Effective EE clockspeed
#11
EmucraZ, I thought they rewrote the rendering engine in the HD remasters because they re-did the graphics in HD?
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
Jak 3 isn't great on hardware mode. It has only a few inconsistent graphical glitches on software mode. I usually get full fps with my 3.8ghz i7 920 and 7 extra GSDX software threads, so it is a demanding game unfortunately.
Oh, and you can't fix the shadows on software mode but you get used to them.
Reply
#13
(07-03-2012, 04:48 PM)The Walking Glitch Wrote: EmucraZ, I thought they rewrote the rendering engine in the HD remasters because they re-did the graphics in HD?

Nope they just edited some of it for the NVIDIA Reality Synthesizer cuz it is simular to the graphic synthesizer but some issues were left that of simular to the pcsx2 emulation of jak 2 and 3
Reply
#14
clidx, The shadows and eye problems in the series don't bother me. Unfortunately since pcsx2 is optimized for intel, and not AMD, even with my 700Mhz advantage, I will probably still be unable to run at full frames in software mode. But thanks for mentioning software mode working well. I'll try it, and report back.
Reply
#15
Umm just a small correction^
PCSX2 isn't "optimized for intel";] it works same well on both AMD and Intel cpu's, only difference intel cpu's are simply faster at the same clock speed, that has nothing to do with PCSX2 itself.
If you compare some Athlon/Phenom II vs Bulldozer - both made by AMD you'll also see the first one is faster than the last one at same clocks, and that's even when using SSE4 on the last one while first one is obviously outdated and limited to SSE2, faster architecture simply wins over marketing, you cannot get quality for low price;]. AMD sells cpu's cheaply for a reason;]. They aren't worth more.(I say that as AMD - both cpu&gpu, owner).
Reply
#16
(07-03-2012, 10:04 PM)miseru99 Wrote: Umm just a small correction^
PCSX2 isn't "optimized for intel";] it works same well on both AMD and Intel cpu's, only difference intel cpu's are simply faster at the same clock speed, that has nothing to do with PCSX2 itself.
If you compare some Athlon/Phenom II vs Bulldozer - both made by AMD you'll also see the first one is faster than the last one at same clocks, and that's even when using SSE4 on the last one while first one is obviously outdated and limited to SSE2, faster architecture simply wins over marketing, you cannot get quality for low price;]. AMD sells cpu's cheaply for a reason;]. They aren't worth more.(I say that as AMD - both cpu&gpu, owner).

You are mostly correct. What I meant by optimized for intel is that from what I have picked up by reading the forums for the past few months, pcsx2 is optimized for the newer Streaming instructions better than the older ones, which is what the phenoms are stuck with. Not disagreeing, I own both too. And phenoms as far as Instructions per Clock are somewhere between Intel Penryn's and the Nehalem CPUs. Ofc the Nehalem CPUs support the newer Streaming instructions, so therefore works better with pcsx2. But yes, I agree with you.


@clidx Thanks for the software rendering tip, gained about 5 frames, and everything is rendered correctly except shadows. Thanks.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)