General performance question
#11
While x4 and higher look nice, we don't expect current or next gen graphic cards to manage these resolutions easily.
The reason is that the high pixel count demands for high memory bandwith and high pixel throughput.
These 2 are usually very expensive (you need fast memory on a wide bus and a massive GPU).

So while PC games get a nice speed boost from newer graphic cards, we can't expect the same speed increase for GSdx scaling.
Reply

Sponsored links

#12
Some of the games I was trying were Zone of the Enders 2 , Valkyrie Profile 2, and Shadow of the Colossus.

All were pretty sluggish (especially SoC)

UPDATE: Tried FFXII, and that works surprisingly smooth at 4x! Maybe because its an interlaced (low-res) game ? I guess I will stick to 2x or native for more demanding games.
Reply
#13
(05-21-2011, 04:23 PM)rama Wrote: While x4 and higher look nice, we don't expect current or next gen graphic cards to manage these resolutions easily.
The reason is that the high pixel count demands for high memory bandwith and high pixel throughput.
These 2 are usually very expensive (you need fast memory on a wide bus and a massive GPU).

So while PC games get a nice speed boost from newer graphic cards, we can't expect the same speed increase for GSdx scaling.

video or system memory?
(05-21-2011, 04:15 PM)Nightfox Wrote: native x2 is usually enough, gives really nice result. If you put x3 and x4 you're really are pushing up to unneeded huge resolutions.

uh.... seriously?

my eyesights pretty bad now and even i can see the difference between 2x and 3x and 3x - 4x and so on.
Reply
#14
well, I must admit increasing the internal resolution acts almost as good as a good AA, still it's unavoidable the image becoming increasingly blurred. Is not the same as increasing the "original" resolution, just blending adjacent pixels properties and afterward compressing them again into the presentable resolution.

Unless can be explained how to get actual "information" which a greater original resolution brings... continually expanding/shrinking the image eventually would get us a beautiful indistinguishable blur. If it was not so, I could get perfectly defined eyes of a bee photographed from afar with a cheap digital camera, just by continually amplifying/filtering the image... this would be the realized dream of all photographers out there.

Still I must agree the results for 3x or 4x are great, just than no new information is introduced, only the image becomes smoother although not more defined.

Finally, it's only "great" if the machine can get there without becoming sluggish, of course.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#15
(05-28-2011, 10:59 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: video or system memory?

I'm pretty sure that's V-RAM. System RAM might count if allocating (i.e. with an IGP).

(05-28-2011, 10:59 PM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: my eyesights pretty bad now and even i can see the difference between 2x and 3x and 3x - 4x and so on.

Though I do totally agree with what you've said (I see the difference), I can't help but agree with what Nightfox said. 2x scaling is very nice (especially when considering what native looks like), and pushing to 3x, 4x and beyond truely becomes less and less benefitial or apparent. Let's not forget that 3x scaling is greater than 1080p, anyway.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)