PCSX2 0.9.8!
(05-19-2011, 09:48 AM)surerman Wrote: just want to share info
I test this new baby with my laptop spec:
core i3 5xxM
RAM 2 Gb
Win XP Prof P3
Radeon HD 54xx Mobile

I left all setting to default and play GOW1 (NTSC) and the best I can get is... 48 fps!! o_O!
Kratos sure take his time to slow-dance with all the zombie (Aegean Sea) XD
latest test before ...I use 0.9.6 rev 33.. without problem...and in my old rig of pentium 4 @3Ghz

I found it's strange, how my newest spec can't beat the old one...is it because it's a laptop and PC difference?

That post is all kinds of confusing...

Perhaps it's the weak GPU in the laptop (5450...?) holding it back...? Either way, a P4 shouldn't compare to any i3, even with it's exact clock rate being a mystery...

Make sure your laptop's Power Plan is on "High Performance".
Reply

Sponsored links

(05-19-2011, 09:48 AM)surerman Wrote: ...
I left all setting to default and play GOW1 (NTSC) and the best I can get is... 48 fps!! o_O!
...
That's what speed hacks are for, and GOW1 responds well to them. Use the presets, start with 3, and you can even go higher with GOW if you still need.
Reply
(05-03-2011, 08:29 AM)Jazz_117 Wrote: Nice work fellas
I'm really digging this emulator

@ Shadow Lady:
I've been through MGS3 half a dozen times with 0.9.7, and the lack of the post render never bothered me much.
At this point I'm content with performance.
Though, I'd be interested to see what kind of fps could be obtained through software mode with an i7.

Dont know about mgs3 but ff10 (the only game i can test) with the framelimiter disabled and using the dx10 software renderer gets well over 200fps max and only dips just under 200 min(180ish). Completely unplayable at those fps but fun to watch! Core i7 2600k overclocked to 4.6ghz
Reply
Unfortunatly, i dont see any diference between this and SVN 4xxx more. Ive aplyed the same configs, made a clean install and everything, but the speed are still the sabe, if not a little slower (2/3%). Im still having the same problems with the same games, Demon Chaos still doesnt work, Tales of Legendia are still 2 FPS after the tittlescreen and all...

Im using a Intel Quad Q9400, 4 GB Ram, ATI Radeon HD 6870 and Windows 7 (DirectX 11).

Is this version the same as the last SVNs? Cause i dont see any changes (for better) other than that config pressets.

Thanks.
Reply
Obviously it's not the same. Check the googlecode svn for a changelog of each revision
[Image: newsig.jpg]
Reply
(05-21-2011, 06:50 PM)ViNGaDoRjr Wrote: Demon Chaos still doesnt work

It works, just not the story mode Tongue2


Quote:Tales of Legendia are still 2 FPS after the tittlescreen and all...

Tales of Legendia doesn't go anywhere close to that slow anymore in hardware renderers (only reason you'd get those slow speeds is using the hardware renderer), and it's fully playable with software mode.
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
(05-21-2011, 07:36 PM)Shadow Lady Wrote: It works, just not the story mode Tongue2



Tales of Legendia doesn't go anywhere close to that slow anymore in hardware renderers (only reason you'd get those slow speeds is using the hardware renderer), and it's fully playable with software mode.



Thanks Shadow Lady.
Reply
I've never seen Tales of Legendia run that slow at the title screen.

I remember getting 7fps on my laptop in the openning scene using hardware mode (this was on previous revs).

"Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkeeeee................. Thhhhiiiiiiiiiiissssssss!" Laugh
Reply
(05-21-2011, 11:35 PM)Rezard Wrote: I've never seen Tales of Legendia run that slow at the title screen.

I remember getting 7fps on my laptop in the openning scene using hardware mode (this was on previous revs).

"Taaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkkkkeeeee................. Thhhhiiiiiiiiiiissssssss!" Laugh


Yes... unfortunately, it is running this slow for me using hardware mode with 3024 x 3024 of resolution... a little faster with 1024, but i doesnt like the graphics. :/

With software mode it runs fast, but very ugly for my taste too, so i will pass this one out.
Reply
(05-22-2011, 03:57 AM)ViNGaDoRjr Wrote: ...with 3024 x 3024 of resolution...

Ohmy What a modest resolution...

Not to poke fun, but you have some high expectations, my friend! Wink
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)