Is Nvidia still better for pcsx2

[petepiate]

The 480 is faster than a 6950, not by a whole lot but it is faster. The problem with it is was/is a hot running card and a power hog. The 6000 series is a great bang for the buck series though without a doubt. Personally im keen on AMD cards, the issues I had with Nvidia just completely shut me off to them for [most likely] forever now...Most Nvidia cards I have had have died on me, the exception is the 6800GT when I had one and the Geforce 3. Outside of those two cards, Nvidia's part quality has sucked [for me]. AMD cards have never ever died on me, and unless this 7970 ups and dies ill stick with AMD for now on. /crosses fingers.

[naoan]

Both of the manufacturers have its quirk really, it's just luck of the draw.

[Rezard]

I hate to bump older threads, but I have had a HD4850, 6950, Gtx 480, a 570, a 580 and now a 7970 [dont ask why, long story]. In Dragon Quest 8 @ 2000x2000 internal res and 2x AA this is the average I got on each card, in the first town with most of it in view [the first town hits your FPS harder than most areas in game]...

4850- 3-7 fps [512 ram on the card, looks like thats why it was hit so hard]
6950- 28 fps [1gb ram on this card, ram hit again, 2gb should be much better]

480 [overclocked to 920 core] 83 FPS
570 not overclocked - 66 FPS
580 @ stock - 78 fps
580 overclocked to 870 core - 82 fps
7970 [overclocked to 1000 core- 72 fps

What I see - 1.5 GB of video card Ram is the minimum for the best results in Pcsx2 @ 2000x2000/2xaa. DQ8 at a high internal res chews through ram like nothing. The 570 has 1.2GB and it incurred a larger fps hit than it should for its speed, so RAM issue there imo. The 7970 lags behind even the 2+ year old 480 in this emu, and it has 3GB of Ram so that is not the issue at all [480 has 1.5GB]. Id say a 560ti is about even to a 7970 for Pcsx2 overall, and for much less money [of course a 7970 owns it in everything else].

Nvidia is definitely at a advantage here, cards that are 2 generations older are faster. The exception is if you go to obscene internal res's like 3000x3000 then the 3gb of ram on the 7970 will make a difference, but your fps wont be above 60.

I Don't get it.

You have a PS2 BIOS, and Dragon Quest 8,
but you still didn't use these benchmarks. ;P

Your averages from that large selection of graphics units would be well appreciated.

On the topic,
in all my time using, reading and discussing PCSX2,
I can tell you with certainty that emulation has had a tendancy to favor a GeForce unit.

What is probably the most important thing to consider,
is the fact that resource usage will vary with what game is at hand.
Some games will need a high/fast filerates,
and others will be using up large amounts of memory/bandwidth instead.

Expect to see many different stories when comparing different breeds of hardware,
among different breeds of games.

[Squall Leonhart]

Both of the manufacturers have its quirk really, it's just luck of the draw.

nvidia drivers are generally more solid for emulation purposes.

also nvidia drivers don't bsod your computer if the card enters a state of extreme load (to the point where the TDR timeout fails to trip.)

[Chik'Tikka]

I'm partial to my Nvidia GeForce 540m over the intel chipset on my board, and for its limitations, it has outperformed past all expectations for PCSX2, Dolphin, and PC games all my issues are with processor+^_^+
anyway, why do i have the urge to post this picture of a sink? i mean i know this thread needs more sinks.. but still... i should be able to control urges...

[Isamu]

From my experience it does, when you are not video card memory limited in Pcsx2 your fps will drop linearly with resolution [if you are using the same settings for both internal resolutions and IF it is your video card holding your fps back].

If you have 50 fps@ 512x512 [vcard limited here as a example to keep things easy], going to 1024x1024 should cut your fps to 25...If it drops more than that, drastically especially, you hit a video card ram wall. On the 4850 DQ8 was very playable at 970x970 with 2xaa for me, but pushing it to 1200x1200 cut the fps by a obscene amount, atleast a 4x fps drop. 2kx2k was just not playable at all.

Ahh so THAT explains it!! That is EXACTLY what happens when I turn up the internal res past x2. FPS gets lower and lower with each X multiple res. This makes me want to really switch to nVidia now, and get a Keplar. Can you imagine what kind of jump in fps I'd see switching from an AMD 5870 to an nVidia Keplar???

[naoan]

nvidia drivers are generally more solid for emulation purposes.

also nvidia drivers don't bsod your computer if the card enters a state of extreme load (to the point where the TDR timeout fails to trip.)

I mean in term of card longevity. I've seen both thrive and fail numerous time on different people (and mine) and configuration.

But I concede on BSOD part (though in my case it was usually Black, Nothing, Nada Screen of Death).

[Squall Leonhart]

If you have 50 fps@ 512x512 [vcard limited here as a example to keep things easy], going to 1024x1024 should cut your fps to 25...If it drops more than that, drastically especially, you hit a video card ram wall. On the 4850 DQ8 was very playable at 970x970 with 2xaa for me, but pushing it to 1200x1200 cut the fps by a obscene amount, atleast a 4x fps drop. 2kx2k was just not playable at all.

I hate to shatter your reality (no i don't) but a resolution increase does not drop fps on a linear scale.

[rama]

Can you imagine what kind of jump in fps I'd see switching from an AMD 5870 to an nVidia Keplar???

Isn't the 5870 a pretty fast card?
If you still manage to saturate it (hit a FPS limit due to increased scaling), then you may want to consider a lower scaling level.
3x is usually enough. Any higher gives just little improvement.

Squall: Can you stop the bitter sarcasm now, please?

[Squall Leonhart]

i'd pay tasteless, but bitter?