Next Generation Emulation banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I read somewhere that the playstation 2 processor speed is only around 300-400 Mhz. How can it run games at normal FPs and computer processors(up to like 3.4 Ghz) can only get tops 10 FPS. Must just be something with the hardware. Well, I know the Xbox only has 733 Mhz and it runs it full FPS too.

Oh, and jsut wondering if anybody found out what makes those DBZ games so special that they can run and other games can't?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,506 Posts
For the same reason that you need a 330 mhz pc to emulate the 33mhz chip in a psx... there's a HELL of lot more stuff in the console that needs emulating that just than just the chip

Extrapolating along those lines, you'd need around 12ghz pc to get decent performance, as the ps2 is a 128 bit machine, not a 32 bit one. Working backwards to the current 3ghz 32 bit pc's ... and you'd expect a top performance of about 12.5 fps. Not too far off what you are seeing.:p

Although I'd admit that this is probably the worst case scenario.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Do you know if anyone has had any more luck running these games on an Athlon 64? Just curious. It'll be a while before 128-bit comes out for PC I'm sure
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
8,200 Posts
ishould said:
Do you know if anyone has had any more luck running these games on an Athlon 64? Just curious. It'll be a while before 128-bit comes out for PC I'm sure
there is no difference yet iinm because PCSX2 is not optimized to take full advantage of 64bit CPUs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Hi,

Betamax,dont make a BETAMAX of yourself!!!The PS2 is 128 bits,but the math you made is ridiculous.We CAN need 12GHZ processors for PCSX2,but this dont have nothing with the PS2 be 128 bits or no.It has a influence,but not the way you said.What more influences a emulator is the POWER of the processor,and the Emotion Engine is VERY powerfull.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,303 Posts
Betamax knows what he is talking about.
Think a second; a 128-bit instruction is passed through the PS2. The PS2 does it on one cycle. The 32-bit PC, before the emulation overhead, has to take 4 cycles to perform the same instruction.
The other part of the reason the emulation will suck so much PC power is the fact that the architecture is so vastly different to PC architecture. The more different it is, the greater emulation overhead.
One other point is the fact that the PS2 essentialy has 3 CPUs and a GPU. Parrallelism realy sloows emulation, as we see by the Saturn and it's 8 CPUs which still can't really be emulated satisfactorarily
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
so in theory, the Athlon 64-bit could emulate the games faster if the software took advantage of it. Well, maybe not cause its Athlon. But is this emulator "complete"? I mean if you had a computer fast enough would it emulat the games almost perfectly? I know you'd need like an Intel 64-bit 5 GHZ (which really isn't all THAT far away) but if you had one i wonder.....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,303 Posts
>so in theory, the Athlon 64-bit could emulate the games faster if the software took advantage of it.

In theory, yes. It simply depends on whether or not the devs take advantage of it.

>Well, maybe not cause its Athlon

Are you insinuating that AMD chips are inferior to Intel's? That is several orders of magnitude from the truth. The Athlon 64 is the fastest performing desktop chip at the moment if memory serves correctly, and it's still half the price of the P4EE

>I know you'd need like an Intel 64-bit 5 GHZ (which really isn't all THAT far away)

Intel have given up on ramping clock speed and they are still a while away from 64-bit IIRC.

>But is this emulator "complete"?

No.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,506 Posts
slk_forever said:
Hi,

Betamax,dont make a BETAMAX of yourself!!!The PS2 is 128 bits,but the math you made is ridiculous.We CAN need 12GHZ processors for PCSX2,but this dont have nothing with the PS2 be 128 bits or no.It has a influence,but not the way you said.What more influences a emulator is the POWER of the processor,and the Emotion Engine is VERY powerfull.
You're misquoting the phrase here. To make a "betamax" of something means that it has not been marketed properly. The phrase arose due to the fact that even though the betamax video format is technically superior to VHS in almost every, it lost out to the inferior VHS in the consumer market due to the fact that JVC marketed it's format to the extreme. However at the professional level where quality is more important, beta survived and was the medium of choice for most broadcast companies until the advent of relable digital storage. But aways I digress:p.

In regards my math, the key word you seem to have missed is "extrapolation". Anyone who has done any form of numerical analysis knows, that is essentually basing my opinion on previous trends. Of course such a thing is not 100% reliable, otherwise I'd have made a fortune on stock by now ;). That is why, I mentioned that this is probably the worst case scenario. Eg// I did not factor in the effect of the incrased bandwidth availble on PCX based graphics, nor the fact that clock speeds will shortly become irrelevant (as intel are switching to model numbers and making chips do more per clock cycle instead of just ramping up the ghz). The reason why I did not include this is becuase, quite frankly, it would only serve to further confuse the poor noob who asked this question in the first place ;)

In any case a 10:1 ratio is usually a reasonable rule of thumb to cover all the normal emu overheads. The extra overhead in the estimate is for the reasons that kane stated. The nice thing is that it also tallys with what we see on todays pc's.:D

In any case, all of this is just moot. It also perfectly illustrates why we have a "we don't know what the spec's are" clause in the forum access page. Serves me right for trying to be helpful :(.

Kane-Sama said:
Intel have given up on ramping clock speed and they are still a while away from 64-bit IIRC.
Erm kane, you can already buy Intel chips with AMD64 ( or as intel is calling it EM64T, 'cos they don't want to admit they got it wrong :D )

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/acatalog/Intel_Pentium_4_LGA775.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Intel just canceled there 4GHz processor because there running into to many problems and realizing that they should start working on other technologies that will help there cpu get more power. Right now the fastest processor is the athlon64 fx-55 and it only runs at 2.6GHz and runs cooler then the Pentium4 3.8GHz. you wont see the GHz going up that much and GHz is just a frequency its not the only thing that makes up the speed of a computer. The ps2 is a lot different then a pc and it takes a lot of power to emulate it. But Intel and Amd are coming out with a dual core processor basically to cpus on one chip.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,303 Posts
>Erm kane, you can already buy Intel chips with AMD64 ( or as intel is calling it EM64T, 'cos they don't want to admit they got it wrong :D )

Kept that quiet didn't they!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,506 Posts
Kane-Sama said:
>Erm kane, you can already buy Intel chips with AMD64 ( or as intel is calling it EM64T, 'cos they don't want to admit they got it wrong :D )

Kept that quiet didn't they!
Yeah I know :p. That plus the fact they are also copying AMD's model numbers, and M$ effectively scapping the itantium version of win 64 in favour of x64. You'd have to admit that intel has really fumbled the ball to AMD in the past few months...
 

·
No People, No Problems
Joined
·
648 Posts
Intel was blindfolded by their overconfidence for the last couple of years and didn't expext AMD to overcome them in performace.
However the Pentium M Dothan performance is quite amazing, running at only 2.2 Ghz it scores better than flagship processors in most benchmarks but looses in FP intencive tests. Intel is going to move their desktop processor lines to the Pentium M architecture.
AMD is a great performer but Intel's capital and manpower will overcome it in the future IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
907 Posts
i didn´t read all above ( sorry ^_~ ) but IMO one of the most important facts is also that:
if you say N64 is a 64 Bit console and Athlon 64 is 64 processor -> yeah it should run smoothly.... then this idea is COMPLETLY WRONG!
like there was kinda stated out above the "power" of the processor is defined by many componets, very important IMO there is the Instruction set and
N64 Athlon 64 PS2 have HELL a lot of diffrent instrucion sets!
so just keep in mind that if the register size of processors seems similar it DOES NOT MEAN that they can execute the same code at the same speed or even at all!
-> byte order etc...
so in other words its not that simple :D
everyone who looked into the code of PCSX 2 knows what i mean ;)
wbr Shin Gouki
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,303 Posts
Yeah, we understand that the architecture is far removed (incidently, IIRC the N64 didn't have a 64-bit CPU, merely a 64-bit GPU...), but the fact of having long instructions/addresses which have to be broken up more on a 32-bit CPU gives a 64-bit CPU an advantage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,506 Posts
Not only that, but the number of registers available in x86_64 is double the amount under the IA32 architecture. IIRC the core assembly is very register intensive, a move to x86_64 would most likely see a significent performance boost for this fact alone. Although that said, it is for this reason that such a port is non trival.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,162 Posts
blair_thiessen said:
But Intel and Amd are coming out with a dual core processor basically to cpus on one chip.
That is nothing new.... For example... intels 286 CPU...it was, 2 8086(I think it was the 8086's, may have been a slightly different revision though) CPU's on one Die working in parallel...The Entire line of Pentiums was derived from Multiple cpus on a single Die....thats how they were born ...
 

·
B( o Y o )BS!
Joined
·
895 Posts
multiple cpus? that's can't be right... HyperThreading would make non sense if the processor chips already had multiple cpus inside (Hyperthreading processors have some parts doubled). AFAIK, they just made them smaller, faster, and improved the instruction set & features.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top