GSdx

[xat]

Question about the internal res - does raising it have a greater impact on cpu usage or gpu? Also, is DX10 mode significantly faster than DX9?

[lightchris]

Question about the internal res - does raising it have a greater impact on cpu usage or gpu?

GPU only in hardware mode (in software mode it'd be the other way round if it was selectable).

Also, is DX10 mode significantly faster than DX9?

Generally: No. There might be a few exceptions though.



Gabest, could you give a small comment on this?

Gabest, could you implement changeable internal resolutions for software mode? Would be nice for performance observations and screenshotting.

[Gabest]

Can't do that. The swizzled memory makes it impossible. It's not that I wasn't thinking about it, each pixel could be supersampled and duplicated into multiple video memory buffers, at 2x2, where the upper left pixel is the original, the other pixels were renderer into three other buffers, but if the render target was reused as a texture in who-knows-what pixel format, which happens frequently, I'd have to throw away the extra resolution. PS1 was much easier to hack, there is only one pixel format and no swizzling.

[rama]

Well, there is still the option of post process shaders in .fx format.
A nice HQ3x or simelar could significantly enhance the output.

Edit:
Attached an old patch for gsdx9, that had this interface included.
I'm sorry, I forgot who made it


  makes_gsdx_awesome.zip (Size: 4,72 KB / Downloads: 328)

[sofakng]

Does anybody else have flickering floor textures with GSdx 890 (PCSX 0.9.6) and GSdx 834 (latest from SVN, March 22nd I think?) and Persona 4? I also get pretty extreme slowdown during the initial fog battles of the game.

Also, why does the GSdx SVN build have a lower number (834) than the 0.9.6 release (890)?

[Cody900]

Also, why does the GSdx SVN build have a lower number (834) than the 0.9.6 release (890)?

Because they're (were) independent projects. Only recently has GSdx source moved into the PCSX2 tree, and before that, it had its own tree and hence its own incremental versions and builds. You don't really need to worry about GSdx/PCSX2 versions, but rather the verions of both projects separately.

[Saiki]

dx10 has been faster than dx9 for me, in every instance.

[lightchris]

Can't do that. The swizzled memory makes it impossible. It's not that I wasn't thinking about it, each pixel could be supersampled and duplicated into multiple video memory buffers, at 2x2, where the upper left pixel is the original, the other pixels were renderer into three other buffers, but if the render target was reused as a texture in who-knows-what pixel format, which happens frequently, I'd have to throw away the extra resolution. PS1 was much easier to hack, there is only one pixel format and no swizzling.

Thanks for the explanation.

Well, there is still the option of post process shaders in .fx format.
A nice HQ3x or simelar could significantly enhance the output.

Well, at least I'm not a fan of HQnx.. might be nice on some old SNES games (and even there I generally like the TV output better..), but on PS2 games? Imo it destroys a bit of the artwork or the looks which the devs/designers intended.
Same goes for other post-processing effects like blooming.

The only things which makes games look objectively better is enhancing the resolution or adding AA and AF.

[rama]

lightchris:
Yeah, its debatable whether upsampling filters look good or bad, or if it represents what the designer meant to show.
One thing I know for sure though: No ps2 gamedev wanted to make his game in ultra low res. GS limitations forced them to.

So, by using these optional shaders, a lot of really ***** looking games can be brushed up a bit.
Sure it looks kinda artificial, but at least you can see something!

[kabooz]

also you could make em fun with a comic filter XD
btw are these filters processed by the CPU or the GPU ?