High EE, Low CPU usage??? don't understand

[RadicalxEdward]

If you wanna ditch Windows, go for Linux

That's just my opinion. I'm not an Apple fan. They do make good stuff, but I think things like the iPhone are overpriced. As for macs, I just prefer a different style.

But yeah, PCSX2 Linux is pretty good. You might try that if you don't like Windows.

I've used a lot of flavors over the years and os x still is the best all rounder for me on a daily basis. But for something just to run pcsx2 that might be a good idea. I'll have to see what the driver situation is since I'm running mac hardware. Ubuntu's come a long way lately. The last time I used another flavor was like a decade ago. back when I was using like 8 CD's to install it. lol

[Blyss Sarania]

Yeah, to each their own. I was raised on Windows(started with 3.1) so that's what I do. Linux is good though, and I've had dual boot setups with Kubuntu. And of course I have a Raspberry Pi running Raspbian.

But yeah, PCSX2 for Linux is basically as compatible as for Windows, except for the graphics. Your options in Linux are limited to GSdx in OGL mode, or ZeroGS. GSdx OGL has come a long way thanks to gregory, but it's still not as good as GSdx DirectX. There is also software mode, which will be really accurate. But it's limited to native resolution, and it would likely be slow on your machine as it's ultra demanding.

Anyway, might be worth a shot.

[RadicalxEdward]

Yeah, to each their own. I was raised on Windows(started with 3.1) so that's what I do. Linux is good though, and I've had dual boot setups with Kubuntu. And of course I have a Raspberry Pi running Raspbian.

But yeah, PCSX2 for Linux is basically as compatible as for Windows, except for the graphics. Your options in Linux are limited to GSdx in OGL mode, or ZeroGS. GSdx OGL has come a long way thanks to gregory, but it's still not as good as GSdx DirectX. There is also software mode, which will be really accurate. But it's limited to native resolution, and it would likely be slow on your machine as it's ultra demanding.

Anyway, might be worth a shot.

If opengl support was better i bet it would run better on the mac too. I'm pretty sure there's hardware opengl rendering but don't quote me on that.

and you got me beat, lol I grew up on windows too but my first was win 95. I've played with 3.1 but never actually HAD to use it. I still remember setting up a 32 boot system with my teacher in highschool just for the hell of it. boy was that a pain in the ass. Every version of windows we could get our hands on from 3.1 up (volume licensing helped lol) and every major flavor of linux/unix we could find.

oh and this might explain why i was getting better results than expected in pcsx, i hadn't checked the actual clock speed before but apparently i've been running at ~3ghz whenever i run the game for the entire period because of the custom power mode im in.

[Blyss Sarania]

Yeah, that 400MHZ boost would explain the better than expected performance.

The problem with PCSX2 Mac is twofold. #1 the latest useful version is 0.9.6. 0.9.7 is available but buggy. Zedr0n, the person who ported it, doesn't maintain it any more. On top of that, PCSX2 Mac only supports ZeroGS, not GSdx (even in OGL mode).

Now, with PCSX2-CE you can use GSdx on Mac. I'm not sure how the performance of the wineskin version compares to native Windows though, but it will be better than 0.9.6 for sure.

Off topic: I've played with Windows back to 1.0. But yeah, my first computer had 3.1. TBH though, I preferred working in MS-DOS. I had my computer(a 486 with 4MB of RAM and a 100MB hard drive) configured to boot straight to DOS. DOS was where gaming happened, and that's where I wanted to be. I got my first programming experience there in QuickBasic as well.

[RadicalxEdward]

Yeah, that 400MHZ boost would explain the better than expected performance.

The problem with PCSX2 Mac is twofold. #1 the latest useful version is 0.9.6. 0.9.7 is available but buggy. Zedr0n, the person who ported it, doesn't maintain it any more. On top of that, PCSX2 Mac only supports ZeroGS, not GSdx (even in OGL mode).

Now, with PCSX2-CE you can use GSdx on Mac. I'm not sure how the performance of the wineskin version compares to native Windows though, but it will be better than 0.9.6 for sure.

Off topic: I've played with Windows back to 1.0. But yeah, my first computer had 3.1. TBH though, I preferred working in MS-DOS. I had my computer(a 486 with 4MB of RAM and a 100MB hard drive) configured to boot straight to DOS. DOS was where gaming happened, and that's where I wanted to be. I got my first programming experience there in QuickBasic as well.

I'll have to wait for a more graphically intense scene, but I set my IR to 3x and turned on the mtvu stuff. EE is hovering between 30-40%. I also upped my graphics card from 650/800 to 800/900 and slightly undervolted it. so that's probably helping a tiny bit too.

And I'm assuming running through wine would be slower than bootcamp, same with parrallels type stuff but a littler faster. lol but virtualization, that would be funny in theory. a cutscene would be a video, running in a game, that's running on ps2 hardware, that's running on emulation software, that's running on windows, that's running on pc hardware, being emulated by software, that's running on os x, that's running on some real hardware. ha ha ha. im sure it'd be snappy don't you think? lol

and yeah I remember my very first laptop (which was going to be my teachers trash basically) was what i used for a journal i kept in dos. lol. that thing was great right up until I shorted two jumpers with a pair of pliers while it was running and fried it :-(

[Blyss Sarania]

Hey, that CPU-Z shows you have a 2670QM. But your OP and PCSX2 says a 2675QM.

The 2670QM is actually faster, with an STP of 1400. If you actually have THAT, then that would explain the better performance a bit.

[pablocrossa]

And I'm assuming running through wine would be slower than bootcamp, same with parrallels type stuff but a littler faster.

Running through WINE will be SUBSTANTIALLY faster than on a VM

[RadicalxEdward]

Hey, that CPU-Z shows you have a 2670QM. But your OP and PCSX2 says a 2675QM.

The 2670QM is actually faster, with an STP of 1400. If you actually have THAT, then that would explain the better performance a bit.

I don't. "technically". lol. According to a few articles I've come across in my brief attempt at overclocking my cpu, the 2675 and 2670 are the same thing just different multipliers for the different clock speeds as set by intel. But in fact, I do have the 75. CPU Z is probably reading it as 70 because they're technically the same chip. (I believe the 2620 is the same thing too, again different clock speed is all, not positive)


Also, I had MTVU enabled and liked it. does seem to make a minor but noticeable difference so far (nothing's pushing the fps down yet to test the difference), however i use save states a lot trying to get better special point multipliers and the log box says it may cause save state instability by saving with mtvu enabled. How likely is that to cause a problem? I'd hate to lose a x10 multiplier cause of it. lol. and save points in general are few and far between at this point in the game (song of nephilim has 1 point lol)

Running through WINE will be SUBSTANTIALLY faster than on a VM

Oh no doubt. That's why I said wine would be slower than bootcamp, same with parallels type stuff (VM's, ie. they would be slower than bootcamp just like wine) but a little faster (than vm's ie. bootcamp>wine>vm) sorry if i didn't write that out enough to be clear. Everyone here seemed pretty techy so i thought it was clear.

(again, not trying to sound obnoxious, just trying to clarify what I was saying)

[Blyss Sarania]

The only real difference between them I can find on the Intel site is the 75 has a slightly higher clock rate on the GPU. Still, for some reason Passmark shows that the 70 has a higher single threaded. Who knows.

[RadicalxEdward]

The only real difference between them I can find on the Intel site is the 75 has a slightly higher clock rate on the GPU. Still, for some reason Passmark shows that the 70 has a higher single threaded. Who knows.

ha ha i was just looking on the intel site too. (and it turns out the 20 only has 2 cores, but maybe it's just 2 enabled)

and that clock rate is only for the integrated graphics anyway so it's inconsequential. I wish you could use both cards together. Now that would be cool. I still remember when that first came out and alienware was showing it off at some convention and at the time one card literally only did the top half of the screen and the other did the bottom. IDK if it still works that way (doubt it) but I was like damn, Then they came out with 3 and 4 card combos. lol. i think that's when those floating point intensive apps started using gpu's instead of cpu's.

annnyway, I know this game is more graphically intense in the very beginning of the game than it is anywhere else and in the very beginning my settings were all default, so idk what the frame rate would have been (good or bad) with my current setup. maybe most people just judge it by the most intensive part and that's the "requirements" even if its only 1 mission or something. idk.

EDIT: Really hope no one saw that typo lol!!!