You cannot, under any circumstances, properly compare a PC game and a PS2 emulator. PC games are designed/meant to, well, run on a PC. An emulator is a program that tricks the computer into doing something it was originally never meant to do, in this case, running PS2 games.
Custom Desktop CPU: Ivy Bridge Core i5 3570 3.4 GHz (3.8 GHz w/ Turbo Boost) CPU Instructions: MMX, SSE1, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4.1,
SSE4.2, EIST, iAMT2, Trusted Execution Technology (TXT) OS: Windows 7 Professional 64-bit RAM: 8192MB DDR3 SDRAM PC3-10600 1333 HDD: 1 TB Western Digital HDD Video: MSI GeForce GTX 660 2 GB GDDR5 Audio: Realtek 5.1 HD Audio
10-31-2010, 07:13 PM (This post was last modified: 10-31-2010, 07:33 PM by DarkDante.)
maybe the only "proper" way to compare pcsx2 with a pc game is to compare a well emulated ps2 game with its pc port on the same computer.for example let's say devil may cry 3.
then maybe if you count with fraps the average,max fps of both games you can make a comparison.although don't forget that pc games have more settings that impact performance such as shadows quality,resolution,physiX,AA etc whereas pcsx2 doesn't have so many.You can of course increase the resolution,add AA but there aren't so many options in GSDX as in pc games.so again the comparison won't be accurate.
Well there seems to be a difference amongst PC games as well. A game like Crysis is of course very GPU intensive however take Napoleon:Total War for example which seems to need more of a beast of a CPU rather than GPU(due to the large number of soldiers and actions being taken). To me a layman's way of looking at it is CPU does quantity and GPU does quality.
(11-01-2010, 12:03 AM)Saiki Wrote: This is mainly a rant, I wasn't trying to say there is. so please don't assume I was.
.. a rant about what? I really have no idea what point you're trying to make with this thread. That you can run both Crysis and PCSX2 on a machine that's well below the recommended specs for both programs?