Megadrive Emulation - Gives me headaches

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:05 am

*hangs head in shame*
I shoulda known that.

AamirM · Post by **AamirM** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:13 am

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

franpa · Post by **franpa** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:20 am

maybe MD emulators display at a odd ball frequency?

ProtoKnux · Post by **ProtoKnux** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:27 am

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 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.

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

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.

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.

AamirM · Post by **AamirM** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:52 am

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

ProtoKnux · Post by **ProtoKnux** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:09 pm

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

I have tried that, and I have even more frame skips and now sound skips (I hadn't before). Does that help?

Post by **odditude** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:46 pm

ProtoKnux wrote:
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 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.

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."

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.

AamirM · Post by **AamirM** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 3:51 pm

Hi,

I have tried that, and I have even more frame skips and now sound skips (I hadn't before). Does that help?

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

.

stay safe,

AamirM

tetsuo55 · Post by **tetsuo55** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:45 pm

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

Post by **odditude** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:51 pm

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.

where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:58 pm

odditude wrote:
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.
where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.

I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.

ProtoKnux · Post by **ProtoKnux** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 7:39 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:
odditude wrote:
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.
where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.
I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.

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.

Gil_Hamilton · Post by **Gil_Hamilton** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:40 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.S.T. · Post by **I.S.T.** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:38 pm

ProtoKnux wrote:
Deathlike2 wrote:
odditude wrote:
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.
where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.
I'm just wondering where this crappy info comes from. Really, it's just a funny as Quad-Core means stuff is 4x faster.
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.

I think they translate it rather than emulate it, but I could be wrong.

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:42 pm

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.

King Of Chaos · Post by **King Of Chaos** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:36 am

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?

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 · Post by **AamirM** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:56 am

Hi,

Hmmm, I thought turbo mode doesn't work while VSync is enabled in the latest beta (in windowed mode)... unless I'm missing something.

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.

stay safe,

AamirM

tetsuo55 · Post by **tetsuo55** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:45 am

odditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.

Sources for 64bit being faster, especially in the 2d area

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

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.

Now if i had said that it would have been funny indeed

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.

As Deathlike2 explained there is no emulation.

Gil_Hamilton wrote:

Times two.

You mean high truth, you chose the wrong image

I.S.T. wrote:I think they translate it rather than emulate it, but I could be wrong.

It basically works the same as a Glide-Wrapper. This means more perfomance is some areas and a loss of performance in others.

On average perfomance is equal

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:33 pm

tetsuo55 wrote:
odditude wrote:where did you come up with that information..? cite sources, please.
Sources for 64bit being faster, especially in the 2d area

http://winbeta.org/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=34&t=9186

http://64-bit-computers.com/windows-vis ... hmark.html

Useless, it tells me nothing. You said 10x faster not 10% faster as quoted in one of your links.

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

Last I checked, there were still issues in simply getting it to work across the board.

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.

What BS are you quoting?

Gil_Hamilton wrote:

Times two.
You mean high truth, you chose the wrong image

No, Gil's on target.

tetsuo55 · Post by **tetsuo55** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:49 pm

Deathlike2 wrote:Useless, it tells me nothing. You said 10x faster not 10% faster as quoted in one of your links.

Did you even bother actually looking at the benchmark result graph in the first link?

Especially lines, and shapes xp vs vista 64bit

Deathlike2 wrote:Last I checked, there were still issues in simply getting it to work across the board.

Depends on how long ago you checked. Things have changed dramatically over the last 6-12 months

Deathlike2 wrote:
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.
What BS are you quoting?

-Snappierness is from personal experience and hearsay
-Extra security:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
-Compiled for 64bit being faster:
http://mameui.classicgaming.gamespy.com/Bench.htm

Deathlike2 wrote:
Tetsuo55 wrote:
Gil_Hamilton wrote:

Times two.
You mean high truth, you chose the wrong image
No, Gil's on target.

Nope hes still completely wrong.

----------

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/

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:15 pm

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.

Let me repeat, I'm not misquoting you here, that's what you said.

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.

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.

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.

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.

tetsuo55 · Post by **tetsuo55** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:45 pm

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.

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.

Thats what you're making out of something i have proven to be true.

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?

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:52 pm

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.

tetsuo55 · Post by **tetsuo55** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:01 pm

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 not trying to convince you to use 64bit.
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

Deathlike2 · Post by **Deathlike2** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:04 pm

tetsuo55 wrote:
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.
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)

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.

In other words, stop trying to convince me otherwise.