Pcsx2 0.9.X FPS Problem.

[Neosacks]

Greetings,

This day, i wanted to emulate FFX from my Disc Drive, but when it start, it become 10fps, so it's unplayable, Here is my Configuration :

- CPU : Intel® Pentium® 4 CPU 3.06 GHz (1 Physical - 2 Logical)
- RAM : 190 Mo
- Graphic Card : VIA/S3G UniChrome Pro IGP (Pixel Shader 0.0 But I'm using a software [Swift Shader] that can emulate Pixel Shader 2.0 from CPU.)

So anyone to help me ?

And thanks.

[GamerGeek]

You have too little ram and you need pixel shader 2.0(those emulations program dont work good at all).

[Neosacks]

It works with the emulator program with a smoothy graphic but it's too slow to play.

[Urisma]

You aren't gonna get any more than 10 fps. Your processor is way slow (even with hyperthreading). And the fact that you're using software rendering makes it even MORE slow. Though hardware wouldn't help as you probably can't play with it on. And 190 megabytes of RAM? That isn't enough to run the emulator. You need AT LEAST ~300 megabytes of free ram (not total ram) to run PCSX2. Any less than that and it'll start deallocating ram automatically and make it even slower! So, bottom line, you will never get playable speeds on that rig. No way, no how.Not happening.

[Neosacks]

Okay thanks dude.

[Dangerousd777]

You aren't gonna get any more than 10 fps. Your processor is way slow (even with hyperthreading). And the fact that you're using software rendering makes it even MORE slow. Though hardware wouldn't help as you probably can't play with it on. And 190 megabytes of RAM? That isn't enough to run the emulator. You need AT LEAST ~300 megabytes of free ram (not total ram) to run PCSX2. Any less than that and it'll start deallocating ram automatically and make it even slower! So, bottom line, you will never get playable speeds on that rig. No way, no how.Not happening.

He should get at least 40 FPS during gameplay, if he had an actual graphic adapter..
But yeah I got that same 12 FPS with Swiftshader before, and I was like this is too slow for even the oldest and lowest resolution direct X 8 games.

Well with the new revisions I get closer to 55-60 FPS usually, so all he needs to do is pick up a cheap PCI/PCI-E graphics adapter and a stick or two more RAM.

He must have the 3 ghz HT Northwood, it's an alright processor, but Prescott was 'kinda' better, and yet cedar mill was definitely better, doing at least 30% better than Prescott in most cases because of it's extra megabyte of L2 cache.

[Neosacks]

By the way, i have an integrated graphic card, so I have to buy another graphic card better than I have here ?

[Dangerousd777]

By the way, i have an integrated graphic card, so I have to buy another graphic card better than I have here ?

If you have a free PCI/PCI-Express 16x slot then you could buy a cheap graphic card like 30 dollars or so and that would suffice.

Make sure you have the ports though like look at your motherboard or look up the name and see if it includes though so your not spending money for nothing.

[haxor]

Asking about FFX on PCSX2??!! This a specific case to bug with.

Well... this configuration is worth being called a "should run it" at atleast 30 "fake" fps on native resolution on whatever stable release - atleast with every timer and other recompiled code optimization turned on. The processor is really fast enough for specifically the VU code of FFX. Also the Program shouldn't use more than 128 MB of RAM. And...

PS2 emulation shouldn't even need 2.0 shaders. Any faster graphics card with atleast 2 texture units on a DX 7 fixed function pipeline should be able to render the final output of FFX at 30 fps - doing complete or atleast "fake computed" alpha rendering. Cause 2 stages is the max what the PS2 is able to render.

I'm really miserable about this thread, cause it just shows that CLEARLY. And FFX is somewhat of a really good example of what PCSX2 is cappable of on low-spec systems.

[Neosacks]

So that mean I can play FFX without any problem ?