Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Nothing in XP, Kinda works in OS X?
#1
Exclamation 
I hate to beat a dead horse with a stick, but I feel like this stick is pretty substantial. I've searched the forum for about 3 days looking for a solution to the infamous "Segmentation Fault" only to find that it's a "general error" and no one has a solution. I am curious though, because I feel like this issue is unique, so hear me out...

My machine is as follows: (Yes, it's kinda crappy.)
CPU: AMD Sempron 3400+ @2.1Ghz (single core)
GPU: ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT w/512mb DDR2
RAM: 2.75Gb
HDD1: 160Gb Maxtor formatted HFS+
HDD2: 55Gb Maxtor formatted NTFS

I dual boot OS X 10.5.8 and Windows XP from the drives above.

My issue is that in Windows, I have NO performance what so ever. My framerate lingers around 2.5, I get choppy audio, the BIOS won't even load completely without waiting 10 minutes and it's just too slow to do anything. I have tried various settings, plugins... Nothing, including speed hacks, will speed this thing up. :-(

In OS X, The BIOS loads and is a little shaky, but is completely usable and functions normally. Games load, but the Opening sequence is usually kinda slow, but if I just "click" past it or wait, the main menu of any game (FFX-2 and .hack//Infection) is fast, responsive and not that glitchy. HOWEVER; as soon as I click on the "new game" option, it crashes and gives me a segmentation fault. I've tried various plugins, settings, speedhacks, everything... I'm at a loss.

I DO house my game ISOs on an external HDD formatted NTFS, but even when I migrate them, or rip them in Windows or Mac respectively, I still get poor performance or, rather, NO performance.

At first I thought it was an issue with the game that I ripped to begin with (FFX-2), so I tried new software, and it happened again... Then I moved to .hack//infection... Same issue. I've ripped about 5 games and they all produce the same issue. New Game -> Crash. I even tested my theroy and ripped a PSX game, loaded a PSX emulator, and it booted fine... Put it on my thumb drive and used my roommate's computer... worked fine. I really am at a loss as to what I can do at this point. I've heard the CPU can be a major bottleneck, but I'm wondering why I get outstanding performance in OS X (until i select "new game") and NONE in XP... I even did a clean install of XP as an additional experiment with no luck.... Sad

Any help or insight would be awesome...
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
actually, zerogs is an outdated, and not recommended.
better use zzogl in your case.
but don't expect miracles, as your PC doesn't meet the minimum requirements
CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply
#3
(01-26-2011, 11:01 PM)jesalvein Wrote: actually, zerogs is an outdated, and not recommended.
better use zzogl in your case.
but don't expect miracles, as your PC doesn't meet the minimum requirements

I am using zzogl on the Mac at least.

If the zzogl plugin REALLY is the difference between the usability of the emulator between the operating systems, I am going to download the windows version and try it in a bit.
Reply
#4
zzogl won't perform as well as gsdx under windows
i guess it's time to get a decent PC, or think about sticking to your PS2 Wink
CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply
#5
(01-27-2011, 12:59 AM)jesalvein Wrote: zzogl won't perform as well as gsdx under windows
i guess it's time to get a decent PC, or think about sticking to your PS2 Wink

I appreciate your input but...

(01-27-2011, 12:59 AM)jesalvein Wrote: it's time to get a decent PC

That was a terrible statement. Yeah, my computer isn't great, but it functions and it functions really well. The ISSUE is why I can get almost perfect emulation under OSX but none at all under Windows? Especially since Windows was the "de facto" operating system for this rig.

I am tempted to try linux since I have nothing but time and resources. If it works under OSX, and the OSX build is just a modified port of the Linux version, perhaps it will work fully under Ubuntu.

As an Update, I DID try the zzogl in windows, it performed SLIGHTLY better than the other plugins, I got about 4.5fps.
Reply
#6
opengl is less resoucre consuming than directx. that's why you get "better results".
to be honest, OS, doens't change a single thing. your hardware is the real problem here. whatever os you use.
Quote:The ISSUE is why I can get almost perfect emulation under OSX

really ? which game did you manage to play from beginning to end using pcsx2, then ?
CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply
#7
(01-27-2011, 03:04 PM)jesalvein Wrote: opengl is less resoucre consuming than directx. that's why you get "better results".

That may be true, but Windows has had trouble openGL from the dawn of time. On almost any system if you start a game with an "-opengl" tag from the command line, you'll get choppy graphics, poor resolution and terrible sound. Assuming that the game is playable at all.

(01-27-2011, 03:04 PM)jesalvein Wrote: to be honest, OS, doens't change a single thing. your hardware is the real problem here. whatever os you use.

This is just wrong. My specific system aside, I can site many instances where Vista has proven to be more resource consuming than XP and 7, and was ultimately worse for gaming. Granted, a "better" computer can handle Vista and it's demands more easily, but "better" is hard to define when it comes to MY system. I more than meet the minimum requirements for Vista, but it's just a resource hog and anything more graphics intensive than RUNESCAPE causes it to slow down. Where as in XP and 7, this issue is non-existent. Which is ODD considering I don't meet the minimum requirements for Windows 7 Ultimate.

(01-27-2011, 03:04 PM)jesalvein Wrote: really ? which game did you manage to play from beginning to end using pcsx2, then ?

I have been a long time fan of sarcasm, but you know fully well that I'm unable to play a game from start to finish because of the segmentation fault error that you, or anyone else is incapable of resolving. Which brings me back to my original point which I will put as plainly as possible...

If it DOES NOT work in Windows, but DOES work in OS X; why does it crash with a "segmentation fault" when I select "new game?"

Telling me I need a "new computer" is CLEARLY not the answer since I can get FURTHER with a different operating system. If it crashes because of the openGL plugin, then it's not my hardware. If it's slow in Windows but not slow in OS X, then it's still not the hardware.

However heated this may sound, I really do appreciate your input because you're the only one willing to answer, but I've seen threads where people with worse rigs are at 45fps playing crazy titles. And, in fact, my friends computer, with a Celeron D, 768Mb of ram... He has speeds about 35fps... in Windows 7. I seriously doubt if my hardware should be called into question.
Reply
#8
well, the performance before going in-game means precisely zero as it's all 2d. OS X version is a port with very specific hacks to make it run on macs, I'm expecting that AMD is causing a problem here which won't be fixed so no luck.
Reply
#9
(01-27-2011, 04:42 PM)zedr0n Wrote: well, the performance before going in-game means precisely zero as it's all 2d. OS X version is a port with very specific hacks to make it run on macs, I'm expecting that AMD is causing a problem here which won't be fixed so no luck.

Are you saying it won't work at all in Ubuntu?

I understand what you're saying but how can AMD be the issue when jesalvein is using an Athlon? Are you saying I shouldn't be running OS X on a Sempron? That may be true, but if it is; that means that it should work under Ubuntu since Ubuntu doesn't have to be modified to run on an AMD processor. Laugh

The AMD Sempron 3400+ is a 64bit processor... However; it's not recommended to run a 64bit operating system on such a processor because the L2 cache is so low... Could the difference be that Windows is 32 bit and OS X is 64 bit? (I'm taking shots in the dark, here...)

Thanks again for your input, zendr0n.
Reply
#10
(01-27-2011, 04:15 PM)dragolas Wrote: This is just wrong. My specific system aside, I can site many instances where Vista has proven to be more resource consuming than XP and 7, and was ultimately worse for gaming.
Hem... yes, maybe, I don't know. what you are calling "resource hog" relies mainly on how much ram it takes to run.

The point is, pcsx2 only uses from 100 to 350Mb RAM. It's more GPU demanding and VERY cpu demanding (at least for most games). And a single core @2.2 Ghz won't be enough, for sure.

Quote:If it DOES NOT work in Windows, but DOES work in OS X; why does it crash with a "segmentation fault" when I select "new game?"

You said it yourself : it's a "general" error.
I'm not denying what Zedron stated because I'm pretty sure his technical knowledge about pcsx2 mac port are far better than mine.
BUT... As I told you, zerogs & zzogl are less stable than gsdx in any ways. Which means that that mac port is more buggy than the windows one (I couldn't say if the gfx plugins or pcsx2 core are at fault...) by any ways. And that "segmentation fault" may occur more easily than when using the windows port.

Quote:Telling me I need a "new computer" is CLEARLY not the answer since I can get FURTHER with a different operating system. If it crashes because of the openGL plugin, then it's not my hardware. If it's slow in Windows but not slow in OS X, then it's still not the hardware.
Correct. But it doesn't mean you'll be able to play the game anyways. once again, because gsdx is far more efficient and less buggy than zerogs/zzogl.

Quote:but I've seen threads where people with worse rigs are at 45fps playing crazy titles.
what are those "crazy titles" ?
And what are you calling "worse rigs"
Quote: And, in fact, my friends computer, with a Celeron D, 768Mb of ram... He has speeds about 35fps... in Windows 7. I seriously doubt if my hardware should be called into question.
Depends on the game.... on his cpu clockspeed. on his gpu type. There are many reasons that could explain it works better.
But anyways, 768 Mb RAM may be weak, it's far enough to run pcsx2.



CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)