(07-23-2010, 12:14 PM)PyramidHead Wrote: I have a AMD Phenom II 945 and it runs full speed with "speedhacks enabled". The weird thing is that if I enable frame limiter, fps is shown at 60 but the game runs slow. If I disable frame limiter fps is shown at 60-100 but the game speed turns to normal speed, even at 60 fps. Also I select native resolution and enable progressive scan in the game options to get rid of those vertical lines.
This is a known limitation in console games, even though the emulator displays "60 FPS" the console that originally rendered the game might have only gotten like 43 FPS full speed, so your going to see the same exact thing in an emulator (I saw this with Goldeneye 007 in Project 64, it said I had a constant 60 FPS but it literally looked like I was getting 24 or less in some areas)
It's just the hardware limitations, I guess the developers didn't completely optimize the game in advance for the stress on the CPU.
I would test this game but... at best I'm only going to do the equal of just a single core of the Core 2 duo @ 3.0 ghz.
4.25 ghz x 50% = 6.375/2 = 3.188 - 5% ('possible error margin') = 3.02.
If I had a Gallatin Pentium 4 with 2 Hyperthreaded cores at the same frequency then I would be able to play a lot of PS2 games without a hitch, at about 85% better than what I'm doing now (70-80+ FPS max on FFX @ 4.25 ghz) (but they have double the cache so they would catch up slightly with the core 2 duo, Netburst was limited entirely by the amount of cache and by the length of the instruction pipeline.)
Fun, isn't it? Whenever I pick up a C2D or C2Q I'm going to overclock it as far as it'll go, freeze it and crank out at least 100 FPS in some of my favorite games.
And YES, I know that the speed between architectures is completely different, that's exactly why I'm giving accurate comparisons in terms of cache, frequency and speed disparity.
If you want to know the real speed of my processor, it's nearly 6.4 billion floating point operations a second max, and my GPU? About 70 billion, at stock, and up to 90-100 billion with some overclocking.
These amounts of floating point operations COUNT 100% in PCSX2, because the 2 VU units do ALL of the floating point work for the PS2 virtual machine, and it just so happens that the Pentium 4 was one of the worst processors you could have picked out for floating point work.
Still, it was a gift 3 years ago, and I've made plenty of good work out of it by encoding, benchmarking, overclocking and gaming!
I get similar FPS on Crysis Warhead as I do PCSX2, and they're almost similarly as intensive in terms of CPU and GPU at minimum or mid settings, so that's why I draw a line between the two, it's just that Crysis doesn't have any working speedhacks to raise your framerate 25-50%.