Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
This really bugs me with these two emulators i get really bad fps yet my systems can run crysis on max and pretty much anything on the market right now wihtout a hitch hiccup stutter. I am really starting think these emulators were coded to not support amd which is dumb IMO cause my amd smashes my intel system in benchmarks but i sold my intel system . So any opinions are welcome and any kind of set up guide for a amd system for pcsx2 and dolphin would be great.

System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 7/18/2009, 13:29:50
Machine name: BLAH-4306A53390
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 2 (2600.xpsp_sp2_qfe.070227-2300)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: BIOSTAR Group
System Model: TA790GX 128M
BIOS: Default System BIOS
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5400+, MMX, 3DNow (2 CPUs), ~2.8GHz black editon can overclock if need be
Memory: 2048MB RAM
Page File: 426MB used, 3513MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.2180 32bit Unicode
3d: card Radeon hd 3870 sapphire 512gddr4 overclocked to max

I have tried every build plugin for each yet i get crap fps or nothing. Yet i can run null dc perfect psx emu perfect saturn emu perfect! Now on youtube there is this guy YouTube - lippol94's Channel my setup is better then his yet he can run every game i want to run perfect yet i get huge slowdowns
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Sorry but amd athlons performs just really bad compared to intels core duos.
I have had both athlon x2 3.2ghz and now i have intel e8500 3.2ghz and it like doubles the fps.
Well maybe you should get an amd phenom 2
But yeah i was also pretty shocked that performed so badly maybe because it only has sse2 support.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I can't speak for Dolphin, only for PCSX2 (oh, and for Crysis, as there's no way you're running it on maximum without either a lower resolution, low speed, or both, as my system struggles at 1280x960 at maximum).

First things first, with the Crysis comment, emulating games and playing games native to the PC are two entirely different animals. Don't think that because you can maximize most PC games that you can run games from a console that your system is stronger than.

That CPU is acceptable, but not good or great, as far as PCSX2 is concerned. It has nothing to do with support for AMD versus Intel. As of right now, the Core 2 is simply among the best CPU for PCSX2 (results for Core i7 versus Core 2 are mixed, and I know the first Phenom fared pretty badly, and I'm not sure about the Phenom II). The Athlon X2, on the other hand, is an old CPU now. If you gave your friend a Pentium 4, sure, it was slower (if you think your CPU is slow in PCSX2, you should try a Pentium 4), but the Pentium 4 is not a Core 2.

The recent Intel CPUs generally do better across the board, but it has nothing to do with "support". They code PCSX2 as a single application, and the CPU executes it. They don't do anything to purposely make it faster on a CPU due to it's vendor (they do, however, make plug-ins that net some, notice I say some, not alot, of speed on CPUs with extra instructions sets, such as SSSE3 and SSE4.1). If one CPU does it faster, then it's a faster CPU.

Also, note this. At one point, the ATi Radeon HD4xx0 (and I guess maybe the 3xx0 too) offloaded alot of work onto the CPU. This is a problem, because PCSX2 pretty much requires a dual core CPU for great speed. If your GPU was taking a good deal of the load from one core, that leaves PCSX2 with less, hence the slowdown. Alot of HD4xx0 users have reported slow speed. However, this appears to have been "fixed" with recent driver versions, so update your drivers if they aren't the latest, and see if it helps.

Also, a second note. He's using Windows 7. You're using Windows XP. The GSdx10 plug-in is a bit faster than the GSdx9 plug-in. It sometimes makes the difference between choppy and full speed.

Otherwise, he probably just used native internal resolution (which drops the GPU load so even decent onboard GPUs can be fine), and he also has a Core 2, so even though it's clocked lower than yours, I would expect similar performance since a Core 2 is quite faster clock for clock than an Athlon X2, an adding speed hacks on top of that, well, that's likely how he's getting full speed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
i had dual core intel my amd is faster by far i run everything i own at 1184x864 res just the best for my monitor but i also dont use dx10 for anything cause I don't really wanna use vista or windows 7 unless it's really gonna make that big of a fps change i get 40-60 fps now but it's not a constant 60 fps it's like 60 then 40 then to 60
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
Being able to run PC games well is not a benchmark for how well a PS2/GC/Wii game will run on that same system. These games were never intended to be run on an x86 based CPU PC. They were designed to run on very specialized RISC-based CPUs. Many of the operations that these RISC CPUs perform can be done in one pass, meanwhile an x86 CPU may need several passes to do the same thing.

As previously stated, Athlon X2 CPUs just don't play well with these emulators. For some reason, Intel Core 2 Duos (and newer) run these emulators much more efficiently. The reason has something to do with the internal differences between them...
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
i had dual core intel my amd is faster by far
What AMD CPU do you have? Were the plug-ins, configurations, and speed hacks (if applicable) the same?

Alos, GSdx10 can make quite a speed difference over GSdx9.

Anyway, there's really only two ways that statement could be true.

1. The Intel dual core CPU you had was a Pentium D, which is nothing more than a dual core Pentium 4, which explains why the AMD was better.

2. You went from a very low end Core 2 to a very high end AMD Athlon X2/Phenom (unless it was the Phenom, not sure why you'd do that though, as if you had a Core 2 capable motherboard, you'd of been better and cheaper to simply get a fast(er) Core 2 instead).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
so is vista or windows 7 worth upgrading to now i just heard so many bad things about motherboards and cpus and 3d card problems and lots of programs not working right on them.I really would like to get the most out of my 64 bit cpu. Zedeck are booting xp and 7 from the same hard drive or using seperate ones.
 

·
No sir, I don't like it.
Joined
·
5,571 Posts
???

Where have you been the past few years? Under a rock? :)

Yes, Vista had some serious driver issues early on. Most of those problems have been ironed out. If anything, just skip Vista and try Windows 7. I've been using it for several months and it's great. It's faster than XP in some cases. In the cases that XP is faster, it's not faster by much.
 

·
From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,574 Posts
I'm using them on separate drives, but if you only have a single drive, just separate it into separate partitions. I'm pretty sure you can do this to a disk already in use with some sort of software?
 
1 - 9 of 9 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