Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello! I don't normally participate in forums, however as far as system requirements I might have some useful input.

Well, I have managed to get most games running silky-smooth at 60fps on my machine. The only game that I own that doesn't run smoothly is Shadow of the Colossus (36 to 42 fps, with frame skipping, its tolerable). Does anyone have a machine equal to or superior to mine that is having the same experience as me? If so maybe-kinda get a good system requirements assessment on the current PCSX2.

System Specs:
O.S:.........Vista Ultimate x64*
Mobo:......ASUS Striker II Extreme LGA775
CPU:........Intel Core 2 Quad Extreme (QX9770) 3.2Ghz (o.c 4.21Ghz)
GPU:........2x SLI GeForce GTX 280
RAM:........OCZ SLI ready DDR3 @1600MHz (Dual channel 8Gb)

*PCSX2 is 32 bit.

PCSX2 Configuration:
All-default plugins used,
GSdx 890 (MSVC 15.00, SSE2) 0.1.14
set to 1440 x 900 resolution.
(ffx seems to require the ZeroG plugin)

Just a side note, My CPU reports an average of 52% to 60% utilization while playing PS2 games, however when i have Crysis pumped up to the max, I am only reporting about 20% to 30% usage. It seems that the GPU plugin isn't properly utilizing my GPU resources....? any thoughts?
 

·
I has got Anatidaephobia
Joined
·
1,345 Posts
any cpu clocked above 4GHZ can run all/most of the games at full speed.

what rating PSU are you using?
 

·
Heroes Might& Magic Champ
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
You ask why your gpu aren't being fully utilized?

at the resolution your 2 behemoth gpus in SLI won't even bat an eyelash.

with the 60fps limiter on my 8800GTX as far as i remember never bottlenecked at 3000x2000 internal gsdx resolution in Metal Gear Solid 3 and very very rarely bottlenecked at the same resolution in FFX, FF12 was a different story though and i had to use a much much lower res (at least on the last pcsx2 build i played it on) to prevent gpu bottlenecking.

Apparently Gran Turismo 4 is game that will stress the gpu much more then any of the aforementioned titles.

Just think about it, compared to todays games, ps2 games have low polygon count and really low texture res. So you can easily push resolution really high as long as you have enough vram on highend modern Nvidia cards.


About the cpu.

Pcsx2 is immensely cpu bound . You will defintely be use more cpu resources on average on pcsx2 then on crysis. It often takes a core2 cpu at 4ghz to reach full speed in many games. Only time crysis might match it is if there is huge physics going on.
 

·
Heroes Might& Magic Champ
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
video ram. its the ram that is on your videocard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
any cpu clocked above 4GHZ can run all/most of the games at full speed.

what rating PSU are you using?

Antec True power Quatro 1200 Watt PSU.

VRAM: (1Gb) + (1Gb) Dedicated, 4Gb total

I think PCSX2 could run much better on lower-end PC's if it took some burden off of the CPU. There should never be a reason to bring an Intel QX9770 over 4Ghz, I get 70 fps on Crysis UNDERclocked @ 2.4Ghz. Considering the PS2's Emotion Engine had a clock speed of 300Mhz, with 4mb of ram...

(Kudos to the PCSX2 team for making this possible in the first place)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Antec True power Quatro 1200 Watt PSU.

VRAM: (1Gb) + (1Gb) Dedicated, 4Gb total

I think PCSX2 could run much better on lower-end PC's if it took some burden off of the CPU. There should never be a reason to bring an Intel QX9770 over 4Ghz, I get 70 fps on Crysis UNDERclocked @ 2.4Ghz. Considering the PS2's Emotion Engine had a clock speed of 300Mhz, with 4mb of ram...

(Kudos to the PCSX2 team for making this possible in the first place)
There shouldn't be, but it is that way.

In a nutshell, it's that way because the PS2 doesn't exactly communicate in the same CPU "language" as a personal computer. Think of Japanese to English translations, for example. The Japanese language can say a lot more using less text than English.

For purposes of this analogy:

PS2 = Japanese Language
x86 instruction set on a PC = English Language without a few vowels. :)

Try having a conversation with someone that doesn't know a word of English, and have a translator repeat everything you said in their language. Conversation takes longer, doesn't it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
There shouldn't be, but it is that way.

In a nutshell, it's that way because the PS2 doesn't exactly communicate in the same CPU "language" as a personal computer. Think of Japanese to English translations, for example. The Japanese language can say a lot more using less text than English.

For purposes of this analogy:

PS2 = Japanese Language
x86 instruction set on a PC = English Language without a few vowels. :)

Try having a conversation with someone that doesn't know a word of English, and have a translator repeat everything you said in their language. Conversation takes longer, doesn't it?

Yes, I understand this. I know that there will always be overhead when emulating another system. That being said...

The CPU is doing all of the work. It is 'translating' AND rendering the gra[hics. If PCSX2 would offload the burdon onto the GPU, rather than the CPU, the emulator would work much more smoothly. Also, taking advantage of 4 cores would help tremendously. It would also benefit from an outside prcesssing environment manager (e.g WOW environment for 16-bit DOS based applications and other non-x86 based processes).
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I'm sure the PCSX team would do both if they could.

As for using more than two cores, the timing and sync is hard enough as it is, and at this point, I think they said the branching out of one or two smaller other parts would net minimal gain, if any (and sometimes, possibly introduce small speed penalties) for all the work they'd have to put in. It's not so easy to just throw cores at the equation and think it'd "help tremendously". Theory does not equal reality.

As for the requirements, most of your findings are well known. It's the basics "ramp it up to 4GHz or more and you're looking really good" bit. You could pair it with a lesser single GPU, and even as little as 1GB of RAM, and drop the CPU to a dual core Core 2 Duo of the same speed and get nearly the same results as your system. It's all about the most CPU horsepower of two cores first. In a perfect world, the GPU and additional cores would help, but it's not a perfect world.

P.S. This is a very rough estimate, as there's always differences, depending on how it's being emulated (naturally, or via enhancements), and the emulator itself, but most console emulators need about ten times the power of the original system minimum, if not more (as with anything, there's likely exceptions). Most Playstation emulators need a Pentium III (Pentium II works for the basics and some games, but for full speed in most games, a Pentium III is realistic). The Playstation had, what, a 33MHz CPU? A 333MHz Pentium II often isn't enough at all, just like a 3000MHz Pentium 4 often isn't enough for the Playstation 2's 300MHz CPU (which also has many co-processors, let alone the timing and syncing to deal with of all of them). The term "overhead" really is an underestimate.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,761 Posts
The CPU is doing all of the work. It is 'translating' AND rendering the gra[hics. If PCSX2 would offload the burdon onto the GPU, rather than the CPU, the emulator would work much more smoothly. Also, taking advantage of 4 cores would help tremendously. It would also benefit from an outside prcesssing environment manager (e.g WOW environment for 16-bit DOS based applications and other non-x86 based processes).
I doubt much will happen if they magically rewrite portions in CUDA or offload some stuff via carefully done pixel shaders (like is done with GPGPU).

Considering what I saw of CUDA so far, it doesn't offer much flexibility to allow that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,467 Posts
"If PCSX2 would offload the burdon onto the GPU, rather than the CPU, the emulator would work much more smoothly."

Nope, it wouldn't work at all!
Please tell me exactly what you want to "offload", what language to use, how to bypass all the limitations.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
^Bingo, Phil wins a trip to hawaii.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Ok, I understand that. So I'm going to push in a slightly different direction, PROBABLY making myself sound like a big baka...

I don't know how much processing power is used up from each respective plugin, so correct me if I'm wrong. But, even though .dll's are just program extensions, they still contain executable code. Would it be complicated to, from within the emulator, set a different affinity to each major .dll process? Or run the .dll's on a seperate core(s) than the "main emulator"?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
23,263 Posts
the parts that can be multithreaded, already are.

At this point the limitation is the inability to sync threads at high speed.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top