Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.45ghz C2D ULV + GMA950 = Playable?
#1
Awhile back, with PCSX2 0.92, I was getting near-playable framerates with FFX (the only game on earth I care about) on my laptop's t7200 (2.0ghz C2D) with GMA950. ZeroGS didn't work all that well, but the other dx9 did. Slowly, but it worked.

I've since been told both zeroGS and PCSX2 became a whole hell of a lot faster. Frameskip was added. Better support for intel graphics was planned. Etc.

Well now I'm thinking of getting this rig:
Core 2 Duo ULV U7700 @ 1.45Ghz. Remember this processor is at least as good as my t7200 @ 2.0 Ghz.
GMA950 again
1gb ram

How will that do? Will be as good or better than my first rig with 0.92?
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Why are you getting a slower processor...?

But yeah, if you were getting good speeds on 0.9.2 with ZeroGS, you should get good speeds with 0.9.6 and GSDx. At least on the same hardware...
http://www.twitch.tv/krazytrumpeter05
Want to stream your games? Let me know and I can help you get set up with Open Broadcaster Software.
Reply
#3
Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that rig would only play 2D games.
OS: Windows 7 64bit
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770K @3.5 GHz
RAM: 16GB DDR3 1600MHz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 680 2GB
Reply
#4
True. These days, you need AT MINIMUM 2 GIGS of RAM and minimum 1.80-2.00GHz.

I don't get how you expect your "new" rig to perform better than your old? Why's the processor.. suckier?
Reply
#5
I actually believe the second setup is faster. My dell had some other bottlenecks. Don't let the clock speed fool you, the t7200 at 2ghz is roughly the same speed if not slower than the U7700 @ 1.45.

Besides, the Vaio UX is pocketable. I want a PS2 in my pocket. Specifically FFX Wink
Reply
#6
Playing FFX smoothly seems to need 2.2 - 2.4Ghz, that's with a good setup with speedhacks and graphics.
OS: Windows 7 64bit
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770K @3.5 GHz
RAM: 16GB DDR3 1600MHz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 680 2GB
Reply
#7
I was able to get 40-something fps on my Dell no problem. (edit: with 0.92)

Heck, even getting 20fps is fine on my tiny screen as long as it plays full speed. Does frameskip do that? Surely the processor can handle the actual processing (lol), so long as the frameskip renders only every 3rd frame I'll be golden. Does it work like that? Has PCSX2 gotten any faster since 0.92?
Reply
#8
Surely that this processor could not handle recompiled code at all. This CPU is awesome slow and simply could not do calculation job. 20 FPS is possible, but it is far from being "fullspeed".
Reply
#9
Since it benchmarks within 10% of the t7200 on the encoding test, I wouldn't call that awesomely slow. Running 64-bit WS2003 on the Vaio UX platform, this thing gets over 55k system score on crystalmark. That's not half bad. Maybe I should have just posted about the t7200. XD After all, the ULV platform is intrinsically superior per clock to the standard mobile C2D.

The question is, will that 20fps with frameskip allow the game to play at full 'rate'? Will the characters all speak at the proper rate and not take forever in battles, etc with frameskip on?
Reply
#10
There's no way the sound would sync up well with such a massive frameskip (skipping 66% of frames?) and the gameplay would be so very laggy and unplayable, you're really only going to get decent performance with a more powerful machine. Maybe you can wait a while 'til you have a bit more money?
OS: Windows 7 64bit
CPU: Intel Core i7 3770K @3.5 GHz
RAM: 16GB DDR3 1600MHz
GPU: Nvidia GTX 680 2GB
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)