If it's really a Radeon 9250 I'm suprised you're even getting that much fps. But it can't be that card since it wouldn't have Pixel shader 2.0 support. I'm guessing it's a 9550 which is still horribly slow and poor PS 2.0 support.

 

haha thought sumthing was fishy with my graphics card
so solution is get a new Graphics card then eh^^)

 

Actually, it not just your graphic card, it's also your processor too...

 

I'll be getting a c2d e4500 soon, but ill have to wait for my graphic card (hd3850), meanwhile ill hang out with the onboard 7100, and i want to give pcsx2 + FFXII a try, is it possible to get playable speed with this configuration??, will i be ok with the radeon later??, thank u guys!!

 

I'll be getting a c2d e4500 soon, but ill have to wait for my graphic card (hd3850), meanwhile ill hang out with the onboard 7100, and i want to give pcsx2 + FFXII a try, is it possible to get playable speed with this configuration??, will i be ok with the radeon later??, thank u guys!!

I guess you'll have to wait. With the 3850 you'll probably get full speed.

 

Did you tick the Native checkbox? It boosts the game with about 20 fps.

 

i think now GSdx9 / GSdx10 is use more GPU

 

I guess you'll have to wait. With the 3850 you'll probably get full speed.

I doubt it. I'm on a Q6600/8800GTX machine, and that's only half-way to the magic 60fps in 1024x res. It's almost enough in native res though. Almost

Now that I'm commenting though, is there anything to be done about the sound & FMV glitchyness in FFXII and the obscured screens in FFX? I get the impression all three are tied to GSdx9.

- oh and, if this is considered a thread-jack, my apologies and feel free to ignore me.

EDIT:

i think now GSdx9 / GSdx10 is use more GPU

Depends on the resolution you're running. Lower resolutions are less taxing on the CPU, but look horrible.

 

You sure you have the latest version of GSdx9
http://forums.ngemu.com/ps2-plugin-questions-troubleshooting/50783-gsdx9.html
http://forums.ngemu.com/ps2-plugin-questions-troubleshooting/96940-gsdx10.html (only one version right now but I'll put here anyway)
>>>The blue Flashes in ffx can be solved with the new live bata AKA "PCSX2 0.9.5 SVN"
PCSX2.net - Downloads(sorry Admin for bringing this up in forums)
Disconnected You have the same CPU and a better graphics card; For me ffx at a internal res of 2560x2560 looks and plays freekin great :thumb:
WAY ABOVE 60fps Just about all the way through With frame limiter turned off with a Q6600 8800GTS (Corse you dont want to play that fast)
I dont think anyone on any system can play FFXII without running into problems as of now. I haven't tryed running it personally.

 

I doubt it. I'm on a Q6600/8800GTX machine, and that's only half-way to the magic 60fps in 1024x res. It's almost enough in native res though. Almost

Now that I'm commenting though, is there anything to be done about the sound & FMV glitchyness in FFXII and the obscured screens in FFX? I get the impression all three are tied to GSdx9.

- oh and, if this is considered a thread-jack, my apologies and feel free to ignore me.

EDITepends on the resolution you're running. Lower resolutions are less taxing on the CPU, but look horrible.

Actually, its your cpu bogging down the speed either way, my x1950 can handle all games at 4x native res without speed impact since it has so much headroom next to the cpu. 3850 should be quite a bit more powerful then x1950, and it uses dx10 as well (which people reported to make things noticably faster, even on 8600 cards).

 

>>>The blue Flashes in ffx can be solved with the new live bata AKA "PCSX2 0.9.5 SVN Rev. 227"

Thank you very much

I dont think anyone on any system can play FFXII without running into problems as of now. I haven't tryed running it personally.

Actually, its your cpu bogging down the speed either way, my x1950 can handle all games at 4x native res without speed impact since it has so much headroom next to the cpu. 3850 should be quite a bit more powerful then x1950, and it uses dx10 as well (which people reported to make things noticably faster, even on 8600 cards).

Not that it's important, I'm just trying to satisfy my curiosity here.. But 3 questions:

1. If there's no GPU bottleneck, why do higher render resolutions decrease performance?
2. To the very best of my knowledge, both DX versions are made by the same guy, and neither PCSX nor PS2 graphics call for anything DX9 can't as easily facilitate as DX10, so why would there be a performance difference (AKA, are you sure it's not simply that people using the DX10 version have better hardware)?
3. Do you guys know if there's any plans for true multithreading?

 

Theres no bottleneck on normal rendering, in which case any high-end computer should have plenty of headroom. Increasing render resolution is effectively like enabling antialiasing, so if your card doesnt have enough ram or bandwith, it will choke and hog the frame rate. This is especially noticable if you have a midrange card without enough bandwith, or a high-end cpu that can run games very fast. On my computer its not noticable cause the cpu is very slow, I get maybe 2fps speed drop in 2560x1920 render res (which is pretty much the cpu overhead).

DX10 is actually very different compared to DX9, its just that no commercial games take advantage of it. How many years did it take for DX9 to become heavily used?
The ability of dx10 to run higher accuracy shader computations makes it possible to offload more stuff to the videocard (things you had to do in cpu because the gpu just couldnt use those kind of numbers), or to make older stuff more accurate (dx10 has a 32bit zbuffer format -> fixes Disgaea, which also uses that format, it was buggy before cause dx9 only had 24bit zbuffer).

Think of it this way, when emulating a 64bit cpu on a 32bit cpu, you have to do multiple computations for one 64bit instruction cause the 64bit cpu works with bigger numbers the 32bit cpu couldnt even understand. So the emulator has to brake down the number to smaller ones it can process, stitch it back together, something like that. Or you can emulate it with a 64bit cpu which can understand the same kind of "bigger numbers" since it can read the 64bit language as well: by this, it saves a lot of cycles otherwise spent on breaking down an instruction, making it faster. And more accurate as well since you can factor out rounding errors made on the 32bit cpu.

Of course this is by far from a practical example (in fact its probably a very, very bad example), but you get the idea.

 

You inspired me to do a bit of investigation, and it turns out I'm an idiot. In case you're curious about why I'm an idiot, the explanation is simple: the speed decrease I suffered when I increased the resolution had nothing to do with PCSX. I'd simply forgotten to suspend SETI@Home.

... Maybe I should make make a process-killing PCSX launcher? Hmm...

At any rate, thanks a lot for the explanation.