Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
How much impact does a graphics card have?
#1
This is tangent to another topic I posted.  How much does a computers graphics card affect the performance of PCSX2 in hardware mode?

I am using these two points of reference:
  1. Emulation (the heavy lifting) is done on the CPU.
  2. PS2 era graphic effects are rudimentary by todays standards and any chip/card should be able to handle them without breaking a sweat.
Given that, rendering at native resolution, without any special filters, it stands to reason that the graphics card would not really be a bottleneck.

Still talking about rendering at native resolution, if I had a CPU with a STR of 2200 and a graphics rating of 1500 is that better than a STR 1800 and graphics 1800?  Or STR 1600 and graphics 5000?  At what point should you sacrifice STR for graphics rating?
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
It all depends on the game. But at native resolution in hardware mode you usually don't need a very good graphics rating, so I'd definitely go for a better STR. If you don't want to use any upscaling at all, software mode is better and that needs more CPU power than GPU power, so I'd definitely pick a "CPU with a STR of 2200 and a graphics rating of 1500" for that.

Only when using (higher) upscaling resolutions would I suggest sacrificing STR for graphics performance and get the system with "STR 1600 and graphics 5000".

(02-24-2018, 08:26 PM)latreides Wrote: [*]PS2 era graphic effects are rudimentary by todays standards and any chip/card should be able to handle them without breaking a sweat.
[/list]
It's not that simple. Not everything can be emulated 1:1 and it can be tricky to properly emulate some elements on modern GPU's.
Reply
#3
(02-24-2018, 09:07 PM)FlatOut Wrote: It all depends on the game. But at native resolution in hardware mode you usually don't need a very good graphics rating, so I'd definitely go for a better STR. If you don't want to use any upscaling at all, software mode is better and that needs more CPU power than GPU power, so I'd definitely pick a "CPU with a STR of 2200 and a graphics rating of 1500" for that.
I am not very interested in upscaling the internal resolution, but I would like a clean integer based scaling of the output. 
Would doing 2x Native Internal (to get closer to a 1080p resolution) still make this a better decision?

(02-24-2018, 09:07 PM)FlatOut Wrote: Only when using (higher) upscaling resolutions would I suggest sacrificing STR for graphics performance and get the system with "STR 1600 and graphics 5000". 
I read, on this forum, that a STR of 1800 is recommended and 2000 for more intense games like GoW2.  Would sacrificing that much STR (from 2200 to 1600) for any graphical gain (even with a graphics rating of 5000) actually be worth it?  Will the graphics card be enough to offset that STR drop?


I am just trying to make an informed decision while comparing different hardware combinations.
Reply
#4
No, it wouldnt compensate. The minimum proc to run a certain game is a pretty hard limit..

You could have a 20k rating in your graphics, but you're not running shodow of the colossus on a 1600 stp system, not full speed.
amd tr 1950x 
asrock x399 taichi
XFX Radeon rx570
32gb gskill ddr4-3200
Windows 10 Pro
enermax liquitek tr4 240
nzxt 340 case
Reply
#5
Personally I would never build a computer without both a dedicated video and sound card. Even on a low - mid budget figure about $100 - $200 for a good video card and an additional $50 - $75 for a good sound card. When I built my computer I got a good XFi 24-Bit sound card for $54.99 and a Radeon RX480 8GB video card for $219.99 and that card performs very well. In terms of overall tech specs it's slightly more powerful than a regular GeForce 1070. The main difference is at least at the time it was and I'm sure still is a better value than the 1070. I don't know how inflated video card prices still are after all that video card bs. I bought mine about a year before that happened plus I have two backups just in case. Another good Radeon and a GeForce that way if one card craps out I don't gotta worry about paying higher prices for a good video card.

I really hope by now video card prices have come down. But regardless what you decide I personally would like to wish you well. Take care.
Reply
#6
Unless you're an audiophile or have really good hearing (like me - to the point where you can hear mains hum), you don't need an PCI soundcard.
Reply
#7
(02-24-2018, 09:52 PM)latreides Wrote: I am not very interested in upscaling the internal resolution, but I would like a clean integer based scaling of the output. 
Would doing 2x Native Internal (to get closer to a 1080p resolution) still make this a better decision?
Yes. Even most Intel integrated HD graphics series, which have a low graphics rating, can still pull off 2x native and sometimes even higher in some less demanding games.

(02-24-2018, 09:52 PM)latreides Wrote: I read, on this forum, that a STR of 1800 is recommended and 2000 for more intense games like GoW2.  Would sacrificing that much STR (from 2200 to 1600) for any graphical gain (even with a graphics rating of 5000) actually be worth it?  Will the graphics card be enough to offset that STR drop?
That depends on which games you want to play. Getting a CPU with lower STR will reduce compatibility. Most games will be fine with a STR of 1600, but there are more demanding games that will no longer play at full speed. But the better graphics rating will allow for higher upscaling in games that aren't as demanding.
Reply
#8
a gtx 750 ti oc (like the one in my sig) will outperform the 1030, so will the gtx 950. If you can find them used.. they should be under 100.. Though for some reason those 750's are asking 400ish on amazon right now (I should sell mine lol.. even used, 200 would be a steal in comparison)
amd tr 1950x 
asrock x399 taichi
XFX Radeon rx570
32gb gskill ddr4-3200
Windows 10 Pro
enermax liquitek tr4 240
nzxt 340 case
Reply
#9
Quote:PS2 era graphic effects are rudimentary by todays standards and any chip/card should be able to handle them without breaking a sweat.
The issue isn't the graphics effect but the way is must be emulated to achieve the same rendering as the PS2. For example, if you want to do a depth of field effect on a modern game, you bind the depth texture, and do a read in the fragment shader. It can be done with 1 draw call. You can't do that on the PS2, so instead depth format is interpreter as a color and 100-1000 draw calls are used to modulate the rendering based on this pseudo texture color. You can add another factor 2x, 3x (so ~300 draw calls minimum) on top of that because of the overhead of emulation. So a cheap effect on modern GPU is ultra expensive to reproduce in the PS2 way.

If you can replace some PS2 rendering by an HLE shader, you easily gain a factor 10 !
Reply
#10
Here a nice in depth explanation of a part of the mess:

https://pcsx2.net/developer-blog/277-cha...ffect.html
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)