missing ground and low fps ffx

gifireinside · Nov 29, 2006

so, I just did some oc'ing on my cpu and video card, things seem to be going pretty quickly so I'm going to take a look at the graphics settings that give the best boost to the visual beauty of the game.

4400+
2.2-2.4

7900gt
470/1.39-581/1.58

thc · Nov 29, 2006

FFX slow
FFX fast
now there is difference isn't it ?... Anyway I'm getting even more average FPS than RPGwizzard that however depends where they were measured etc...

Every program can be optimized If you willing to write 4,5 megs of C/C++ code in asm [that's what I would call no life] ( not that will help much everytime ), or think of new methods how to do things faster. Pcsx2 isn't as fast as it can be, however
1) I don't beleive it can run 2x faster just from specs of PS2
2) saying OC'ing isn't going to help is .....

to run it faster You will need some kind of static recompiler which is nearly impossible, due to self modifying code in ps2 ( thanks to par who enlightened me when I started talking here about this ).

Anyway my job is C++/C# dev ( +some of web programming around ) and I don't really understand what you trying to say about dual-core... less time needed to switch between threads ( as they are not switched ) ? yes that's true however that time is already so small it hardly matter. Anyway if you OC by 10% you will get 10% faster system if you are not bottlenecked somewhere else.
howg, this is pointless.

gifireinside · Nov 29, 2006

in regards to the thumbs of xii on emwearz post, how could it be that those fmv's look so good while ffx's....dont? i mean what is the specific problem that is causing the botched scenes?

thc · Nov 29, 2006

FFX-2 FMVs work FFX don't - bug in pcsx2.

gifireinside · Nov 29, 2006

oh...i thought it may have been something else....alright then

after overclocking, optimizing dual core settings in pcsx2 itself, and turning on bf/aa2x, i just ran the opening sequence with better visual quality at 38-48 fps. going to try higher visual settings and check in again

Osakasan · Nov 29, 2006

lavans said:
if anything u would get slightly faster fps from the e6300 but only because u can run it in dual core mode. even then, considering how much more powerful that processor is than an AMD 3000+, theres not really any significant boost.

edit: also, keep in mind that in dual core mode, the emulator is running off of 2 cpu cores at once allowing for 2 threads to go through at once meaning less processes needed overall. clock speeds will help only a little (if even that much) because its not really optimized as well as it could be

hmm ... slightly faster ... but it the fps is 4-5 times ... was like heaven and earth

from around 17 fps to 75 fps

hmm ... dual core mode .... hmm ... i'd like to have a 6 Ghz single core than a dual core 3 Ghz ... even dual core cost something (even not that significant)

when not overclocked my AMD got only 12 FPS ... itu would speed up to 17 fps just by overclocking ... and from around 43 fps can boost up to 75 fps ... only by overclocking ... it seems nice ...

if someone who can built a perfect code in this, is the one who built PS2 ... (well ... if the instruction can be all translated to PC (at least they know all of the instruction in PS2)) :lol: i mean ... u dont even have to pay to get this software ... and the team dont get paid to build this fantastic emulator ...

thc · Nov 29, 2006

Osakan:
May I know VMem of your mem sticks ? I was not able to get them that hight and don't wanted to blow them up....

Osakasan · Nov 29, 2006

The VMem is about 2.3V (+5V)... but it can only boot when cold enough.
the safest is 916 (458 fsb) ... it can boot whenever i want ...
the highest i can achieve is 482 fsb ...

thc · Nov 29, 2006

Hmmm, I'm allready on that VMem ( running everyday ), so I probably have worse sticks then.
Anyway thanks.

RPGW1ZaRD · Nov 29, 2006

lavans said:
if anything u would get slightly faster fps from the e6300 but only because u can run it in dual core mode. even then, considering how much more powerful that processor is than an AMD 3000+, theres not really any significant boost.

edit: also, keep in mind that in dual core mode, the emulator is running off of 2 cpu cores at once allowing for 2 threads to go through at once meaning less processes needed overall. clock speeds will help only a little (if even that much) because its not really optimized as well as it could be

I really must disagree with you, PCSX2 is really well optimized. In fact the speedboost you get by a higher clock speed is even that good so it's pretty much linear with the overclocked cpu amount as long as gfx card doesn't become the limiting factor! I've tried this at different clocked speeds with my CPU to make that conclusion. Overclocking CPU benefits PCSX2 more than even normal PC games in most cases. You can read here about some more comparisions on this topic but I should have used FRAPS to get an average speed value of the areas to make it more exact, but most often it's within an error margin of +/-5% when it comes to how the FPS boost scales with different clock speed.

Of course not every1 overclocks his CPU as much as 55% like mine (altho it's pretty easy for Conroe CPUs) so for me 55% is really an obvious increase when a game runs let's say 35 FPS at stock speed I get ~54 FPS overclocked.

Some games become GPU bottlenecked tho which I hadn't believed myself until I made this test. In some gfx demanding games you can get a remarkable increase just by upgrading gfx card. I can also say RAM latency matters quite a lot for PCSX2 so that's one disadvantage with the new AMD AM2 based systems and Conroe setups as these use DDR2 and DDR1 has much lower latencies and since PCSX2 doesn't benefit from higher bandwidth (ie higher ram frequency) that much, especially the low latency DDR1 sticks has quite an advantage.

DDR3 will be a more remarkable change than DDR1 -> DDR2 was and it will have both lower latency (not necessarily faster timings) and higher bandwidth than DDR2 and that's probably next time I'll upgrade system. Cuz DDR2 sticks with lower latency ie 4-4-4-12 (sticks I had bought if I would do an upgrade to Conroe system) for example costs much compared to what low latency DDR1 sticks costed and doesn't offer that relatively much advantage.

Osakasan · Nov 29, 2006

aaaa ....
look how different the latency's are ...

probably u shoud lower the latency ... i suppose your timing is too thight ...

thc · Nov 29, 2006

Yep I know, but even with loose timings I can't get to your speed... And I don't really want to loosen them.

I just wanted to push whole system more MHz higher without changing anything. ( ok, just VMem and FSB ).

lavans · Nov 29, 2006

thc said:
FFX slow
FFX fast
now there is difference isn't it ?... Anyway I'm getting even more average FPS than RPGwizzard that however depends where they were measured etc...

Every program can be optimized If you willing to write 4,5 megs of C/C++ code in asm [that's what I would call no life] ( not that will help much everytime ), or think of new methods how to do things faster. Pcsx2 isn't as fast as it can be, however
1) I don't beleive it can run 2x faster just from specs of PS2
2) saying OC'ing isn't going to help is .....

to run it faster You will need some kind of static recompiler which is nearly impossible, due to self modifying code in ps2 ( thanks to par who enlightened me when I started talking here about this ).

gee let me think about this...the user in the fast screenshots has an opteron to boot which has a much different architecture than a regular cpu such as an Athlon x2 or Core2Duo.

Edit: Also, i dont see anything about there being frameskip in his config which could also make a big difference in overall FPS. the guy with "Slow FFX" fps didnt use frame skip at all. if your going to compare rigs, then make sure that they are running the exact same settings otherwise its pointless to even look at the comparisons, espically in a emulator far from perfect

Do us a favor and post your own screens of multiple games (not just FF10) @ stock speeds and OC'd and lets compare the differences.

as for my rig, theres no difference @ stock vs OC. that and theres no difference between my rig's preformance vs one with an Athlon 3000+ in the same games and i have an Athlon 4200+ x2. and dont bother trying to tell me that my video card (x1600xt) is the limiting factor because thats rubbish. i can run games such as FEAR @ 1280x1024 max settings with 4xAA and 8xAF with 40 fps average

RPGW1ZaRD · Nov 29, 2006

Socket939 Opteron dual cores are pretty much the same as X2 CPUs.

I never use frameskip setting, it even cuts my FPS almost in half or so in FFX, I always use "normal" mode when testing PCSX2, cuz I would even prefer lower FPS than not so smooth rendering feeling.

You can't compare PC games with PCSX2, in Resident Evil 4 for example, 7900GTO overclocked past 7900GTX speeds is still somewhat a bottleneck in my case.

You can already compare overclocked vs stock speed in my 1st review in 3 different games. http://forums.ngemu.com/pcsx2-official-forum/76251-pcsx2-review-cpu-power-does-matter.html

As long as CPU usage is at 100% for PCSX2 you'll see speed increase by overclocking CPU and the gain is pretty much linear with overclocked CPU amount. If not then it's either graphics card limiting OR something else that isn't right.

lavans · Nov 30, 2006

so in order to settle this processor debate once and for all, in the first batch of screens, i took snapshots of the GSDx and ZeroGS in both single core and dual core mode....the first four screens from left to right goes as follows

ZeroGS Dual Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 27fps
GSDx Dual Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 24fps
GSDx Single Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 23fps
ZeroGS Single Core @ 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 26fps

wow....a 1 fps boost! yeehaw talk about speed :rotflmao:

ok so now that we got that dual core situation out of the way, lets look at some OC'd screens. They goes as follows...

ZeroGS Dual Core 2.45ghz /w 8x FSB = 33fps
GSDx Dual Core 2.45ghz /w 8x FSB = 28fps

wow, 5fps boost with a pretty decent OC...seems what i said earlier about bringing up clock speeds having nominal effects on preformance on this emulator seems to hold true. so with this im gonna stick by the fact that PCSX2 has a long way to go before its properly optimized. until then, i wish the PCSX2 team the best of luck on optimizing this piece of software to properly take advantage of most mid to high powered rigs :thumb:

Osakasan · Nov 30, 2006

lavans said:
so in order to settle this processor debate once and for all, in the first batch of screens, i took snapshots of the GSDx and ZeroGS in both single core and dual core mode....the first four screens from left to right goes as follows

ZeroGS Dual Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 27fps
GSDx Dual Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 24fps
GSDx Single Core 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 23fps
ZeroGS Single Core @ 2.2ghz /w 6x FSB = 26fps

wow....a 1 fps boost! yeehaw talk about speed :rotflmao:

ok so now that we got that dual core situation out of the way, lets look at some OC'd screens. They goes as follows...

ZeroGS Dual Core 2.45ghz /w 8x FSB = 33fps
GSDx Dual Core 2.45ghz /w 8x FSB = 28fps

wow, 5fps boost with a pretty decent OC...seems what i said earlier about bringing up clock speeds having nominal effects on preformance on this emulator seems to hold true. so with this im gonna stick by the fact that PCSX2 has a long way to go before its properly optimized. until then, i wish the PCSX2 team the best of luck on optimizing this piece of software to properly take advantage of most mid to high powered rigs :thumb:

hmm ... its pretty linear .. from 27 to 33 ... because it's only 12% OC from 2.2Ghz to 2.45 Ghz ... even when u look at it .. it should be around 3-4 .. but u got 6 ... nice isn't it ...

btw, i thought GSDx doesn't support Dual Core, once u turn on MTGS and Dual Core, there should have been crash right away after run cd ... are u sure u have enabled the MTGS and Dual Core option ... (dont forget to turn on all option, except frame limit / skip).

hmm ... this man hasn't read my reply ... i OC my AMD 64 3000+ 46% and E6300 80% ... of course i got nice performance boost ... so it's not the PCSX2 fault ... right ??

about the dual and single core ... dual core doesn't mean u can get like 2x times than a single core ... there is a cost ... that's why i prefer a 6Ghz single core than a 3Ghz dual core ... an SLI / Crossfire Card for example ... they can't get 2x performance than the single ...

ah yeah 1 more thing ... x1600xt is a 128 bit memory bus ... and only 4 pixel pipelines 12 pixel processor. i think u should borrow a high end Graphic Card such as 7950 GTO / X1950 XTX from a friend ... and see how it goes.
-evenionlygot28fpsonfearselfbench

lavans · Nov 30, 2006

Osakasan said:
hmm ... its pretty linear .. from 27 to 33 ... because it's only 12% OC from 2.2Ghz to 2.45 Ghz ... even when u look at it .. it should be around 3-4 .. but u got 6 ... nice isn't it ...

hmm ... this man hasn't read my reply ... i OC my AMD 64 3000+ 46% and E6300 80% ... of course i got nice performance boost ... so it's not the PCSX2 fault ... right ??

about the dual and single core ... dual core doesn't mean u can get like 2x times than a single core ... there is a cost ... that's why i prefer a 6Ghz single core than a 3Ghz dual core ... an SLI / Crossfire Card for example ... they can't get 2x performance than the single ...

ah yeah 1 more thing ... x1600xt is a 128 bit memory bus ... and only 4 pixel pipelines 12 pixel processor. i think u should borrow a high end Graphic Card such as 7950 GTO / X1950 XTX from a friend ... and see how it goes.
-evenionlygot28fpsonfearselfbench

the operating frequency went up by 250mhz. for an athlon, thats alot. but not only did i OC the operating frequency, i also OCd the FSB's multiplier from 6x to 8x (basically from a 2ghz FSB to a 2.7ghz FSB which gives more preformance than the operating frequency). thats a massive overclock for a CPU without heat pipes or watercooling. any higher then it would be as powerful, if not more than some of the Athlon FX x2's. so yes, it is the emulators fault, but its to be expected because its an emulator thats still in a very early test stage.

in terms of single core vs dual core, the program determines how it will run on whatever cpu is processing it. if the software is written to take advantage of dual core cpu's properly, there will be a massive preformance gain because its processing 2 threads at once. not to mention that 2ghz op freq. on a 2ghz FSB is plenty fast for just about anything you can throw at it.

as for my video card, its more than powerful enough to render ps2 quality games without slowdown. name any one game out right now and i guarntee you that this card can run it at 1024x768 maxed out with 4xAA and 8xAF no prob.

EDIT: i play Elder Scrolls: Oblivion at 1152x864 with 4xAA/16xAF/HDR and everything maxed except for tree and grass view distance (which is down to 75%/50%) and my x1600xt averages around 25fps...about 15fps outdoors 40fps indoors (i even have the screenshots to prove it). dont undermind this card, its more powerful than you think

people misjudge the x1600xt because they look at just the specs and not what its really capable of. as a matter of fact, i have a friend that has a rig with an athlon 3800+ with a x1800xt and his ingame preformance in PCSX2 is exactly the same as mine.

Osakasan · Nov 30, 2006

the frequency only up by 250 mhz it's only a little .... i OC from my 3000+ from 1.8 Ghz to 2.62 Ghz there a 800 Mhz ... and e6300 from 1.86 to 3.35 Mhz ... there a 1.5 Ghz ...
hmm ... i'm a little lost on FSB here ... what does it means FSB multiplier from 6x to 8x ??
2Ghz to 2.7 Ghz ?? it gained from where ??

nice then u can borrow the x1800xt from him/her then ... see how it goes ...
and why are u only comparing in PCSX2 ?? it's obvious that his CPU is the bottleneck ...

how about a NWN2 1024x768 ... full all maxed out ... dont forget reflection and refraction

, i only got 12-29 fps

lavans · Nov 30, 2006

Osakasan said:
the frequency only up by 250 mhz it's only a little .... i OC from my 3000+ from 1.8 Ghz to 2.62 Ghz there a 800 Mhz ... and e6300 from 1.86 to 3.35 Mhz ... there a 1.5 Ghz ...
hmm ... i'm a little lost on FSB here ... what does it means FSB multiplier from 6x to 8x ??
2Ghz to 2.7 Ghz ?? it gained from where ??

nice then u can borrow the x1800xt from him/her then ... see how it goes ...
and why are u only comparing in PCSX2 ?? it's obvious that his CPU is the bottleneck ...

sigh...i see u guys dont understand the simple fact that most computers are more than powerful enough to emulate ps2 games without slowdown assuming the emulator is properly written. most mid-high end computers are as powerful as the Xbox 360 and yet theyre getting horrible fps in games that are for an almost 6 year old gaming console. also, if you dont know how FSB works with HyperThreading/Transport, then google it...im done trying to explain things to people that disregard the facts anyway.

Edit: also, an athlon 3000+ cpu has the exact same core as an athlon 3800+, the only difference is one was fabricated to run slower than the other, thats why you can get an 800mhz OC with that cpu. a socket 939 Athlon 4200+ x2 is about as good as it gets in terms of the 939 AMD x2 series chips. having said that, if you try to OC a cpu like mine, the system will become totally instable and inoperatable

people, please do your homework when you start talking about computer parts

Osakasan · Nov 30, 2006

what's the point of increasing HTT ?? it doesnt add computing power ... it only widen the bus ...
like if there is people waiting in line for a locket ticket ... while the processor can only be done 1 person persecond ... whats the point of increasing the line while the processor is "still" can only serve 1 persecond ... (well if in your case ... 1.11 ... since only overclocking it 11% ... )

one funny guy

also ... PS2 has 8x processing power than PS (almost 300Mhz RISC) there is no way A CISC with 2Ghz power could overcome it ... it should be around 10-12 times power ... and also had widen it bus to 128bit ... while the PS only 32bit ... look how complex it is ...
it must be more computing power needed ...

missing ground and low fps ffx

gifireinside

thc

gifireinside

thc

gifireinside

Osakasan

thc

Osakasan

thc

RPGW1ZaRD

Osakasan

thc

lavans

RPGW1ZaRD

lavans

Osakasan

lavans

Osakasan

lavans

Osakasan

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities