ATIorNVIDIA
#11
Firstly thank you for your answers (Was a little afraid of me throwing ^^').

Air>>> So you can be sure that the card Sapphire Vapor-X will allow me to accomplish my LLC FF12?.
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
(08-16-2009, 11:55 PM)AtiorNvidia Wrote: Firstly thank you for your answers (Was a little afraid of me throwing ^^').

Air>>> So you can be sure that the card Sapphire Vapor-X will allow me to accomplish my LLC FF12?.

I play FF12 with a Phenom x4 9950 [email protected] Ghz and a Ati 4870 512 mb, i got no problems with the game, run smooth solid 60 FPS, i have it forced to that speed with no hacks or anything. I am sure if you use the ATI card with the Intel cpu (sse4.1) you will go perfect, PCSX2 like Intel CPU over AMD ones because of the SSE instructions of the GSX video plugin.

ATI have pretty solid drivers since long time, i dont have any error on any game soo far (i play a lot of games all this years), still dont know why people say bad things about the drivers.

By the way i use Vista 64 and got a AM2+ motherboard with 8 gb DDR2 pc-800 (next saturday i will put working my new computer, a AM3 system Phenom II 955 3.2 ghz, 8 gb DDR3 OCZ Gold AMD edition and Asustek motherboard with 785g chipset, i want to test how it work with PCSX2).
Reply
#13
(08-16-2009, 11:52 PM)Air Wrote: Yeah, if you get an ATI, you're best off not installing the Catalyst Control Center (CCC), and using ATI Tray Tools instead (google for links). ATI-TT does everything Catalyst does and more, and is less buggy, faster, and uses like 8 megs of ram instead of 75 megs. Wink

Sometimes you have to install CCC with driver updates, but you can always uninstall CCC separate of the drivers then.

The Catalyst control center work perfectly for me. and it doesn't use nearly 75MB on my system, there are 2 processes from CCC running right now, one is using 6MB, and the other is using 3MB. But even if it did use 75MB, it would matter since I have like 4GB of ram.

Also Vista 64 bit doesn't allow you to use ATT unless you disable driver signing enforcement everytime you boot up, or unless you use a program to mod vista to stop it from doing that.
Reply
#14
(08-17-2009, 05:35 AM)bkwegoharder Wrote: Also Vista 64 bit doesn't allow you to use CCC unless you disable driver signing enforcement everytime you boot up, or unless you use a program to mod vista to stop it from doing that.

You mean ATI tray tools right?
Reply
#15
[Image: yearightc.th.jpg]

funny thing, and i always thought that 8 168 KiloBytes is around 8 Mb.
For everyone out there, look up my profile to see how amd processor and ati card performs in emulating.
Check my profile for hardware/software and games i played on PCSX2.
Reply
#16
My CCC uses 10MB.

ATI cards are fine, are cheap, drivers are solid too..
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
Reply
#17
The default memory value column shown in Windows Task Manager is the amount of ram the process has allocated in physical memory only. Reading this value alone can be quite misleading. For example right now I have three instances of Visual Studio open (for multiple branches of PCSX2). One is using 180 megs in the coveted first column of Task manager. The other two are currently using about 42 and 35, respectively. If I click on one of the other MSVC instances that I haven't used in the last hour or so, its use will jump to about 80-100 megs almost immediately, and then will continue to increase as I do stuff in that window. Meanwhile the one I just minimized will drop back down to 80, then 60, then 50, etc. Magical!? Not really. It's being flushed to the windows swapfile and replaced (typically) with disk cache contents rather than other programs.

More importantly, when I click on that program it initiates quite a bit of swapping to bring that app into memory so that it can be used.

Secondly, CCC is a .NET Framework app, and so its memory allocation values are going to vary from operating system to operating system, due to differences in how .NET allocates ram and how that registers in Task Manager. For example, currently .NET defaults to allocating a flat 32 megs of contiguous ram per .NET process, regardless of if the app is solving the riddles of the universe or just printing Hello World. And then it grows that contiguous allocation as needed in 32M chunks. But it gets more complicated since that special Framework Heap is managed by the .NET Garbage Collector and not the Windows Heap Manager, so it shows up somewhere else entirely from the program it technically belongs to (in fact it doesn't show up at all in the Task Manager because it uses a special low level method of memory reservation). All you see by default in Task Manager is the memory allocated and managed using traditional Windows Heap services (which would be, in the case of a .NET app like CCC, .NET Platform invocation of C++ code or legacy GDI objects, among other things). .NET Framework overhead is "missing."

Thirdly, as I mentioned above, most disk swapping is in fact caused by the disk cache -- not the heap allocations of other programs. Citing my beloved MSVC again -- 180 megs is a nice sized footprint. Seems pretty big, and to be sure it's fatter than most in my task list. But it's only a fraction of what MSVC needs to run smoothly. When I do a full rebuild, entirety of the PCSX2 source code ends up being loaded into memory, along with STL, ANSI C, and other such libraries (which dwarf PCSX2's codebase anyway). The total exceeds 150 megs. Additionally for my devel/debug mode builds even the smallest changes require linker invocation, and that requires referencing a lot of object files and libraries -- the entirety of which can easily exceed 300 megs itself. First time after a reboot it takes several seconds to build even a single-file change. Subsequent such modifications are nearly instantaneous, thanks to the disk cache having swapped out a bunch of other background apps to make room for what I'm doing currently.

Fortunately in my case that's also stuff shared between my three instances of MSVC (and indeed, in many users' cases disk cache contents get used by multiple user programs around the same time, as per typical patterns of software use), which is why disk caching is clever and why Windows tends to devote a lot of ram to it (typically about 60-80% in fact, depending on how much ram you have).

Is one bloaty app going to matter much when you have 4 or 6GB of ram? Nah, not really. But when you start accumulating a half dozen or more such bloaty apps, it sure as hell can matter. So I like to be smart, which is something not everyone likes to be, and avoid bloaty apps in favor of nicer, better, more feature-laden alternatives. Now if an alternative is not nicer and better, and is in fact crappier and ungood compared to a bloaty app, I'll stick with the bloat. But ATI-TT is a case where one can upgrade and reduce system load at the same time.

Choosing to stick with CCC is acceptable. It doe have some pretty images in it's control panel after all. But making excuses as to why you don't feel like it, and trying to pretend you have any idea how complicated the memory system of your PC happens to be by posting a screenshot of Task manager that doesn't even have the Virtual Memory Size column turned on, and thinking I somehow don't know what I'm talking about, are not very good decisions.

... well unless you have an SSD (solid state drive), which largely negates the need for a large disk cache, and makes most of what I've said here moot. With one of those you're free to run all the bloaty apps you want, and it'll prolly never have any adverse effect on system performance. Tongue2 Ah yes, the humbling factor of new technology, rendering mass quantities of learned information obsolete. Laugh
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#18
i love my 4850 probably not the best for pcsx2 like everyone said but i dont know my self, it is my CPU(E4600) that is holding the fps down. i have Finished FFXII, FFX-2 with pcsx2 and now playing FFX and almost finished(fighting Yunalesca)
FFXII: 30 - 60fps mostly around 50-60fps gsdx
FFX-2: 40-60fps mostly around 50-60fps zerogs give me better framerate overall comapare to gsdx but with in-game menu slowdown.
FFX: 14-50fps mostly around 45-50fps(PAL) with some scene the fps can get as low as 14fps like when summoning shiva(before the ice shatters). gsdx.

thanks.
Reply
#19
I think you might be CPU limited because of your E4600 and you can not Déchainé the power of your graphics card!

I saw that PCSX2 is optimized dual core do not take:

http://www.materiel.net/ctl/Processeurs_...E8400.html

OR
http://www.materiel.net/ctl/Processeurs_...ition.html

It said that my AMD Proco therefore more heated for the oc ...


are using the curling 60 FPS constant on FF12?
Reply
#20
I moved to nvidia simply because I was not only sick of ATI's drivers, but also sick of CCC.
ATI make wonderful hardware, its just a shame they couldn't employ Ray Adams in a similar way a few nvidia IHVs employ Rivatuner's Alexey Nicolaychuk to make tweaking programs for their hardware.

A few things to note,
nvidia's xQ AA modes, like 8xQ and 16xQ modes are superb, look and run great, so if you're into AA then theres something to think about. Not knocking ATI's method, as their AA isn't too bad either.

Although this is more of a personal thing, I find nvidia's Control Panel to look superior to CC, with a nice clean fresh and well laid out look.

Profiles are a big thing to me, so this is another area that nvidia excels in. Couple this with nhancer and you have some powerful profile tweaking options.

Lastly, if you or anyone is on a strict budget, then nvidia have one card that just hands-down beats anything in it's price range, the 9600 GSO, or a Asus Magic 512Mb. Slightly Older G92 192-bit card, I bought a few in the UK for £39 inc VAT, and they positively fly. I managed to run anything, even Crysis, at 1280x1024 with most settings on High. Great card, IF you can still find one.
Intel E7500 @ 4.00ghz 400 fsb / Asus P5QL Pro / 4Gb Kingston RAM / PNY nvidia 9800GT 512Mb / Creative X-Fi Music 24 / Vista 64 SP2/
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)