aha, then the game isn't very graphic demanding because it looks like 2D.
Thats no really reason to open a new thread

 

that game is actually 3d, but for a 7200gs thats a very impressive speed.

but yes, screenshots thread would have sufficed

 

those are good specs compared to me
im never going to get speeds like that on my vista look alike comp

 

I have a PC just like your Air-Gamer minus the graphics card( actually my it belongs to my brother) I couldn't even get 25 fps in FFX let alone any other game. My new PC (well not so new anymore) I get between 45-100 fps in FFX and 30-130 in FFXII. So I'm happy with that. Still wish I had waited for a DX10 graphics card. I wish I had 9600 GTS, real cheap and really good too.

 

sory to make a new thread oh and super dragon ball z pal version works at 45 50 fps i really like this emu and fighting games even narutimate accel 2 works great and i didnt even overlock a bit my processor i am getting another gb ram and i am going to overlock my proccesor a bit also i am going to buy a 8600 gts

super dragon ball z pal

 

The 8600 GTS isn't very good, try to save a bit more for a 8800 GS or 9600 GT.

 

ok but with super dbz it doesn't even take much of my cpu

 

Good, but kinda expected.

Remember that GSDX isn't as intensive to video cards as ZeroGS is, not to mention the user used native resolution (At times even lower.).

Good idea, I suggest him using ZeroGS with 4XAA so he real speed.

 

mm..yeah good minimum spec..i expected..but maybe certain level drop framerate..

 

well I just wanted to notice that no high specs have a chance too

 

you know.. my specs are the following..
AMD Athlon 64 3800+
1gb ddr1 ram geforce7600gt
windows xp sp2
I have ffx-2 and my framerate is with the plugin where you can select pixelshader 30 to 40 fps and sometimes 20fps but that doesnt happen very much
But the plugin is at pixelshader 3.0 and fullscreen 1024x768 at 85hz..
So you think how have this guy made that work so good?
Now here is my explanation..
I have download dx10 for windows xp.. On forums they say that it is impossible to run dx10 for xp but it is.. If i open dxdiag then he says it is dx 10..
You also know that the geforce 7600gt is not a dx10 card..
But the funny thing about dx10 for xp is, is that it give your card an extra boost..
It is like if dx 9.0c is not getting all of the power out of your card..
So google for dx10 for windows xp and download it somewhere so that if you have a dx9 card you can also play dx10 games made for vista and give your card a boost with dx10 when play dx9 games..

sorry for double post.. but my graphics card is 256mb ddr geforce 7600 gt and my ram is 1gb ddr.. my post says that i have a 1gb ddr1 ram geforce7600gt but that doesnt exist

 

Yeah, that would work. :lol: You know, I got 100fps boost from that!

 

100fps?? thats very great.. but for others! DOWNLOAD DX 10 FOR XP

 

Yeah, so now FFX is running at 1000fps and above!

 

LOL, he believed you.

Anyways, I already tried what you suggested in the past, it doesn't work, nor does it do ANYTHING msp22. It's just a faux DX10. It's a pipe dream.

 

are you guys serial

 

Super serial. DX10 for XP is merely a little dll swappage that makes Windows THINK you have DX10, while in actuality, you do not.

 

well I just wanted to notice that no high specs have a chance too

That's true. PCSX2 now runs a lot faster than on earlier versions. I have a friend who ever plays on his laptop, a 700$ laptop... and he gets speeds in kingdom hearts about 50 - 60 constant fps ^^ He has a centrino duo at 1.66ghz with 2gb of ddr2 and an intel 256mb ddr2 gpu. It's a good laptop, but it's not the best on the market, and still he gets good speeds with full quality.

On other hand, I get on my desktop computer about 80 - 120 fps on FFX, on a core 2 duo at 2.66ghz, 3gb ddr2 and a geforce 8800 gts, and about 70 - 80 on FFXII using gsdx9 at 1024x1024 and 16x antialiasing, I can get really high speeds with my computer with no slowdows and best quality.

That was impossible a year ago.

 

you know.. there are lots of games now wich now run much better then before.. Not only in pcsx2 cause i have only 2 games for ps2, but gothic 3 has a lot of lags before i have installed dx10 for windows.. and now the game runs smoother.. Almost no lags at all.. And the same goes on for other pc games..

 

Super serial. DX10 for XP is merely a little dll swappage that makes Windows THINK you have DX10, while in actuality, you do not.

That's sinister and totally wrong!! msp22 might be too naive but you aren't right either. A project like Alky Project DirectX10 is trying to provide Dx10 to OS that Microsoft won't ever update it's "SET OF LIBRARIES" anymore.. Yes, any directx or whatever is basically only SET OF LIBRARIES that won't do anything by itself. If MS decide not to release DX10 for XP it doesn't mean that you cannot use it there. MS do not release it there mainly to push us to go for Vista and not many set of it's library instructions (yet) that the "OLD un-certified Dx10 hardware" can't handle...

I just want to help u Mkillbride... there's so many of your response to people's in many thread is 'laughable' ...

Sorry, btw, I can't help it..

 

There are several projects trying to bring dx10 to XP, but it's not easy or simple. There are functions and operations that dx10 has that dx9 does not, and these functions must be emulated. This emulation isn't simple, there are noticeable differences in how the API is designed and how the device interacts with the system as a whole. These differences must be overcome.

Even if a plugin runs better on dx10, it does so because there's hardware support for whatever the speed increases depend on. In XP this will be done on software, much slower.
An over-simplified example goes like this:
Say dx9 had functions to rotate an object along the X and Y axis, but dx10 has functions to rotate an object along all three axis (X,Y,Z).
You can accomplish a rotation on the Z axis using dx9, but it requires multiple rotations along the other axis. So, while you can technically implement the dx10 function on dx9 hardware, you do so at a cost. In this example it's obvious how to mimic dx10-functionality on dx9-hardware, but in the real world the dx10 functions have no obvious analog in dx9.

 

Yes I know that , thank you. you miss the point here that I tried to told Mkillbride that it is exist and off course gave different results to different users. As you can see , the problem is why certain ppls here get a 'boost' when using dx10 in xp rather than their originally Dx9 is nothing to do with using real dx10 in vista which off course with the same set of system the xp dx10 would have been beaten. My response is simply to tell that this kind a project is real and not just easily "SWAPPING DLL's" and fake it.

 

The current one is just a dll sawp to make you think you have DX10, you don't understand at all, you tried to make your post seem like you did, but DX10 on XP, if it ever happens it'll either be by Micro$ofts hands, or a extreamly buggy, slow, and horrible emulated version, which won't be worth running, and by the time it's made, Vista will already be commonplace.

 

Yes I know that , thank you. you miss the point here that I tried to told Mkillbride that it is exist and off course gave different results to different users. As you can see , the problem is why certain ppls here get a 'boost' when using dx10 in xp rather than their originally Dx9 is nothing to do with using real dx10 in vista which off course with the same set of system the xp dx10 would have been beaten. My response is simply to tell that this kind a project is real and not just easily "SWAPPING DLL's" and fake it.

Try installing one (DX10 in XP) and see if it works? I bet that all low spec systems can get at least 50fps boost from it! :rotflmao: Oh yeah, and I have a computer running 3.8GHz x 4 = 15.2GHz! That would mean over 1000fps in PCSX2 for real, right? :rotflmao:

Gee... people nowadays.

 

gee..people nowadays. I'm not telling that it would work WONDERS or something, +I don't even think it would even add any performance boost. I'm just saying that it is there and not as simply as "swapping DLL's". I think im being polite here didn't I? I f u think that I'm stupid, that's fine with me.

Oh yeah, and I have a computer running 3.8GHz x 4 = 15.2GHz!

Oohh ..your soooo genius... that's definetely not most ppl's think about Quad-Core if u being cynist again.

Sorry.