Megadrive Emulation - Gives me headaches
Moderator: General Mods
-
- Buzzkill Gil
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
Hi,
@ ProtoKnux:
FPS drops like that can indicate problems in either sound card or video card (since you said you're using vsync). I don't understand why other emulators don't exhibit this problem and only Megadrive emus are doing this (voodoo doll of a MD pinned somewhere??). There is an option in Kega called "Use Alternate Timing". Check that if it solves the problem. Also try and use high priority settings in each emulator. Then there is the setting of "SoundBufferSize" in Regen.ini file try playing with that to see if it solves the problem. There is nothing wrong with the specs of your PC. I have a very shit PC compared to yours (with both onboard video and sound) but all the three emus run perfectly. But since you mentioned that there is a problem with your mobo so that maybe the source of problem as well. But I still don't understand why only MD emulators are doing this.
stay safe,
AamirM
@ ProtoKnux:
FPS drops like that can indicate problems in either sound card or video card (since you said you're using vsync). I don't understand why other emulators don't exhibit this problem and only Megadrive emus are doing this (voodoo doll of a MD pinned somewhere??). There is an option in Kega called "Use Alternate Timing". Check that if it solves the problem. Also try and use high priority settings in each emulator. Then there is the setting of "SoundBufferSize" in Regen.ini file try playing with that to see if it solves the problem. There is nothing wrong with the specs of your PC. I have a very shit PC compared to yours (with both onboard video and sound) but all the three emus run perfectly. But since you mentioned that there is a problem with your mobo so that maybe the source of problem as well. But I still don't understand why only MD emulators are doing this.
stay safe,
AamirM
Having problems with the IDE channels doesn't mean so much, but yeah, my mobo is a bit "broken" if you understand some parts not working as that.Gil_Hamilton wrote:So... your motherboard is broken, and you neglect to mention this? That seems like it might fall under the header of relevant information.
I don't think 59 fps are going to be "FPS drops", and I think some games run at that speed and that's why I see the FPS meter like that. I can even run some games on nullDC, at 60 fps with glitchy stuff (logically), so the problem focuses on Megadrive. The only problem I have with emulation is that TFT screens are shit, I see Mario's ghosts everywhere, but that's my fault for buying cheap shit.AamirM wrote:Hi,
@ ProtoKnux:
FPS drops like that can indicate problems in either sound card or video card (since you said you're using vsync). I don't understand why other emulators don't exhibit this problem and only Megadrive emus are doing this (voodoo doll of a MD pinned somewhere??). There is an option in Kega called "Use Alternate Timing". Check that if it solves the problem. Also try and use high priority settings in each emulator. Then there is the setting of "SoundBufferSize" in Regen.ini file try playing with that to see if it solves the problem. There is nothing wrong with the specs of your PC. I have a very shit PC compared to yours (with both onboard video and sound) but all the three emus run perfectly. But since you mentioned that there is a problem with your mobo so that maybe the source of problem as well. But I still don't understand why only MD emulators are doing this.
stay safe,
AamirM
Anyway, high priority settings don't help me, and as I said before Regen does not have that sound problem, it has frame skips, but I should try that. I think is just my motherboard, I'm pretty sure now.
Thanks for the help, I'm going to upgrade my PC because I think it's time already. I'll come back tomorrow to report the emulation status with the new motherboard/CPU/RAM.
I have tried that, and I have even more frame skips and now sound skips (I hadn't before). Does that help?AamirM wrote:Hi,
Well, since you have that PC right now can you test something? Can you enable VSync while in being windowed mode and enable turbo mode (backspace key) and see if it creates any frame skips/sound skips?
stay safe,
AamirM
Yeah, it only means that the southbridge is failing. In your case, the nForce4 is a single-chip design, so when I say "southbridge" I mean "chipset."ProtoKnux wrote:Having problems with the IDE channels doesn't mean so much, but yeah, my mobo is a bit "broken" if you understand some parts not working as that.Gil_Hamilton wrote:So... your motherboard is broken, and you neglect to mention this? That seems like it might fall under the header of relevant information.
Having the single most important logical component on your motherboard in a failing state definitely qualifies as more than "a bit broken."
Get yourself some working hardware; until then, there's a >50% chance any issues you're having are due to chipset problems.
Why yes, my shift key *IS* broken.
Hi,
stay safe,
AamirM
Yeah. It confirms something is wrong with your PC and not the MD emulators . But I still can't understand why the hell other emulators are running fine. Only ZSNES can be expected to run fine since its fast as hell even on a broken computer .I have tried that, and I have even more frame skips and now sound skips (I hadn't before). Does that help?
stay safe,
AamirM
Your system seems to support 64bit os's.
64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x. This difference could be enough to eliminate some of the tearing.
I believe every emulator has a 2d mode and a 3d mode, make sure you try both now, and set it to 2d if you try 64bit
64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x. This difference could be enough to eliminate some of the tearing.
I believe every emulator has a 2d mode and a 3d mode, make sure you try both now, and set it to 2d if you try 64bit
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.odditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.tetsuo55 wrote:64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
And AFAIK x64 and Vista 64 emulate 32 bit apps, so I don't think that statement is valid, but let's wait for a response.Deathlike2 wrote:I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.odditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.tetsuo55 wrote:64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x.
-
- Buzzkill Gil
- Posts: 4294
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 7:14 pm
tetsuo55 wrote:Your system seems to support 64bit os's.
64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x. This difference could be enough to eliminate some of the tearing.
I believe every emulator has a 2d mode and a 3d mode, make sure you try both now, and set it to 2d if you try 64bit
Times two.
I think they translate it rather than emulate it, but I could be wrong.ProtoKnux wrote:And AFAIK x64 and Vista 64 emulate 32 bit apps, so I don't think that statement is valid, but let's wait for a response.Deathlike2 wrote:I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.odditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.tetsuo55 wrote:64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x.
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
Does anyone read anything on backwards compatibility for these systems?
There is no emulation involved here. There is no translation being done here. It is all native to the processor. 16-bit stuff may be emulated (not that it matters), but it's all freaking native.
There is no emulation involved here. There is no translation being done here. It is all native to the processor. 16-bit stuff may be emulated (not that it matters), but it's all freaking native.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
-
- Trooper
- Posts: 394
- Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 3:11 am
- Location: Space
Hmmm, I thought turbo mode doesn't work while VSync is enabled in the latest beta (in windowed mode)... unless I'm missing something.AamirM wrote:Hi,
Well, since you have that PC right now can you test something? Can you enable VSync while in being windowed mode and enable turbo mode (backspace key) and see if it creates any frame skips/sound skips?
[url=http://www.eidolons-inn.net/tiki-index.php?page=Kega]Kega Fusion Supporter[/url] | [url=http://byuu.cinnamonpirate.com/]bsnes Supporter[/url] | [url=http://aamirm.hacking-cult.org/]Regen Supporter[/url]
Hi,
stay safe,
AamirM
Yes, you are right. But turbo mode completely disables timing sync and lets the emu run as fast as it can but since vsync is enabled it won't since the DX will block the emu until vblank. So in effect, we are swithing from syncing to sound to syncing to video . Just like bsnes has those two options.Hmmm, I thought turbo mode doesn't work while VSync is enabled in the latest beta (in windowed mode)... unless I'm missing something.
stay safe,
AamirM
Sources for 64bit being faster, especially in the 2d areaodditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.
http://winbeta.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=9186
http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vis ... hmark.html
3d results for 64bit are getting better and better with each new driver release, i have no source but IIRC either ATI or Nvidia already crossed the 32bit performance boundry
And those are just the perfomance reasons.
-64bit feels snappier in use
-64bit provides extra layers of security rendering a lot of exploits and virusses inert(more so in vista/server2008 and even more with DEP enabled)
When an application is coded with 64bit in mind or optimised compiled for 64bit it will be faster than the 32bit version, up to 2x faster.
You can easily see this being true when checking out the MAME benchmarks
Now if i had said that it would have been funny indeedDeathlike2 wrote:I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.
As Deathlike2 explained there is no emulation.ProtoKnux wrote:And AFAIK x64 and Vista 64 emulate 32 bit apps, so I don't think that statement is valid, but let's wait for a response.
You mean high truth, you chose the wrong imageGil_Hamilton wrote:
Times two.
It basically works the same as a Glide-Wrapper. This means more perfomance is some areas and a loss of performance in others.I.S.T. wrote:I think they translate it rather than emulate it, but I could be wrong.
On average perfomance is equal
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
Useless, it tells me nothing. You said 10x faster not 10% faster as quoted in one of your links.tetsuo55 wrote:Sources for 64bit being faster, especially in the 2d areaodditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.
http://winbeta.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=9186
http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vis ... hmark.html
Last I checked, there were still issues in simply getting it to work across the board.3d results for 64bit are getting better and better with each new driver release, i have no source but IIRC either ATI or Nvidia already crossed the 32bit performance boundry
What BS are you quoting?And those are just the perfomance reasons.
-64bit feels snappier in use
-64bit provides extra layers of security rendering a lot of exploits and virusses inert(more so in vista/server2008 and even more with DEP enabled)
When an application is coded with 64bit in mind or optimised compiled for 64bit it will be faster than the 32bit version, up to 2x faster.
No, Gil's on target.You mean high truth, you chose the wrong imageGil_Hamilton wrote:
Times two.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
Did you even bother actually looking at the benchmark result graph in the first link?Deathlike2 wrote:Useless, it tells me nothing. You said 10x faster not 10% faster as quoted in one of your links.
Especially lines, and shapes xp vs vista 64bit
Depends on how long ago you checked. Things have changed dramatically over the last 6-12 monthsDeathlike2 wrote:Last I checked, there were still issues in simply getting it to work across the board.
-Snappierness is from personal experience and hearsayDeathlike2 wrote:What BS are you quoting?Tetsuo55 wrote:And those are just the perfomance reasons.
-64bit feels snappier in use
-64bit provides extra layers of security rendering a lot of exploits and virusses inert(more so in vista/server2008 and even more with DEP enabled)
When an application is coded with 64bit in mind or optimised compiled for 64bit it will be faster than the 32bit version, up to 2x faster.
-Extra security:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
-Compiled for 64bit being faster:
http://mameui.classicgaming.gamespy.com/Bench.htm
Nope hes still completely wrong.Deathlike2 wrote:No, Gil's on target.Tetsuo55 wrote:You mean high truth, you chose the wrong imageGil_Hamilton wrote:
Times two.
----------
I fully understand the misconceptions over 64bit. But the last year has changed a lot for 64bit. The last 6 months have turned it into a slipstream.
People are taking it seriously to the point where some manufacturers supply vista-64 as the default os for their hardware.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/37279/135/
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
Let me repeat, I'm not misquoting you here, that's what you said.tetsuo55 wrote:64bit os's(expecially vista) is a LOT faster when it comes to 2d stuff. And which faster i mean up to 10x. This difference could be enough to eliminate some of the tearing.
Additionally, I cannot trust benchmarks that freaking use a 5400RPM hard drive as a test. Seriously, I don't care. In that same thread, other guys are refuting said test. Heck, none of these tests are really conclusive to anything other than real world experience would know.
I've read such driver reviews before.. there's never enough Vista drivers sucks threads in the proposed ATI+NVidia specific forums that never cease to amaze me.. if it's not "it sucks", it's "some game runs suckily".
I'm specificially question the following comments:
"-64bit feels snappier in use" - that's sheer opinion based on... what? it's not going to make everything magically better.
2x faster might mean something on a server, but in terms of games, not even close. Then again, 2x is not a number you're getting from a proper benchmark. A benchmark score doesn't mean a system is exactly x% faster in the proper sense of the word, especially when it has its own biases.When an application is coded with 64bit in mind or optimised compiled for 64bit it will be faster than the 32bit version, up to 2x faster.
Again, I'm not against 64-bit OSes, but I think you're completely exagerrating the benefits. I still use 100% 32-bit programs, so I could care less what insane propaganda to tell me that 64-bit is the way to go. 64-bit does not make stuff magically better as I said. I'd rather you not go saying that it makes your system fly into outer space... because that's not what it will do on its own.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
The link posted does show a 10x improvement in some individual benchmarks. But that doesn't really matter.
A better way to describe it would be:
Windows seems to respond instantly to commands, ALT+TAB's go smoothly and are fast. While gaming FPS is slightly lower but the average FPS is higher and while playing the game is noticably smoother(less stutters)
One of the reasons has to do with some memory allocation thing that i am currently unable to find a source for.
It basically has something to do with the way memory allocations are stored and the 64bit os can swith between them instantly where in a 32bit os the request would get stuck in a queue.
But i will give you that overall the 2d gain was not 10x, only for some of the functions.
You say you have read a bunch of reviews. Why don't you try it?
A better way to describe it would be:
Windows seems to respond instantly to commands, ALT+TAB's go smoothly and are fast. While gaming FPS is slightly lower but the average FPS is higher and while playing the game is noticably smoother(less stutters)
One of the reasons has to do with some memory allocation thing that i am currently unable to find a source for.
It basically has something to do with the way memory allocations are stored and the 64bit os can swith between them instantly where in a 32bit os the request would get stuck in a queue.
Thats what you're making out of something i have proven to be true.Deathlike2 wrote: I'd rather you not go saying that it makes your system fly into outer space... because that's not what it will do on its own.
But i will give you that overall the 2d gain was not 10x, only for some of the functions.
You say you have read a bunch of reviews. Why don't you try it?
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
That sounds more like what a fresh install of Windows would do, not what 64-bit does. I could easily experience that for any comp, with any OS that the system was optimal for. That tells me absolutely nothing.
There is absolutely no reason for me to switch. The reason when I switched from 98SE to 2k is to willingly forgo certain things I liked about 9x (well, some of the DOS only apps anyways). There is absolutely no compelling reason for me to switch. Until I have a reason for it, I won't switch. Stop trying.
There is absolutely no reason for me to switch. The reason when I switched from 98SE to 2k is to willingly forgo certain things I liked about 9x (well, some of the DOS only apps anyways). There is absolutely no compelling reason for me to switch. Until I have a reason for it, I won't switch. Stop trying.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...
I'm not trying to convince you to use 64bit.Deathlike2 wrote:That sounds more like what a fresh install of Windows would do, not what 64-bit does. I could easily experience that for any comp, with any OS that the system was optimal for. That tells me absolutely nothing.
There is absolutely no reason for me to switch. The reason when I switched from 98SE to 2k is to willingly forgo certain things I liked about 9x (well, some of the DOS only apps anyways). There is absolutely no compelling reason for me to switch. Until I have a reason for it, I won't switch. Stop trying.
I'm saying that your personal opinions on the speed of lack theroff of 64bit don't count untill you try it yourself.
PS
win98 beats 64bit in any benchmark with ease because both xp and vista are shit slow when compared to win98
Last edited by tetsuo55 on Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- ZSNES Developer
- Posts: 6747
- Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:47 am
Can you not get it through your thick skull? I'm not interested in migrating. I have no use for it at the moment. I don't care. I don't want any compatibility issues with what I have.tetsuo55 wrote:Even smoother than a fresh install of a 32bit windows, and the speed stays. Even with a bunch of applications running and after a long time of not formatting(6months)Deathlike2 wrote:That sounds more like what a fresh install of Windows would do, not what 64-bit does. I could easily experience that for any comp, with any OS that the system was optimal for. That tells me absolutely nothing.
In other words, stop trying to convince me otherwise.
Continuing [url=http://slickproductions.org/forum/index.php?board=13.0]FF4[/url] Research...