Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Dynasty Warriors 3 speed issue
#1
I'm trying to run Dynasty Warriors 3, and in menus and cutscenes, I'm getting 60 fps constant, however when I actually get into a battle, it goes down to ~47 fps, as low as mid 30's when attacking stuff. My system is more than able to run the emulator, but EE is pinned at 100%, even if I increase my overclock. Currently sat at:

Phenom II x3 720BE @ 3.4GHz
GTX260 @ 700/1500/1100

Is it a known issue or am I missing something settings wise?
Mobo: Asus M4A79XTD EVO
CPU: AMD 720BE @3.4GHz @ 1.4V
Memory: 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
Graphics: EVGA GTX 260 @700/1500/1100
HDD: 500GB Samsung F3 + 500GB Storage
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
Have you tried speedhacks?

Do not believe your hardware is able, less yet more than able, to run all PS2 games over there (at least not without a little help from speedhacks), such hardware does not exist yet.

PS: Mine is a 965BE, not even pushing it to 3.8 per core is enough to steadily run most demanding games without some hacks. Some I can't run without some kind of compromise, like accepting a bit of lag in some places... and so on.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#3
If the EE is at 100%, then no your system is NOT capable of playing it at full speed, at least not without some speed hacks.

The Dynasty warrior series of games (including the Gundam Dynasty Warriors and Samurai Warriors) require a very very fast computer to emulate at full speed. The VU Cycle rate hack can offer a very sizable speed up, but it WILL cause glitches (disappearing menus, minimap, SPS, etc)
Reply
#4
Sorry But Dynasty Warrior would run( I mean it runs on my friends Core2Duo CPU @ 50-52Fps quite good speed!)Tongue
Reply
#5
Intel CPUs are faster than AMD.It's a fact.
Reply
#6
PCSX2 needs to be built special for games like this. it is built with speed and compatability in mind, but SOME games take full advantage of the PS2, and PCSX2 does not match that yet, it has been modified for PCs, clock speeds are altered

(words you can trust: 120fps on .hack// built special; 80fps stock pcsx2 build)
Reply
#7
(04-05-2011, 07:12 PM)Game Wrote: Intel CPUs are faster than AMD.It's a fact.

*facepalm* It isn't a fact and will never be a fact. SOME Intel chips are faster than SOME AMD ones are and vice versa, and Intel have the top end market tied up, at least for the next few months before Zambezi is released.

Off the topic of fanboyism, and back on topic, thank you very much for the replies.

Even with speedhacks, it makes little to no difference. Bumping up my OC does, however I've got a dog chip that, having tried on 3 different boards, none will get it over 3.575 stable, so pushing much further isn't really an option. Guess I'd best just count my losses and stick to the console itself then. Thanks guys and gals Smile
Mobo: Asus M4A79XTD EVO
CPU: AMD 720BE @3.4GHz @ 1.4V
Memory: 2x2GB Corsair XMS3 1600MHz
Graphics: EVGA GTX 260 @700/1500/1100
HDD: 500GB Samsung F3 + 500GB Storage
Reply
#8
(04-06-2011, 01:02 AM)Aastii Wrote: *facepalm* It isn't a fact and will never be a fact.

It is a fact. Clock for clock intel beats amd, and it has been this way for several generations. Amd only beats some intel cpus when they are clocked higher, or have more cores. I have both intel and amd cpus and know this from experiance. If you want a cheap pc amd is great since it offer a lot of choices in the low price ranges, but if you want maximum performance you have to go intel.
Specs:
CPU: C2D E8400 @ 3.6
GPU: GTX 560Ti 2Gb
MOB: Asus P5QL
RAM: Crucial 4Gb
OS: Windows 7 64bit/XP 32bit
Reply
#9
Sorry to agree here, but yeah, AMD chips have consistently be lots slower than Intel's for the last couple of years.
Reply
#10
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/dis...720_3.html

More than simple "I think..."

Ix series pushed AMD behind and will stay on top even after the first bulldozer release, but was not always so. For years Intel had to cope with the fact their CPU was less efficient clock per clock.

After the Itanium failure AMD dominated the PC 64 bits market and impose it's AMD 64 core which Intel later cloned onto IA64.

The two companies have been for years competing seriously and this is only good for the consumer. Yet it is fact the Ix series is better performing, clock by clock compared with the Phenom II.

PS: PCSX2 is strongly biased so to favor Intel, not for fanboyismo of course but the struggle to squeeze each drop of performance, which is accomplished by relatively heavy usage of SSSE3 and SSE4.1, mainly. Of course it gives Intel an extra advantage. In such scenery the comparison is so biased as comparing ATI x Nvidia with a program which makes heavy usage of PhysX/CUDA.

Edited to correct a "serious" typo... for economy sake I did put together SSSE4.1 for the above two Smile
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)