firewire, Hard drive and so on).

The GC has one main processor (Gekko). The PS2 has in addition its two MIPS cores one FPU and two VUs (all together called Emotion Engine). Both have a SPU and a graphics chip (of course). You can't deny that the PS2 is a multiprocessor architecture while the GC is not.
This is also the reason why the PS2 is said to be hard to program and why it took a long time until we saw the potential of the hardware in games (and some devs still say it's not actually fully exploited yet).


edit: Just to make it clear: I'm not saying the PS2 is more powerful than the GC (in practice it's usually the other way round), but it may be harder to emulate nevertheless.