Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Optimization Request
#1
Hello!

My brother forwarded me to this program and I think it's super-cool and yadda yadda, etc, </praise>.

I've read through the recommended computer requirements and I'm pretty sure my computer is godly compared to them, but for some reason I get poor framerate on the majority of titles and audio that skips more often than not.

Would anybody be kind enough to direct me on which settings I should be using for my specific computer specs? (I've read the guide)

I'm not sure which specs are most relevant and which screenshots you need, so any help would be super appreciated.
Reply

Sponsored links

#2

First of all, post your pc specs(core clock, video card). Next, post your settings(preferably screenshots). Then we will start from there.
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.8GHz
Vid Card: Geforce 9400GT
OS: Windows 7 ultimate 32-bit
Reply
#3
yeah show us your computer hardware,pcsx2 settings and we will know....a intense CPU and GPU is needed if you want cool and super-duper speed.

see my sample screenshot.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Main Hub:i5-4670(3.4Ghz Factory Clocked),ATi Radeon HD7770(GDDR5+128-bit+1GB),Win 10 SL(x64),ASUS H8M-E,8GB DDR3 RAM
Reply
#4
Not all games are playable (most but not all) at the moment. Check the compatibility list http://pcsx2.net/compat.php?c=key
If the game you are trying to play is said as playable, it doesn't mean it works perfectly..I play Tekken 5 which is playable but barely reach 50 FPS ingame Sad
As the others said above post your pc specs, pcsx2 settings and plugins.
CPU: AMD Phenom II X2 545 processor
GPU: Nvidia GeForce 9800 GT 650 MHz
Memory: 4GB RAM DDR2
OS: Windows 7 x64
Reply
#5
See attachments. I hope I did it right.

Currently I got the following framerates (with attached settings):

Ar Tonelico 2: 45-60fps
Odin Sphere: 30-35fps (near unplayable)
FFX: 20fps- (Lol)
Gran Turismo 4: 20fps-
Need for Speed Underground 2: 20fps-

Just so you have some benchmarks.


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
#6
You have a cpu at 2.2ghz how is this godly in comparisson to the recommended 3.2ghz?
The rest of your pc seems fine, but why are the 2 diffrent gpus present?
Because of your slow cpu you will get very slow speed in all but the least demanding games. The fps you mentioned seem acurate except for ffx which should run at full or close to full speed.
Specs:
CPU: C2D E8400 @ 3.6
GPU: GTX 560Ti 2Gb
MOB: Asus P5QL
RAM: Crucial 4Gb
OS: Windows 7 64bit/XP 32bit
Reply
#7
(11-10-2010, 02:59 AM)GamerGeek Wrote: You have a cpu at 2.2ghz how is this godly in comparisson to the recommended 3.2ghz?
The rest of your pc seems fine, but why are the 2 diffrent gpus present?
Because of your slow cpu you will get very slow speed in all but the least demanding games. The fps you mentioned seem acurate except for ffx which should run at full or close to full speed.

2.2 * 4 > 3.2 * 2?
Reply
#8
Nope, all 4 of your cores are running at 2,2 Ghz so for PCSX2 4 cores at 2,2 Ghz == 2 cores at 2,2Ghz since it only uses 2 main threads. Even for applications optimized for quad cores, you do NOT multiply the base frequency of your processors with their number, it just makes no sense to do so. You do get a speed increase but something like 20% rather than 400% that you suggest with that math.
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
#9
Sounds like a marketing scam to me.

Edit: As an aside, I'd be better off just playing my PS2 on my monitor as opposed to buying a $300+ piece of hardware -.-
Reply
#10
(11-10-2010, 04:09 AM)MikeSugs Wrote: Sounds like a marketing scam to me.

Edit: As an aside, I'd be better off just playing my PS2 on my monitor as opposed to buying a $300+ piece of hardware -.-

Unfortunately, yes. And Yes.

There are some wondrous advantages to quad-core computing, though most of them don't apply to you or me much, and worse they usually involve huge RAM requirements. You can encode movies and music really well, for example. Most of us aren't doing that too often, though. You can create awesomely compressed 7zip files faster too, in case you were annoyed by the slowness the couple times a week (or month) you actually end up making one.

And here's the kicker: Both tasks end up being about 1.6x faster than on a dual-core machine (not anywhere near 2x faster), but they usually require over twice as much ram. If you have an 6-core HT-enabled i7, for example, you pretty well need a minimum of 8gb of ram just to effectively use all of that computational power -- and it'll only be about 3-4x faster than a dual core version running on 1gb of ram.

Games are probably the reason we're all buying these fancy 'super' computers, though -- so let's look at them. Games developed especially for the PC can usually take good advantage of quad cores. But even games of the future will have trouble making effective use of 8+ cores, as there's only so much non-video stuff you can do in parallel (video stuff being handled by the GPU of course). Even when a game utilizes quad core tech well by gaming standards, its way less beneficial than it is for archivers and encoders. 6 and 8 core CPUs of the future will offer very minimal speed improvements to gamers via cores alone. Most of the speedup will come from new 256/512 bit instruction sets, better memory caching, and higher clock speeds (ghz).
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)