Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Difference in performance between different versions of Windows
#1
Hi, I was just wondering if there are any benchmarks on specific PCSX2 revision/build on different operating systems so that I might take a look... Mostly I'm concerned as I've recently started using primarily x64 version of Win 7 and am not using any other OS as I feel it has great compatibility and gives me the edge in things I work with. So besides the original question concerning actual benchmarks... Is there any (I suppose it is) noticable decrease/increase in speed of PCSX2 in x32 / x64 version of windows as I have read that there isn't nor there will be x64 version of emulator in recent time(probably till M$ release new Win in x64 only Tongue2 ).

Also if it's not a bother to answer. I've been using mostly emucr to check for new revisions of emulator itself and plugins, so... Is it a decent source of upcoming revisions and also I've noticed that recently there is a new branch for 0.9.8 version (which is nice) but 0.9.7 is still in beta as far as I can recall. So while it is rather early to ask(if source is correct) did anyone notice any significant improvement in any game or did it resolve an existing issue. I know that I should download both (this and that) versions and try them out for myself but I'm just generally asking.

Again I appologize if this is a bother to you, and thanks in advance.

P.S. Anyone wanting to buy a liver or some other organ as I'm huge FF series fan and I haven't yet played FF XIII (don't possess PS3 nor X360)... A friend is teasing by trying (still) to tell me some spoilers... So in case he tells me it's probably gonna his "donation".
/joke

Regards,
Goran H
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Offtopic but.

FFXIII sucks major melons, I spent money for the ps3 Limited Edition version of it and it's terrible -_-
Reply
#3
The bulk of "multimedia" ops are done in 128bits (those SSExyz things you heard about) independent on the OS being 32 or 64 bits. The normal integer operations don't benefit that much to bother rewriting the code (sometimes the 32 bits operation is faster than having to reposition operands under 64, something related to address boundaries and tell nothing to normal users). So, continuing the normal development is far better than stopping to rewrite the code.

Once you didn't post links for unofficial builds is only about your own responsibility and risk to use SVN build, be aware you should not expect support to them for any specific problem. This is valid even for SVN you built yourself, yet more for compilations which the source is out control. Know the SVN user is to be a helper, not to ask for help.

Although not a minor concern, the goal at this point is accuracy and better way to do things and not performance, most enhancements will not be directly perceivable by the normal user unless it hits some game he was still having some sort of issue. Yet I saw performance increase in many games which were bellow or around the acceptable playability on my system and now runs almost flawless without or with minimal speedhack; notable example is the Xenosaga 1 I did test to better answer a post.

The 0.98 seems more robust in general and brings many improvements which make the user's life a bit more ease and does not steal his girlfriend (maybe it can do, beware).

Thus, beyond the improvement in accuracy on many games (which can be even a performance hit on less powerful machines) the new version brings a more robust GUI and something I deem will be a bless to most users, the ability to name memcards.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#4
This was for pure sake of curiosity... I myself am all for giving the name title "playable" and then removing certain bugs and glitches when/if they are found... Performance is currently more than satisfying.

Concerning that I on my 3 year old rig (AMD Athlon X2 6000+ @ 3.2Ghz, 4 GB DDR2 @ 840 MHz Dual Channel, 9800 GT 1 GB DDR 3 @ 700/1800/1080 etc...) played quite a few games smoothly with few exceptions like Shadow of Collosus where framerate tends to drop but it's all okay as the game itself has certain frameskip future... Yes I was using most of speedhacks but also x3 scaling... So all in all. It's more than satisfying concerning the age of my rig.

So... Concerning performance I will be soon upgrading (this summer) onto newer rig and will probably be able to run all the games than can be run nicely, smoothly and without certain speedhacks. But till then, I was just curios about performance difference between versions of windows as I won't be changing OS for pure purpose of gaining more performance. But I might make benchmarks on several OSs (windows primarily) for myself too see if there's anything significant there... mostly for my own pleasure.

About performance as it's mostly CPU based... Even budget CPU's like E5400 (OC-ed to something like 4GHz) can run perfectly most of PS2 titles. So one can surely say that performance is more than satisfying.

In the end I will be sure to check out the 0.9.8. Cheers.
Reply
#5
there is no difference on both x86 and x64 OSes of windows for running pcsx2
PCSX2 is a 100% hardware engine...if you get latest Intel CPU e.g. 2nd gen Core-i and an GTX series or HD69xx thats the way
if you go for AMD even the latest one then what a shame.
MAIN RIG:i5-7600(3.5ghz)GTX 1050Ti 4GB/128bit/gddr5,Win 10 Pro(x64),ASUS ROG B250G,16GB HyperXFury ddr4 RAM,Samsung M.2-SSD 500GB
SUB RIG:i5-4670(3.4Ghz),ATi Radeon HD7770(GDDR5+128-bit+1GB),Win 10 SL(x64),ASUS H8M-E,8GB DDR3 RAM
Reply
#6
@ tallbender. Depends on your point of view. I have changed many PC components. But I have no intention of changing AMD/NVidia combo. Next thing will probably be AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition and Nvidia GTX 460. AMD/Nvidia ftw. So I would beg to disagree with you there Intel Cadet. While I'm not sure if Intel beats AMD on PCSX2 ground in same price range... I know it does on PC gaming grounds(if that's the case here) ... Not to mention how much cheaper are 790x or 790fx MoBo's / CPU's are (like forementioned) compared to Intel counterparts while beating them. AMD has always been best bang for buck while pricey Intel can pride themselves with being everywhere(just too much underserved advertising). Also Nvidia is back in the game. Except for eyefinity. Nvidia trumps ATI counterparts everywhere. >.> Took 'em a while (not a single decent GPU since GeForce 8 series till GTX 400 series) but at least now it has decent stuff and also mostly unimportant but sometimes useful things like PhysX, CUDA, PureHD, 3D Vision (general stereoscopy) etc. Concerning given AMD CPU. I have several friends runing it @ 4GHz (although NOT with stock cooling, but with decent air cooling) still given it's price and the fact that I don't have to get new MoBo as it can fit my current with AM2+ socket... Even so MoBo are fairly cheap. Meh.

Pardon me. I do not mean to flame. Just expressing my opinion. And also thanks for clarifying the "PCSX2 is a 100% hardware engine" part.
Reply
#7
(04-19-2011, 01:38 PM)Goran H Wrote: Pardon me. I do not mean to flame. Just expressing my opinion. And also thanks for clarifying the "PCSX2 is a 100% hardware engine" part.

nevermind that thats okey if you are 100% AMD CPU fanatics then i have no choice since you are in a budget mode.

btw just remind you on that AMD Phenom II X4 955's TDP it's so high than Intel's sandy bridge....like electric bills...
MAIN RIG:i5-7600(3.5ghz)GTX 1050Ti 4GB/128bit/gddr5,Win 10 Pro(x64),ASUS ROG B250G,16GB HyperXFury ddr4 RAM,Samsung M.2-SSD 500GB
SUB RIG:i5-4670(3.4Ghz),ATi Radeon HD7770(GDDR5+128-bit+1GB),Win 10 SL(x64),ASUS H8M-E,8GB DDR3 RAM
Reply
#8
I'm glad you understand. I'm not AMD fanatic... Merely a fan... And yes I'm in budget mode. If I was in performance mode... While it will still be NVidia... Those i7 2600k look pretty mighty. Wink

I change my components by need mostly. And I dislike (however weird it may sound) games that run perfectly stable 60... As I take great enjoyment in prior optimization of the game either hardware/software, sometimes more than the game itself... As I like to say... Optimizations for the budget folks, benchmarks for the performance folks... Of course there are ton of huge flaws in this. But I'm sure you get my point. I just love getting the maximum of my current hardware/software for everyday use as I don't have money nor care for things that can't be truly utilize like for example that GTX 590 and I personally know people that have two of those in single config... Oh well...
Reply
#9
(04-19-2011, 02:10 PM)Goran H Wrote: I'm glad you understand. I'm not AMD fanatic... Merely a fan... And yes I'm in budget mode. If I was in performance mode... While it will still be NVidia... Those i7 2600k look pretty mighty. Wink

I change my components by need mostly. And I dislike (however weird it may sound) games that run perfectly stable 60... As I take great enjoyment in prior optimization of the game either hardware/software, sometimes more than the game itself... As I like to say... Optimizations for the budget folks, benchmarks for the performance folks... Of course there are ton of huge flaws in this. But I'm sure you get my point. I just love getting the maximum of my current hardware/software for everyday use as I don't have money nor care for things that can't be truly utilize like for example that GTX 590 and I personally know people that have two of those in single config... Oh well...

*Offtopic*:
I have an Alienware Aurora just looking that name up youll get all my specs. It uses an I7 920 cpu and 2 ATI Radeon 5700 HD's A combination of AMD and Intel in my Vocab is essential. Im also on Windows 7 64. The performance i get out of pcsx2 is amazing. However it always depends on the game your running of course lets not forget this, as some games run alot better than others. So my point being is you can have a great system, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter all that much in my opinion, because youll always have compatibility issues with new/older games. Also on another note: I dont think it matters if i have Crossfire enabled or not on Pcsx2, because ive read in the past that Pcsx2 only supports one Graphics card and not Two. Even under CF/SLI. Im not entirely sure how accurate that statement is however.

*Ontopic*: Ive never had a problem with PCSX2 running under windows 7. in my opinion its much better than its predecessors, Windows Vista used to eat a chunk of memmory and overall was very unstabble in the beggining. To me Windows 7 = Windows xp, with a new look. Vista used to eat arround 2 gig of my ram. where as Windows 7 uses just under a gig. That itself is a huge difference, As well as its a hell of alot more compatible than Vista was. on another note, i dont think ive ever recieved one Bsod while running windows 7 since its been installed. on Vista i used to get problems right off the bat.
Reply
#10
(04-19-2011, 05:35 PM)Fantasyguy Wrote: *Offtopic*:
I have an Alienware Aurora just looking that name up youll get all my specs. It uses an I7 920 cpu and 2 ATI Radeon 5700 HD's A combination of AMD and Intel in my Vocab is essential. Im also on Windows 7 64. The performance i get out of pcsx2 is amazing. However it always depends on the game your running of course lets not forget this, as some games run alot better than others. So my point being is you can have a great system, but at the end of the day it doesnt matter all that much in my opinion, because youll always have compatibility issues with new/older games. Also on another note: I dont think it matters if i have Crossfire enabled or not on Pcsx2, because ive read in the past that Pcsx2 only supports one Graphics card and not Two. Even under CF/SLI. Im not entirely sure how accurate that statement is however.

*Offtopic* (still)

Well that is the point Looking @ AMD / Intel and Nvidia / AMD (ATI) there are no bad choices... There are no literary bad products, but there are products that are better and work better with one another....

And fanboys are not a negligible thing here. Numerous benchmarks everyday being given to prove that one is better at synthetic benchmarks, one in games (Race/RPG/FPS/RTS etc types), good for OC-ing, bang for the buck... Different sockets... All that is there... And looking at products while having that in mind. There aren't bad one.. Each of those companies have come a long way. I would say that best performance combo for given $$ count that is fairly high... is AMD Fusion. CPU/GPU. To ensure maximum compatibility, minimal bottlenecks, and perfect sync. But that's a story that could go on forever and is seriously getting kinda boring... mostly cause this isn't really a place for it...

Also PCSX2 does not benefit from additional GPU's... So 1 GPU unit/ 2 CPU cores.

@ tall bender. I'm aware of energy consumption. But that's kinda not my worry... And even if it was... While after all I still think it's cheaper(and better)...

Most of us gather money for the moment... And additional X $ per month isn't so "noticable" as additional 100$ or bit more in one "hit".

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)