..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

Full Version: ATIorNVIDIA
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Hello,

Firstly sorry to use a google translation but I have a problem.

I would like to use PCSX2 So I'm a buy a new graphics card (Sapphire 4850) only ...

It said that my cards from ATI worked with PCSX2 very badly and I want to play FF12.

My Proco will be an AMD Quad is a [email protected].

Sorry again and frankly (it must be a disaster for the eyes)
pcsx2 is almost like specificly for nvidia gpu
AMD doesn't make E8400, Intel does Smile

And the E8400 is Dual Core, not Quad Smile

I hear E8400s are great with PCSX2. They are fast, have good caches, and support the SSE4.1 instruction set.

Also, PCSX2 only uses 2 CPU cores I believe, so having more cores will not help if I remember right.

I have an E8400 at 3.3 GHz Smile

I don't think it will operate at 4.00 GHz (unless you over-voltage & overclock, and must have a good CPU cooling unit)

I have a Nvidia GPU.

From what I've experienced Nvidia cards are better solutions for emulators and even older applications/games. I prefer their drivers and stuff.

I was also told that Nvidia provides much better documentation or something so this is why emulators work better with Nvidia cards. It seems people prefer to develop on Nvidia cards because of this superior support in one way or another.
I wouldn't say that ATI cards work very badly for PCSX2, they just don't work as well. I can get full speed with most of my games with only very rare occasions the GPU being the bottleneck (and that's more often because of using too high of a res or MSAA). More often than not, my CPU is what causes my slowdown... so to say ATI is very bad for pcsx2, not at all. Just not as good.
Already I hope the google translation you did not hinder me to understand.

If you have an equivalent in the 4850 NVIDIA je suis preneurSmile.

At worst for 50 € more until I can play FF12 has a 60 FPS ...
Try going for the Nvidia 9800 GTX. I think it should be a similar price to the 4850 and similar performance in PC games.

A GTX 260 here is really cheap, it's 30% off, but you're probably not from Canada Tongue

http://www.tigerdirect.ca/applications/S...CatId=3585

I'm not too up to date on computer hardware though, so take my words with a little helping of caution Smile

You could look up some Nvidia and AMD graphics card benchmarks, that should really help you in making a decision Smile
(08-16-2009, 11:31 PM)AtiorNvidia Wrote: [ -> ]It said that my cards from ATI worked with PCSX2 very badly and I want to play FF12.

This is outdated information. New builds of GSdx fix most or all of the old ATI slowness bottlenecks in games like Final Fantasy XII.

Example: I have an ATI x1650gt. It's considered by most people to be garbage. I used to get 14-18fps in the tutorial section of FFXII (ouch!) -- I now get 50-70fps, depending on internal resolution settings. Rest of the game typically runs 90fps+.

You can draw your own conclusions on how a Sapphire 4850 would hold up. Smile
I can personally vouch for the 9800 GTX as well as nVidia in general. I've had ATI cards in the past (X800, x1600, 2400XT) and they were ALWAYS headaches. ATI does make some good hardware, but their software tends to be nothing short of terrible most times. My nVidia cards have always been better supported than the ATI ones, and have had much less headache as a result.
Yeah, if you get an ATI, you're best off not installing the Catalyst Control Center (CCC), and using ATI Tray Tools instead (google for links). ATI-TT does everything Catalyst does and more, and is less buggy, faster, and uses like 8 megs of ram instead of 75 megs. Wink

Sometimes you have to install CCC with driver updates, but you can always uninstall CCC separate of the drivers then.
Ugh...I was so mad when I first had to install CCC. It was awful...still is as far as I'm concerned.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5