Difference in performance between different versions of Windows
#11
Pcsx2 is best to run on Windows 7 because it has of Direct X 11 and DX11 on GSdx runs faster on games.

---off topic---
AMD has no decent single GPU? You kidding right? The 5000, especially the 6000 series gave the green team a good fight. AMD GPUs offers better price/performance ratio than Nvidia. A good example is the AMD HD 6950 1GB which cost as low as $220 after rebate, and it even beat the GTX 560 Ti in most games except for games that's optimized for nvidia cards. With decent amount of overclocking the HD 6950 can matched and out perform the GTX 570 which cost between $325 - $350, that's over $100 differences! Even a HD 6970 can matched and out do the almighty GTX 580 with just some hefty overclocking. The hd 6970 starts off at $315 after rebate and the gtx 580 starts off at $500. If not that's not best bang for the buck, then I don't know what is...
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
Yeah amd definitely had the upper hand in the previous generation (5xxx/4xx). In the current one its quite equal. Although the benchmarks differ a bit from game to game, reviews Ive read seem to give the edge to gtx560 over the 6950. And the 5xx are very overclock friendly, but then the 6950 can be unlocked (like amd cpus) to become an 6970 so its very even indeed in this generation. Basically go with which ever one favors, Im mostly an nvidia guy myself. I didnt skim through all the thread but the guy who said amd have no decent cpus is indeed incorrect.
Specs:
CPU: C2D E8400 @ 3.6
GPU: GTX 560Ti 2Gb
MOB: Asus P5QL
RAM: Crucial 4Gb
OS: Windows 7 64bit/XP 32bit
Reply
#13
(04-19-2011, 11:21 PM)tuanming Wrote: Pcsx2 is best to run on Windows 7 because it has of Direct X 11 and DX11 on GSdx runs faster on games.

---off topic---
AMD has no decent single GPU? You kidding right? The 5000, especially the 6000 series gave the green team a good fight. AMD GPUs offers better price/performance ratio than Nvidia. A good example is the AMD HD 6950 1GB which cost as low as $220 after rebate, and it even beat the GTX 560 Ti in most games except for games that's optimized for nvidia cards. With decent amount of overclocking the HD 6950 can matched and out perform the GTX 570 which cost between $325 - $350, that's over $100 differences! Even a HD 6970 can matched and out do the almighty GTX 580 with just some hefty overclocking. The hd 6970 starts off at $315 after rebate and the gtx 580 starts off at $500. If not that's not best bang for the buck, then I don't know what is...

the 580 comes with more functionality though Tongue2
Reply
#14
@ tuanming Just in case... I myself never said that AMD (ATI) has no decent GPU... In fact... The 4XXX and 5XXX series showed their power. Thing is... I said that Nvidia didn't produce any decent (IMO) GPU from GeForce 8 till GTX400 serires... GeForce 9 was copy of of 8 series. GTX 200 was fail series and I myself would have thought really hard when I had DX11 GPU that consumed less, gave better performance and sorted out bugs and driver issues. While I thought GTX 300 series was only for laptops as it hasn't been anywhere mentioned... It turns out it was a normal series... Just another fail... And then we come to GTX400 series... Corrected power consumption, GDDR5, new chip that learns from mistakes made in GTX 280/290 etc. And delivers great performance. And the one I'm aiming to buy (again I'm in mid-range) is GTX 460 which is just awesome. Not losing any of those little features that I like so much (i.e. CUDA> PureHD as I can watch any FullHD content without any CPU resource consumption).

So since 4XXX series and onward. AMD is doing great. Nvidia came back with GTX400 series... Still. I have owned 5 Nvidia GPU's so far and each of them were in mid / low range... and every did their job and even outdone them... my current 9800GT with 1GB GDDR3.... Is on 20% overclock year now on stock cooling. newb OC really... So as I said... (and GamerGeek) it had the upper hand in 4XXX and 5XXX series and quite a few Nvidia fans converted simply because Nvidia was just jerking off too much with their Tesla, ION etc platforms and PhysX, 3D Vision.. that it took them almost a year to release a DX11 GPU. Which failed. Now it seems they're cutting down with crap and doing what they do the best as it's "The way it's meant to be played".

Again while I am fan of AMD/Nvidia. I have never bothered to really check high-end side.... except for few simple reviews and benchmarks... in the mid-range. Well. My current rig has been in pretty decent function for 3 years now. Although @ 1280x1024 and on DX10 only... It's something. And there are very few games that I can't play without stable 30FPS on highest w/o AA (i.e. Metro 2033). So I'm fine...

Actually thing is... a mid-range PC can play anything you want really... The game market is console oriented... and while consoles are limiting us PC players with ***** GPUs and DX9... There are very few games that are actually being developed for PC for purpose of presentation of Hardware power... My last nce thought... Crysis (2007 if I recall) there was literary no machine that can run in FullHD on highest @ stable 60FPs... or even in regular 1280x1024... Now... mid-range PC... everything you want... 1k$. It's future proof. Tongue2 It's a shame.. Well, we're gonna have to wait till new gen of consoles come... or at least new gen of Xbox as current is pure POS. Tongue2 Till then... Emulation and occasional game that serves creative vision in seas of worthless generic games (IMO) such as COD series.
Reply
#15
From what I understand, emulators generally have better performance on slightly older CPU's with high clock speeds. Quad or Duel core are your best bit, with 3.0+ ghz natural clockspeed. GPU is kinda the opposite. From what I gather, DX11 seem's to run a lot better on PCSX2 then DX9, least if your running a new GPU. Obviously the benefits of running a newer GPU is the higher memory capacity. So new technology GPU, probably high end card from AMD 4xxx series, AMD 5770+ from the 5xxx series is best. Not sure about 6xxx series, but I imagine as long as it's on par with the 5xxx series recommendations, I don't think you'd have to much of an issue.

RAM. 3gigs, DDR2. Only advantage you can gain is by upgrading to DDR3. Don't need any more then that, as PCSX2 is still stuck in the stone age using x86 environments rather then the more common and faster x64 environments. I can't really see a reason for it rather then developer preference/stubborness.

Rest is probably personal preference. Generally those specs always see a decent output from newer emulators.
Reply
#16
@Selvec

Uh, no. That's like saying the 1st gen Core i7 is faster than the 2nd gen Core i7... Amd 5770 was not the best of the 5000 series, the 5870 was the best of that series. 4GB of ram is better than 3, that's a given, and these days 4GB is like the standards.
Reply
#17
(04-21-2011, 06:45 AM)Selvec Wrote: RAM. 3gigs, DDR2. Only advantage you can gain is by upgrading to DDR3. Don't need any more then that, as PCSX2 is still stuck in the stone age using x86 environments rather then the more common and faster x64 environments. I can't really see a reason for it rather then developer preference/stubborness.

Rest is probably personal preference. Generally those specs always see a decent output from newer emulators.

Motherfack... stupid laptop ate my post... anyways...

Or maybe the reason they are using x86 instead of x64 is because it would be a massive undertaking filled with compatibility and other regressions.

Would you rather have months of issues, loss of compatibility, instability, etc all to gain 5-10% MAYBE in speed improvements? Or would you rather have months of new games and general improvements?

The improvement won't be enough to magically make a slower system perfect for PCSX2.

[Image: 2748844.png]
Reply
#18
Quote:Would you rather have months of issues, loss of compatibility, instability, etc all to gain 5-10% MAYBE in speed improvements? Or would you rather have months of new games and general improvements?

I would do it regardless of the majority idiot userbase who only cares about playing pirated games.

if there was a guarantee of improved performance at the end of the day.
Reply
#19
I guess that's where we differ... Emulation should be about compatibility first, performance second. Computers will always get faster, but if the code isn't compatible it doesn't matter how fast future hardware is.
[Image: 2748844.png]
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)