PC specs, Will my PC get good FPS - Page 2

Thalelith · February 3rd, 2007

After talking to a few friends of mine about emulation on the PS2, one of them was convinced that hard drive speed would dramatically speed up the framerate of the emulator.
My question is, would running the emulator (and game(and quite possibly the operating system "windows XP") ) on a faster HD I.E. RPM, or a flash drive make any improvements?

**bositman** · February 3rd, 2007

Well your friend could not be more wrong on this.Hard drive speed will have an extremely low impact on performance,as it will only speed up some dvd reading (given you are running from an ISO) while leaving the actual fps intact.

__________________

Fadingz · February 3rd, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dashboardy

Processor: Intel Pentium D (including EE's 2.8 GHz - 3.73 GHz)
The Pentium D's (8xx) were two hot Prescott (P4) processors slapped together on a single chip. They were an absolute mess. While they ARE dual core (which helps somewhat), playing FFX with MTGS and Dual core enabled in PCSX2 0.9.2 yields 13 - 28 FPS with a GeForce 7300. With a better video card you can get better FPS. The 9xx series are a great improvement to the NETBURST processors, and with a good video card (see later) can likely get playable games. The 8xx EE (extreme editions) and 9xx EE with a decent video card could probably pump out about 40 FPS (but they run really freaking hot)

hmmm i might disagree with that...I run FFX with AA*4 at 35 to 50 fps using my current spec, my sig. so...hmmm I'm not so sure about 13 to 28fps
if ur summoning shiva, then I agree it's slow as hell, but regular battle and stuff it's with almost full speed
the temperature also gets no more than 25 degrees Celsius

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadespear

Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of biniantry.

My deviantART~

dashboardy · February 3rd, 2007

Quote:

hmmm i might disagree with that...I run FFX with AA*4 at 35 to 50 fps using my current spec, my sig. so...hmmm I'm not so sure about 13 to 28fps
if ur summoning shiva, then I agree it's slow as hell, but regular battle and stuff it's with almost full speed
the temperature also gets no more than 25 degrees Celsius

What is your processor? is it the 840 or the 940? google cpu-z and let me know the model number. I have a Pentium D 820 @ 2.80 GHz with GeForce 7300 and it maxes out at 30 fps. Let me know what processor yours is and i'll make a change. Some of that was on knowledge combined with some speculation

feather · February 3rd, 2007

My new laptop specs are:

Quote:

Athlon X-2 at 1.6ghz and has geforce 6150 go with 2 gigs of ram

This will get me at least 30-40 fps right?

skoreanime · February 3rd, 2007

On what game?... Maybe 2d games, but I really doubt it on games like FFX and others.

And yes, HDD speed rarely effects anything, things like PCSX2 won't be affected by it. Only reason why most people preffer to create ISO's of their games and run it off their HDD is because of that slight lag you get from the DVD-drive revving up to read the next portion of data. Others do it because their drives sound like Jet Fighter engines (like mine...last time I buy Lite-On grrr

).

Fadingz · February 3rd, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dashboardy

What is your processor? is it the 840 or the 940? google cpu-z and let me know the model number. I have a Pentium D 820 @ 2.80 GHz with GeForce 7300 and it maxes out at 30 fps. Let me know what processor yours is and i'll make a change. Some of that was on knowledge combined with some speculation

Here's my CPU info:
PROCESSOR, 80551, PENTIUM D SMITHFIELD FOR DESKTOPS, 840, SKT-T, MALE
GenuIneintel - x86 family 15 model 14

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fadespear

Neither a borrower nor a lender be; For loan oft loses both itself and friend, and borrowing dulls the edge of biniantry.

My deviantART~

Blacknemesy · February 12th, 2007

Hope this time im not posting on wrong thread again...
Being plain,simply and direct:
Zalman 9700 good enough to oc my e6600?
MRam is corsair dominator CL4 2x1gb.
I searched alot for aswers to my doubt but where some say it does , other say it doesn't!Every single time i get into buying a custom made machine all i can get is doubts over and over again because people just say what they "think" and most times based on other people experience.
Also , and since your at it , what cpu cooler could prove better than zalman's?
To what extent may i oc this cpu with this specs?

**refraction** · February 12th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacknemesy

Hope this time im not posting on wrong thread again...
Being plain,simply and direct:
Zalman 9700 good enough to oc my e6600?
MRam is corsair dominator CL4 2x1gb.
I searched alot for aswers to my doubt but where some say it does , other say it doesn't!Every single time i get into buying a custom made machine all i can get is doubts over and over again because people just say what they "think" and most times based on other people experience.
Also , and since your at it , what cpu cooler could prove better than zalman's?
To what extent may i oc this cpu with this specs?

yep totally the wrong thread, infact totally the wrong section, you should be posting in the hardware forum

__________________

http://www.generalemu.net/
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz (425x8), Leadtek GTX 280 1Gb, 1.8Tb HDs, 2Gb Corsair DDR2-800 @ DDR2-1020 5-5-5-18 Dual Channel
Dont PM me for help, use the forums, thats what its for!

ian209 · February 12th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacknemesy

Hope this time im not posting on wrong thread again...
Being plain,simply and direct:
Zalman 9700 good enough to oc my e6600?
MRam is corsair dominator CL4 2x1gb.
I searched alot for aswers to my doubt but where some say it does , other say it doesn't!Every single time i get into buying a custom made machine all i can get is doubts over and over again because people just say what they "think" and most times based on other people experience.
Also , and since your at it , what cpu cooler could prove better than zalman's?
To what extent may i oc this cpu with this specs?

Trust me, stay away from the Zalman 9700. Its by far the worst cooler made by Zalman. Good thing is it's silent and light in weight, but the cooling performance is only about average. I get around 60-80*C(core temp) LOAD with my E6600 clocked at 3.78GHz. Yes it will get ure CPU far, but it will run hot, real hot.
oops sorry, i was talking about the 9500... lol

__________________

Asus Maximus Formula (With Rampage Bios mod)
Intel Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz (24/7)
ATI Radeon HD4870 (800/1100)
G.Skill F2-8000 8GB (2GBX4) [5-5-5-15@DDR800]
Corsair TX650 PSU
3X 320GB Seagate 7200.10 in Raid 0
2X 320GB + 500GB HDD (WD/Seagate)
TT Mozart TX
Win Vista Premium x64

Watercooling parts:

HWLabs Black Ice Extreme 240 Rad
Swiftech MCR-240 Rad
Laing D4 Pump
Swiftech Apogee GT CPU block
Switfech MCW30 GPU Block

http://www.ilike.com/artist/The7thKey - Check out my music.

Mortred · February 16th, 2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by dashboardy

Video Card: Intel has made their GMA (graphics media accelerator) for both desktops and laptops - if you have this, it will limit severley the FPS you will be able to get.

Now would GMA increase fps, if u configure it properly?

__________________
Specs:

Intel Pentium IV 3.0ghz
1gb DDR2-RAM
80gb HDD
Gigabyte Radeon X1300 graphics card.

skoreanime · February 16th, 2007

Intels GMA, simply put, sucks. They're not dedicated, so when they're at peak use, they bog down the entire system. They're cheap yes, but cheap in more ways then one.

dashboardy · February 16th, 2007

I am not sure if doing the 256 color compatibility will speed it up. I would imagine that is about the only 'configuration' that you could do to increase fps. but yeah, as skore says, the GMA suck for any kind of graphics/gaming (great for battery life though)

huuvinh13 · February 16th, 2007

I have a GMA 950 and it sucks. It is not even able to run ZeroGS 0.93( well it does run, with a black screen ^_^ ).

dashboardy · February 16th, 2007

sorry, didnt see this... so GMA 950 won't even run ZeroGS?? on any games?

huuvinh13 · February 17th, 2007

Absolutely. The most I could get for FFXII was 4 FPS in-game(or even worse... It is so horrible that I cannot imagine right now) with a resolution of 320x200 60Hz. I regret buying a laptop sooo much, now it's too late... With 400USD I could have gotten a much much better desktop rather than a laptop.

apocy · February 17th, 2007

The problem is that the emulator depends too much on the CPU and almost not on the video card. This is totally backwards as it should be in games. At least most of you should have noted that when you start a game (one of the more recent ones - after year 2000), you can see that the game itself doesn't load the CPU at max, but the video cart. I.e. if you buy an increadibly expensive video card and a little bit above the average CPU, you can play all the games at max, but the reverse config, doesn't prove that same results. Even the most demanding games nowadays don't load my CPU at the max, mostly 60 sometime 70%. The PCSX2 non stop keeps it at 100%. You can see what is the difference in for example 3d mark 03. You run some of the games with normal mode (presuring the video controller) and second using the CPU as PCSX2.
This is why no game can run properly and if the emulator doesn't start to use the resources and capabilities the video controller offers, we ain't gonna be able to play the games normally untill core 2 quad 5+ GHz doesn't come up.
All in all, respect to the developers to their devotion and hard work on the emulator!

__________________
Don't change something when it works fine

dashboardy · February 17th, 2007

obviously the devs have thought of this; my guess is it's a lot more difficult to do than it sounds...

Leon S. Kennedy · February 17th, 2007

I don't get it my games run at like .9fps - 8.6fps. this is my computer, and this is why I dont't understand.

SYSTEM:
MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP
MEDIA CENTER ADDITION
VERSION 2002
SERVICE PACK 2

HP Pavilion
AMD Athlon[tm] 64 X2 Dual
Cor Processor 4200+
991 MHz, 960 MB of RAM

**refraction** · February 17th, 2007

Quote:

AMD Athlon[tm] 64 X2 Dual Cor Processor 4200+ 991 MHz

991mhz?

i completely understand. plus its a HP so the graphics card is probably a pile of crap

__________________

http://www.generalemu.net/
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.4Ghz (425x8), Leadtek GTX 280 1Gb, 1.8Tb HDs, 2Gb Corsair DDR2-800 @ DDR2-1020 5-5-5-18 Dual Channel
Dont PM me for help, use the forums, thats what its for!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

February 3rd, 2007	#21 (permalink)
Thalelith Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Canada Posts: 1	After talking to a few friends of mine about emulation on the PS2, one of them was convinced that hard drive speed would dramatically speed up the framerate of the emulator. My question is, would running the emulator (and game(and quite possibly the operating system "windows XP") ) on a faster HD I.E. RPM, or a flash drive make any improvements?

February 3rd, 2007	#22 (permalink)
bositman Angel of Death Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Athens, Greece Posts: 3,628	Well your friend could not be more wrong on this.Hard drive speed will have an extremely low impact on performance,as it will only speed up some dvd reading (given you are running from an ISO) while leaving the actual fps intact. __________________

February 3rd, 2007	#26 (permalink)
skoreanime Your resident reaper... Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 6,031	On what game?... Maybe 2d games, but I really doubt it on games like FFX and others. And yes, HDD speed rarely effects anything, things like PCSX2 won't be affected by it. Only reason why most people preffer to create ISO's of their games and run it off their HDD is because of that slight lag you get from the DVD-drive revving up to read the next portion of data. Others do it because their drives sound like Jet Fighter engines (like mine...last time I buy Lite-On grrr ).

February 12th, 2007	#28 (permalink)
Blacknemesy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Portugal Posts: 7	Hope this time im not posting on wrong thread again... Being plain,simply and direct: Zalman 9700 good enough to oc my e6600? MRam is corsair dominator CL4 2x1gb. I searched alot for aswers to my doubt but where some say it does , other say it doesn't!Every single time i get into buying a custom made machine all i can get is doubts over and over again because people just say what they "think" and most times based on other people experience. Also , and since your at it , what cpu cooler could prove better than zalman's? To what extent may i oc this cpu with this specs?

February 16th, 2007	#32 (permalink)
skoreanime Your resident reaper... Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 6,031	Intels GMA, simply put, sucks. They're not dedicated, so when they're at peak use, they bog down the entire system. They're cheap yes, but cheap in more ways then one.

February 16th, 2007	#33 (permalink)
dashboardy Hardware Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: blah Posts: 808	I am not sure if doing the 256 color compatibility will speed it up. I would imagine that is about the only 'configuration' that you could do to increase fps. but yeah, as skore says, the GMA suck for any kind of graphics/gaming (great for battery life though)

February 16th, 2007	#34 (permalink)
huuvinh13 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: USA Posts: 30	I have a GMA 950 and it sucks. It is not even able to run ZeroGS 0.93( well it does run, with a black screen ^_^ ).

February 16th, 2007	#35 (permalink)
dashboardy Hardware Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: blah Posts: 808	sorry, didnt see this... so GMA 950 won't even run ZeroGS?? on any games?

February 17th, 2007	#36 (permalink)
huuvinh13 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: USA Posts: 30	Absolutely. The most I could get for FFXII was 4 FPS in-game(or even worse... It is so horrible that I cannot imagine right now) with a resolution of 320x200 60Hz. I regret buying a laptop sooo much, now it's too late... With 400USD I could have gotten a much much better desktop rather than a laptop.

February 17th, 2007	#37 (permalink)
apocy Modding Addict Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Bulgaria Posts: 5	The problem is that the emulator depends too much on the CPU and almost not on the video card. This is totally backwards as it should be in games. At least most of you should have noted that when you start a game (one of the more recent ones - after year 2000), you can see that the game itself doesn't load the CPU at max, but the video cart. I.e. if you buy an increadibly expensive video card and a little bit above the average CPU, you can play all the games at max, but the reverse config, doesn't prove that same results. Even the most demanding games nowadays don't load my CPU at the max, mostly 60 sometime 70%. The PCSX2 non stop keeps it at 100%. You can see what is the difference in for example 3d mark 03. You run some of the games with normal mode (presuring the video controller) and second using the CPU as PCSX2. This is why no game can run properly and if the emulator doesn't start to use the resources and capabilities the video controller offers, we ain't gonna be able to play the games normally untill core 2 quad 5+ GHz doesn't come up. All in all, respect to the developers to their devotion and hard work on the emulator! __________________ Don't change something when it works fine

February 17th, 2007	#38 (permalink)
dashboardy Hardware Enthusiast Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: blah Posts: 808	obviously the devs have thought of this; my guess is it's a lot more difficult to do than it sounds...

February 17th, 2007	#39 (permalink)
Leon S. Kennedy Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: USA Posts: 10	I don't get it my games run at like .9fps - 8.6fps. this is my computer, and this is why I dont't understand. SYSTEM: MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP MEDIA CENTER ADDITION VERSION 2002 SERVICE PACK 2 HP Pavilion AMD Athlon[tm] 64 X2 Dual Cor Processor 4200+ 991 MHz, 960 MB of RAM