Which of these is the best Netbook for Emulation?

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by n_w95482

I just tried two emulators, ePSXe 1.5.2 w/Pete's OpenGL2 2.8, and Project64 1.6 using Jabo's DX8 plugin. For PSX I tested FF7 and Gran Turismo 2. Other than the intro SCEA screen (10 fps) and not-quite-perfect FMV playback, FF7 ran very well. Framebuffer effects were spot-on. GT2 pushed it quite a bit harder, it ran at 58-62 fps with the frame limiter disabled (FF7 was ~200).

FF7's pretty easy, I think (aside from the SCEA screen). Granted, haven't really played it from start to finish on ePSXe yet. The opening FMV was near perfect aside from around 2~3 frame skips. FF8, again 10 FPS SCEA screen. In addition to that, noticeable slowdowns during battle transitions (~30 fps), some Magic and GF summons. GT2 is my brother's game. No idea where his disc is and he hasn't played it in forever so I doubt he knows its whereabouts, either.

Guess I'm just picky. I want near 60 FPS (dips to 55 FPS acceptable) during gameplay or I'd rather not play. Even occasional frame skips are okay but I really hate slowdowns (makes me think of my old Walkman when it's low on battery). That's one reason I still use my PS2 instead of PCSX2 for a lot of games.

[n_w95482]

My preferred configuration for FF8 uses the regular OpenGL plugin, so it should run fine for me. Are you running the RAM at 1066 or 1333?

__________________
Later.

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by n_w95482

My preferred configuration for FF8 uses the regular OpenGL plugin, so it should run fine for me. Are you running the RAM at 1066 or 1333?

Apparently, it was running at 1066 but I switched it to 1333 just now and I didn't really notice any improvement in FPS.

What settings do you use for FF8? I use the following for almost all games (bar some select few with issues):

Plugin: Pete's OpenGL2 Driver 2.9
Author: Pete Bernert
Card vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
GFX card: AMD Radeon HD 6300 series Graphics

Resolution/Color:
- 1360x768 Fullscreen - NO desktop changing
- Internal X resolution: 2
- Internal Y resolution: 3
- Keep psx aspect ratio: on 
- No render-to-texture: 2

- Filtering: 2
- Hi-Res textures: 2
- TexWin pixel shader: on 
- VRam size: 384 MBytes

Framerate:
- FPS limitation: off
- Frame skipping: off
- FPS limit: Auto

Compatibility:
- Offscreen drawing: 2
- Framebuffer effects: 3
- Framebuffer uploads: 1

Misc:
- Scanlines: off
- Mdec filter: on 
- Screen filtering: on 
- Shader effects: 5/4
- Flicker-fix border size: 0
- GF4/XP crash fix: off
- Game fixes: off [00000000]

Final Fantasy VIII

Plugin: Pete's OpenGL2 Driver 2.9
Author: Pete Bernert
Card vendor: ATI Technologies Inc.
GFX card: AMD Radeon HD 6300 series Graphics

Resolution/Color:
- 1360x768 Fullscreen - NO desktop changing
- Internal X resolution: 2
- Internal Y resolution: 3
- Keep psx aspect ratio: on 
- No render-to-texture: 2

- Filtering: 2
- Hi-Res textures: 2
- TexWin pixel shader: on 
- VRam size: 384 MBytes

Framerate:
- FPS limitation: off
- Frame skipping: off
- FPS limit: Auto

Compatibility:
- Offscreen drawing: 1
- Framebuffer effects: 2
- Framebuffer uploads: 2

Misc:
- Scanlines: off
- Mdec filter: on 
- Screen filtering: on 
- Shader effects: 5/4
- Flicker-fix border size: 0
- GF4/XP crash fix: off
- Game fixes: on  [00000002]

It doesn't matter even if I set X/Y resolution to 0/0 and disable shader effects. I still get slowdowns which leads me to think it's the CPU that's the issue. I guess even non-software graphics plug-ins still require some CPU power.

[JohnJack]

Originally Posted by rui-no-onna

It doesn't matter even if I set X/Y resolution to 0/0 and disable shader effects. I still get slowdowns which leads me to think it's the CPU that's the issue. I guess even non-software graphics plug-ins still require some CPU power.

Can you give us an idea if you get better performance using Pete's D3D plugin? With my old laptop, which uses an integrated ATI Radeon X300, I would get slowdowns in FF8 with Pete's OpenGL1 plugin, but not with the D3D one. It led me to believe that ATI optimizes their D3D driver moreso than their OpenGL driver. When Pete released the OpenGL 2 plugin, he stated that it would need a fast CPU, so slow performance on a netbook wouldn't be a surprise.

---

Last edited by JohnJack; April 20th, 2011 at 11:41..

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by JohnJack

Can you give us an idea if you get better performance using Pete's D3D plugin? With my old laptop, which uses an integrated ATI Radeon X300, I would get slowdowns in FF8 with Pete's OpenGL1 plugin, but not with the D3D one. It led me to believe that ATI optimizes their D3D driver moreso than their OpenGL driver. When Pete released the OpenGL 2 plugin, he stated that it would need a fast CPU, so slow performance on a netbook wouldn't be a surprise.

I'll try later. Caveat, filtering doesn't work with both Pete's/P.E.Op.S. Soft and Pete's D3D so graphics looks ugly on Windows 7. That's the primary reason why I stick to either OpenGL or OpenGL2. Granted, that's less of an issue with netbooks with 10" screens as opposed to HDTV's 30" or bigger.

[Big Monstro]

Originally Posted by rui-no-onna

I have both an AMD Zacate E-350 and an Intel Atom 330/NVIDIA ION nettop. They both couldn't do 60fps on Xenogears intro sequence (after FMV) and Chrono Cross status menu with Pete's OpenGL2 even at 640x480 with internal X/Y resolution set to low. Surprisingly, the GPU isn't to blame. The CPU on both are just too weak. P.E.Op.S. Soft works fullspeed but the graphics looks ugly under Windows 7 (filtering doesn't appear to be working).

For the Software GPU, if you have a weak CPU, I recommend E}I{'s plugin.

E}I{'s plugin could be up to 200% faster than P.E.Op.S. and roughly 50~100% faster on average. Although Chrono Cross doesn't work with E}I{'s plugin, most game run perfectly or just with some minor bugs but definitely playable.

In fact, the E}I{'s plugin is less accurate than P.E.Op.S but much faster.

My old Pentium III 550 MHz still works today and I can confirm it can emulate games like Final Fantasy IX smoothly and with good quality (amusingly, Final Fantasy IX works without any bug whereas there are some minor bugs with Final Fantasy VII and VIII). The frame rate on my ancient computer can reach 85 frames per second in playable scenes (40% faster than real speed !!!). However, certain games like Dead or Alive and Gran Turismo run slower but are still playable (between 42-55 fps). Full 3D games are generally slower than 2D games or 3D games with a lot of 2D stuffs (such as Final Fantasy).

Here its technical specifications :
==========================
* Intel Pentium III Katmai 550 MHz
* 384 MB SD-RAM 100 MHz
* ATI Radeon 9250SE 128 MB
* Windows XP Profesionnal with SP3
* ePSXe 1.5.2 and E}I{'s softGPU 0.981

These specifications are far below any netbook sold today !

Try it and enjoy ! Please note that you should perhaps downgrade your netbook to Windows XP as E}I{'s softGPU relies on DirectDraw.

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by JohnJack

Can you give us an idea if you get better performance using Pete's D3D plugin? With my old laptop, which uses an integrated ATI Radeon X300, I would get slowdowns in FF8 with Pete's OpenGL1 plugin, but not with the D3D one. It led me to believe that ATI optimizes their D3D driver moreso than their OpenGL driver. When Pete released the OpenGL 2 plugin, he stated that it would need a fast CPU, so slow performance on a netbook wouldn't be a surprise.

The D3D settings I use that work with the framebuffer effects on Xenogears is painfully slow on Zacate (~25 FPS), not to mention quite ugly looking since filtering for D3D doesn't work properly under Windows 7. Surprisingly, OpenGL2 is a little bit faster at around 30~40 FPS. If you just want playable, P.E.Op.S. Soft works full speed already. I require quite a bit of filtering, though, so I have to stick to either OpenGL or OpenGL2. Again, though, this scene is particularly problematic. I have no problem getting 60+ FPS at other times (pretty nice for fast forwarding random battles).

It's not even the GPU that's the problem. Both Zacate and ION have more than enough GPU power to spare for pretty much max filtering at 720p resolution. Zacate is basically HD 5450 level which is a smidge faster than the HD 4550. I have a PC with a Core 2 Duo E7200 and HD 4550 and I get in excess of 100 FPS on those. The ION is basically a GF9400 and I have a build with GF9300 IGP paired with a Celeron E3300 2.5 GHz. I get full speed on that machine, too. What's annoying is a cheapie CPU from 5 years ago (AMD Sempron 3200+ 1.8 GHz S939) is capable of delivering full speed in those scenes, too.

*sigh* I already knew I was going to be disappointed with Zacate even before I bought it. I blame withdrawal symptoms for my purchase. AMD's taking so darned long releasing Llano to the public. I know they've shipped them to OEM's but I want my Mini-ITX Llano three months ago.

Originally Posted by Big Monstro

For the Software GPU, if you have a weak CPU, I recommend E}I{'s plugin.

E}I{'s plugin could be up to 200% faster than P.E.Op.S. and roughly 50~100% faster on average. Although Chrono Cross doesn't work with E}I{'s plugin, most game run perfectly or just with some minor bugs but definitely playable.

In fact, the E}I{'s plugin is less accurate than P.E.Op.S but much faster.

Try it and enjoy ! Please note that you should perhaps downgrade your netbook to Windows XP as E}I{'s softGPU relies on DirectDraw.

I don't consider 42 FPS playable. It has to be 55~60 FPS all the time or I'm not a happy camper. I tried the E}I{'s plug-in and it worked crap for me. Given the lack of options, I can't imagine what can be tweaked to get it working properly. Besides, there's no need for it since P.E.Op.S. Soft already works full speed in my test scenes and even higher (>100 FPS) in other areas. I don't plan on downgrading to XP. For one thing, I need Windows Media Center. Another, I use an SSD so TRIM is a requirement.

[n_w95482]

Hehe, for me I came into the Zacate world with low expectations and came away pleased. I guess it helps to have an Atom N270/945GSE netbook that struggles mightily to play 720p video without dropping frames .

Edit: I forgot to post the FF8/OGL configuration, here it is. It looks like it's been improved upon since I posted that, so you might want to tinker around with it a bit.

__________________
Later.

---

Last edited by n_w95482; April 21st, 2011 at 10:36..

[Big Monstro]

Originally Posted by rui-no-onna

I don't consider 42 FPS playable. It has to be 55~60 FPS all the time or I'm not a happy camper. I tried the E}I{'s plug-in and it worked crap for me. Given the lack of options, I can't imagine what can be tweaked to get it working properly. Besides, there's no need for it since P.E.Op.S. Soft already works full speed in my test scenes and even higher (>100 FPS) in other areas. I don't plan on downgrading to XP. For one thing, I need Windows Media Center. Another, I use an SSD so TRIM is a requirement.

Consider these points.

• The final version of E}I{'s plug-in (0.981) was released in 2002, five years prior the release of Windows Vista. As a result, it doesn't be designed at all for systems newer than Windows XP.

• On 32-bit color and 640*480 pixels, I can get a nice emulation with E}I{'s plug-in on Windows XP (it looks like the original PSX quality on my 4:3 monitors, there is no inconvenient related to higher resolution on monitor than SD TV)

• DirectDraw option can slightly boost performance (+10%) with compatible graphic card (like my Radeon 9250SE) and compatible OS (like Windows XP)

• The reported framerate of 42 fps is for Dead or Alive on my ancient computer. For Final Fantasy (VII, VIII and IX), it is at 80 fps on average and drops NEVER below 55 fps. Definitely Playable. For Gran Turismo, the frame rate remains above 50 fps ALL THE TIME. Consider frame rate for European version of games (PAL) was only 50 fps at the time (instead of 60 for NTSC version). Also, I enable DirectDraw acceleration on my ancient computer (+10% frame rate) but it's generally useless (as the complete software mode is fast enough to ensure smooth emulation on most games)

• According to the autor (see readme), E}I{'s plug-in was designed to emulate many PSX games smoothly (60 fps) on processor as slow as Pentium II 400 MHz. My Pentium III 550 MHz is rougly a third faster.

• Contrary to what you seems to believe, smooth PSX emulation is ancient as it dates back to 1999 (the most notorious emulator was Bleem!) and I think any netbook sold today is faster than 1999~2000 desktop computer..

I don't lie. It's REALLY possible to emulate smoothly PSX games on a Pentium III processor and I am sure many users on this website have experienced it in the past.

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by n_w95482

Hehe, for me I came into the Zacate world with low expectations and came away pleased. I guess it helps to have an Atom N270/945GSE netbook that struggles mightily to play 720p video without dropping frames .

I did have low expectations for Zacate. Part of the recent frustration is the discovery that it performs little better than my old Atom 330/ION. Indeed, I believe I was getting 5 FPS higher with the Atom in the Xenogears burning village sequence.

Originally Posted by Big Monstro

I don't lie. It's REALLY possible to emulate smoothly PSX games on a Pentium III processor and I am sure many users on this website have experienced it in the past.

I don't doubt that. My first try with PSX emulators was Bleem on a Pentium III 733 MHz and it worked very well. That's one of the reasons I'm testing ePSXe now with low end hardware (Atom). However, this time around there's the added complexity of heavy filtering at a much higher resolution (relatively). I'm trying to figure out what's the lowest hardware that's able to deliver full speed with the settings I use. For my purposes both ION and Zacate are out. For a 10" netbook, though, particularly one still running XP, P.E.Op.S. Soft works just fine. Iirc, I was even able to use HQ2X stretched on the Atom.

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by n_w95482

Edit: I forgot to post the FF8/OGL configuration, here it is. It looks like it's been improved upon since I posted that, so you might want to tinker around with it a bit.

Tried those settings. Definite slow downs during battle transitions and the graphics is quite pixelated on both Zacate and Atom/ION.

So far, lowest machine that has consistently given me full speed regardless of settings is the Celeron E3300 3.33 GHz (OC) + GT 430. The Celeron E3300 2.5 GHz (stock) + integrated GeForce 9300 was almost good enough, but I needed to tone down the internal X/Y resolution to High/Very High at 1360x768. I guess the graphics is the limitation there and the CPU is definitely overkill for ePSXe. I believe the GPU on Zacate is probably capable of Very High/Ultra High. It just so happens that the CPU is holding it back. My Sempron 3200+ is currently running headless so I can't determine yet if that CPU is fast enough for full speed.

Windows 7 is definitely slower than XP using P.E.Op.S. Soft. Haven't tried with other GPU plug-ins, though.

[butter100fly]

well i'm keeping my celeron eee701 for the time being, given that we're unconvinced of even ePSXe performance on the e350...the issues i encounter on a 900Mhz mobile celeron are few and far between

I'll give it a couple of months then see if we have a non-netbook contender for the sub 12" emulation crown, and post here if so. Should you come across anything in the meantime, remember to post here!

__________________
www.quickplayfrontend.com

[rui-no-onna]

Originally Posted by butter100fly

well i'm keeping my celeron eee701 for the time being, given that we're unconvinced of even ePSXe performance on the e350...the issues i encounter on a 900Mhz mobile celeron are few and far between

I'll give it a couple of months then see if we have a non-netbook contender for the sub 12" emulation crown, and post here if so. Should you come across anything in the meantime, remember to post here!

Don't get me wrong, the E350 handles ePSXe better than older netbooks featuring Atom or the Celeron 900 MHz (that's the very first netbook, right?). It just so happens that I use a CPU heavy plug-in (OpenGL2) and high filtering settings that's why Zacate isn't able to keep up. Using P.E.Op.S. Soft, I believe I was getting more than 60 FPS with the Nice setting on everything. Something like PCSX2 or Dolphin, though, you'd probably need to wait a few more years before you can get an ultra-portable that can handle most games at fullspeed.

I'd say wait for 11~12" laptops featuring Llano (late June/early July probably). That's really the Fusion product to look out for.

[butter100fly]

Originally Posted by butter100fly

I'll give it a couple of months then see if we have a non-netbook contender for the sub 12" emulation crown, and post here if so.

well ok slightly more than a couple of months, but if you're a fan of emulation on small computers, I think this is the one. That is sure likely to get hot tho....

__________________
www.quickplayfrontend.com

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Wow, quite the little dynamite package, but yeah I wouldn't trust all that power with so little breathing room.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

[runawayprisoner]

But if you can manage it, that quad-core i7 would handle PCSX2 like a dream thanks to MTVU. And the GPU is Battlefield 3 High settings capable, so we're certainly looking at quite a beast.

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

At least until the whole thing melts down and whatever you've got it on catches fire.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

[butter100fly]

Yeah sure - well they can't release it if its dangerous, they do have to test rigorously and various companies are releasing their own versions of this. Obviously O/C-ing is certainly unadvisable, and living in a cold climate is probably advisable

but it does fulfil all the criteria for mobile emulation, AND it doesn't look too stealable you'd think it was just a netbook - AND it isn't too expensive: wow! I'd like to see some evidence that it CAN be underclocked easily ie: not in bios as general use would be a pain otherwise. I'm wondering actually if it would be worth buying one of the less-powerful cpu's to trade off the heat (ie: find a sweet spot) or whether that wouldn't make much difference given the beast of the rest of it....

the real pain I find with cheap laptops is the friggin rollover keys, I can't make mario jump and spin because a and s are tied to up arrow. Also a problem with many laptops, so that's another thing I'd like to know in advance: if you're buying a laptop for emulation ask them first which key's will be tied!

Originally Posted by SCHUMI_4EVER

At least until the whole thing melts down and whatever you've got it on catches fire.

__________________
www.quickplayfrontend.com

---

Last edited by butter100fly; May 22nd, 2012 at 18:49..

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

Originally Posted by butter100fly

the real pain I find with cheap laptops is the friggin rollover keys, I can't make mario jump and spin because a and s are tied to up arrow. Also a problem with many laptops, so that's another thing I'd like to know in advance: if you're buying a laptop for emulation ask them first which key's will be tied!

gamepad/controller

You really shouldn't be emulating any other way anyways unless it's a purely 2D console. And that makes that issue irrelevant.
And heck, it's actually irrelevant anyways since you can always configure the keys to whatever is available.

__________________

Intel Core2Quad Q9550 (2.83Ghz stock) | ASUS P5Q | 2x2GB Transcend JetRam DDR2-800 | ASUS ENGTX260\HDTP\896M | Windows Vista Home Premium 64bit SP1

The Champ has retired but may his Legacy live on FOREVER !!!!

No$GBA DS FAQ 2.0

Get it right fools! The glass is HALF-EMPTY, not half-full!!!

!!! WARNING: Emulation requires a brain !!! WARNING: Emulation =/= Piracy !!!

---

Last edited by SCHUMI_4EVER; May 22nd, 2012 at 20:59..

[butter100fly]

sorry for the late reply: you've got a point, but have you ever used a tiny laptop for emulation? Joypad just doesn't cut it because the screen is so small and because the idea is to be mobile - the joypad just gets in the way of you and the screen, and other people would look at you funny! I find wasd and okl; work ok with cursors for most games for mimicing e.g.: n64 controller and I always map those in joy2key so my desktop's joypad uses those keys hence you get tranferrablity between the emulators (and you can plug the joypad into either if you really want), but yes: as you progress through later gen emu's that does indeed present another problem, having a mobile ps2 emulator on a small screen without a joypad...hmmm....well all I can say is at least there are SOME control surface options available, hate those damn tablets!

does anyone make a tiny joypad with a full complement of sticks I wonder? Or does anyone have any other tricks?

__________________
www.quickplayfrontend.com