pcsx2 on vista

[Larfin_Man]

Wow, this thread went off topic and was hijacked XD

[etienne31]

about nvidia / ati comparison :
Nvidia runs better on low systems,
and ati runs better on powerful systems;
that's because nvidia have cheap calculators that can wistand their won calculation without cpu assist,
whereas ati are so much powerful and, most importantly, not cpu multicore friendly in previous drivers on the opposite of nvidia,
that they perform less good on low systems.
but the latest ati drivers now exploit multicore processors, so you can see a BIG difference !
two bad they didn't programmed it before.
but for the little story, with single core enabled,
ati is overall the best on highest frequencies.
can we say much more cpu dependant ? yes we can.
So all goes around drivers programation.
And so as video card use more cpu, give less for emulation.
So you may conclude that if you have a rotten computer,
you should buy nvidia....
...but this mean that if you have a nvidia, that's because your computer is rotten !
well... don't take the 'rotten' part too seriously,
as it's just a speculation about what kind of reflexion you can made,
not my personnal point of view,
as I definitely think that both are good in their own ways.

[Amberion]

Okay, I don't know a whole lot about how modern GPUs work, but I'm reasonably sure that ATI cards bottleneck at about the same place CPU-wise as Nvidia cards. Any driver issues likely don't have anything at all to do with multicore CPU support, as I would be very suprised if either Nvidia or ATI even need it for performance.

[KrazyTrumpeter05]

about nvidia / ati comparison :
Nvidia runs better on low systems,
and ati runs better on powerful systems;
that's because nvidia have cheap calculators that can wistand their won calculation without cpu assist,
whereas ati are so much powerful and, most importantly, not cpu multicore friendly in previous drivers on the opposite of nvidia,
that they perform less good on low systems.
but the latest ati drivers now exploit multicore processors, so you can see a BIG difference !
two bad they didn't programmed it before.
but for the little story, with single core enabled,
ati is overall the best on highest frequencies.
can we say much more cpu dependant ? yes we can.
So all goes around drivers programation.
And so as video card use more cpu, give less for emulation.
So you may conclude that if you have a rotten computer,
you should buy nvidia....
...but this mean that if you have a nvidia, that's because your computer is rotten !
well... don't take the 'rotten' part too seriously,
as it's just a speculation about what kind of reflexion you can made,
not my personnal point of view,
as I definitely think that both are good in their own ways.

That was the largest amount of wrong I've seen/read so far this weekend. Hardware wise, nVidia and ATI are pretty much the same, the main differences come down to driver support and MAYBE a feature here or there that has a different hardware component.

[Vagrant Storm]

that your opinion, i have ati and i have no problem with emulators, do you have a ati graphic card so you can say that?

I just did a little test...I am still in the write up stage of it though, but in short I can say that in FFX and Grandia 3 my 8800GTS I was able to stay closer to 60 FPS than my HD4850. However, the HD4850 seems to have a higher minimum. When the FPS dropped on the GTS it would hit the 30's, but it would most often be right at 60.

The 8800GTS was coupled with a E6600 running at 3.6GHz in XP and I want to run it with my E8500 to make it fair, but considering the HD4850 is a much more powerful card I'd say that the nVidia GPU seems to handle things in PCSX2 better.

However, I've learned a lot about how a PS2 work (and consoles in general) in the last few days. It shouldn't really matter a whole lot about what GPU you have so long as you have a moderately capable one like the afore mentioned 8600GT. It would seem that even when using the GDSX plugins most everything needs to be processed by the CPU.



/*As to the derailed debate...

Both nVidia and ATI benefit from a higher system. It could be misconsrued that that nVidia does better with a slower CPU because of things like CUDA...but that is only if the game supports the phys-X components. Even if a game allows for physics to be processed on the GPU it is such small performance gain that is hardly worth mentioning.

In fact...I'd say the opposite since ATI is still getting bugs out of their drivers when it comes to quad core CPUs. I think Cat 9.2 was the first driver that even made use of more than two cores under DX10. We are now on Cat 9.6 and they are still making CPU optimizations. Looking at past drivers, ATI actually relied less on the CPU and nVidia is trying to take the load off the CPU.

[ininpa]

I just did a little test...I am still in the write up stage of it though, but in short I can say that in FFX and Grandia 3 my 8800GTS I was able to stay closer to 60 FPS than my HD4850. However, the HD4850 seems to have a higher minimum. When the FPS dropped on the GTS it would hit the 30's, but it would most often be right at 60.

I played FFX and I was able to get 60+ fps nearly all the time. AND this was before GSdx was updated to remove code that only worked well on nVidia cards (before then, I had major slowdowns in FFX-2 battles).

Seems like a lot of it is just configuration, for system and emulator, plus possibly a bit of placebo effect.

[Shadow Lady]

For me it's like nVIDIA has better driver support and ATI has better performance/price ratio. Both are good for whatever you want them but I prefer better drivers myself.

I played FFX and I was able to get 60+ fps nearly all the time. AND this was before GSdx was updated to remove code that only worked well on nVidia cards (before then, I had major slowdowns in FFX-2 battles).

As an example before the Radeon 3800 series appeared GSdx ran well on both nvidia and ati cards, after the 3800 appeared GSdx didnt ran very well on them and it wasnt like GSdx was made for ATI or nVIDIA the problem was gabest couldnt test what was wrong with the ATI cards/drivers and funny thing this was fixed later by ATI drivers for some cards, then the radeon 4000 series appeared with yet another problem so it's not like GSdx was made for nVIDIA rather than ATI changing something in their drivers that wasnt running so good and I dont even know if this was the same problem that was fixed by the GSdx revision that removed the ATI problem as it could have been other anyway.

Also if this was only PCSX2 i'd say ok, but ATI has had a history of similar problems for example for another plugin/emulator Pete's OGL2 plugin for PSX emulators where there was a problem with texture glitches all over and the fix was to downgrade the ATI drivers until a version of the drivers fixed this but I think a couple new driver versions gave the glitch back or something anyway. Of course nVIDIA drivers arent perfect (specially the latest ones are being buggy a lot) they just seem to suffer a lot less of this problems which I welcome

[pcsx2fan]

Guys can be hardly convinced on ATI versus NVIDIA, are flying their way persistently. Is your PC dedicated to PCSX2? if sure, you won't have an obsession with this argument, just emigrate to NVIDIA in order to avoid potential troubles. Though ATI takes cost-performance not case you'd care.

[finnnie]

i have a vista with ruddy bios wich dont seem to work