no tegra incorporates the CPU, GPU, etc all on one chip. Although CPU is important to emulation most emulators don't rely solely on the CPU that would be ridiculous, and horrendously slow. The GPU is used aswell. Both are equally important. The DS also has a lower polycount limit than the N64.Rydian said:
Do you know what both of them are?Painguy said:no tegra incorporates the CPU, GPU, etc all on one chip. Although CPU is important to emulation most emulators don't rely solely on the CPU that would be ridiculous, and horrendously slow. The GPU is used aswell. Both are equally important.No, the GPU isn't even used unless the system you're emulating has hardware-accelerated graphics, and even then the processor is far, far, far more important, since emulation itself is not an inherently parallel task. In fact many emulators for a range of systems still run on a single-core, and if they do have multi-core supported, it's in the testing phase at the most. The graphics on a console are not nearly as demanding as PC graphics, it's the emulation of the system itself that the processor is tasked with, the GPU just get normal graphics instructions.
Take your TV and put it right next to your monitor, and play the same game on high quality settings on both the console and your computer, see which one looks better.Most people simply don't realize how shitty the graphics on most consoles are because they're typically viewing them from across the room, whereas you're only a few feet away from your monitor in most cases.
PJ64 requires a P3@800mhz at minimum. That scores about 191 on passmark.
My processor (AMD Athlon XP 2800+) scores 446 on passmark, but I run into some audio stuttering and game slowdowns in some games which are known to have high requirements.
It also requires a video card supporting direct7 at minimum.
My card's a GeForce 6200 A-LE, it scores 46 on passmark... and I can play N64 games with it at a much higher resolution than normal, with texture blending, and FSAA on about x4.
QUOTE(Painguy @ May 3 2010, 12:17 AM) The DS also has a lower polycount limit than the N64.
Rydian said:No, the GPU isn't even used unless the system you're emulating has hardware-accelerated graphics, and even then the processor is far, far, far more important, since emulation itself is not an inherently parallel task. In fact many emulators for a range of systems still run on a single-core, and if they do have multi-core supported, it's in the testing phase at the most. The graphics on a console are not nearly as demanding as PC graphics, it's the emulation of the system itself that the processor is tasked with, the GPU just get normal graphics instructions.
Take your TV and put it right next to your monitor, and play the same game on high quality settings on both the console and your computer, see which one looks better.Most people simply don't realize how shitty the graphics on most consoles are because they're typically viewing them from across the room, whereas you're only a few feet away from your monitor in most cases.
PJ64 requires a P3@800mhz at minimum. That scores about 191 on passmark.
My processor (AMD Athlon XP 2800+) scores 446 on passmark, but I run into some audio stuttering and game slowdowns in some games which are known to have high requirements.
It also requires a video card supporting direct7 at minimum.
My card's a GeForce 6200 A-LE, it scores 46 on passmark... and I can play N64 games with it at a much higher resolution than normal, with texture blending, and FSAA on about x4.
Do you know what both of them are?
Painguy said:Rydian said:No, the GPU isn't even used unless the system you're emulating has hardware-accelerated graphics, and even then the processor is far, far, far more important, since emulation itself is not an inherently parallel task. In fact many emulators for a range of systems still run on a single-core, and if they do have multi-core supported, it's in the testing phase at the most. The graphics on a console are not nearly as demanding as PC graphics, it's the emulation of the system itself that the processor is tasked with, the GPU just get normal graphics instructions.
Take your TV and put it right next to your monitor, and play the same game on high quality settings on both the console and your computer, see which one looks better.Most people simply don't realize how shitty the graphics on most consoles are because they're typically viewing them from across the room, whereas you're only a few feet away from your monitor in most cases.
PJ64 requires a P3@800mhz at minimum. That scores about 191 on passmark.
My processor (AMD Athlon XP 2800+) scores 446 on passmark, but I run into some audio stuttering and game slowdowns in some games which are known to have high requirements.
It also requires a video card supporting direct7 at minimum.
My card's a GeForce 6200 A-LE, it scores 46 on passmark... and I can play N64 games with it at a much higher resolution than normal, with texture blending, and FSAA on about x4.
Do you know what both of them are?
The CPU is the most important at times, but the GPU is equally important if not more important. Its all subjective to the game, and it also depends on the System architecture. System architecture is something alot of people forget when comparing specs. They assume that numbers can directly be compared to PC numbers as if the device was essentially using PC hardware and that no other type exists. With the n64 the GPU is just as badly designed as teh CPU. The GPU does not get normal graphic functions that the console proccesses. The code has to be translated into something a PC GPU can understand. Thats why we have plugins for DX and OpenGL. They are essentially wrappers that convert the code into native code. How demanding graphics are is just a part of it, like i siad before the architecture of the chipset plays a big role. According to ur logic i should easly be able to emulate the wii, GC, PS2 or DC without any graphical issues or slowdowns. That sadly is not the case. The PS2 had the weakest hardware last gen yet it is the second hardest system to emulate. A large portion of this is because of translating GPU code into native PC GPU code. try a PS2 emulator, and switch from a DX9 plugin to DX10. You will see a HUGE difference in performance. You cant just assume that u can emulate something just because device 1 is 20x stronger than device 2. Take the wii for example it certainly does not have graphics anywhere near PC level, but for some odd reason when i run it on my PC it works horribly. Try switching plugins from OpenGL to DX9 and u will see significant difference is in performance. Im not saying CPU isnt imporant. It is infact the most important thing in emulation, BUT the GPU has recently become just as important if not more important in some cases. As for DS poly limits. according to some developer documentation it has a Poly limit of 2048 per screen assuming both screens are proccessing 3d data. If not then double the count in the top screen. The n64 on the other hand had a poly limit of 600,000 (most games never reached this level because of the decrease in graphical quality). Huge difference. The DS also lacks proper lighting features that the n64 had. The DS is far from have n64 level graphics.
No it's not. Let me take some real-world examples.Painguy said:
all those systems u mentioned were more CPU intensive then graphically intensive. Modern systems are graphically intensive PSX as the exception. We are talking about the N64 emulation on the Tegra 2. Bringing in those other systems is pointless and doesnt prove anything. The GPU is the bottle neck not the CPU. once again u keep insisting that architecture doesn't play a role. It ALWAYs plays a role, doesnt matter whether its emulation or native applications for the console. There is no theory I am givint you "real world" factsRydian said:
Painguy said:all those systems u mentioned were more CPU intensive then graphically intensive. Modern systems are graphically intensive PSX as the exception.Since the rest of your post seems to hinge on this (as the last poster showed, PLEASE use paragraphs and lines to separate your content, it's really hard to read right now), I'm going to have to call BS and demand proof. Proof in actual numbers and third-party links and results. Anecdotal Evidence is not proof.
But sure, yes, let's go onto N64 emulation, since you seem determined to undermine yourself.
As I originally stated, my computer with a GeForce 6200 graphics card (a score of 46 on passmark) and an Athlon XP 2800+ (a score of 446 on passmark) can play N64 games fine at greatly increased resolutions and with AA and texture filtering (all depending on the graphics card)... However there are some games that do not run at full speed all the time, these games (such as Rush 2049) cause high CPU usage and can lag. They are noted in PJ64 as "high requirements".
- You'll notice that Goldeneye states no plugin issues, it's a "core" issue, meaning emulation of the CPU.
- Gauntlet states the same, though there's a flicker/display issue with the default plugin, not a speed one.
- Mario Golf again has high requirements, and it's video issue is listed as... QUOTE(http://www.pj64-emu.com/by-game/)Mini Golf mode: while you're moving, the graphics are fine, but when you hold still, the framebuffer is used, and then there's a problem that makes the yellow "walls" show through the ground and partly obscure the view.
Ok u dont seem to understand my argument. Your original reply to mine stated that the GPU is not used at all in most cases. Im trying to tell you otherwise. Now it sounds like you are acknowledging the fact that the GPU plays an important role. Now about the core u brought up. Core doesnt refer to CPU only. Core refers to the virtual machine as a whole. Try software rendering and u will see that there is no graphical glitches nor any errors at all. everything is perfect. All these emulation issues are caused by the additional plugins used to speed up the gameplay. The only plugins we have are video, audio, and control. These are the issues. There is nothing for teh CPU. Like i siad software rendering is perfect with the exception of speed. Goldeneye certainly does not have a high CPU requirement compared to the GPU.. Rush is one of the only CPU intensive game as that uses advance physics (for its time). Gauntlet has a flickering issue (z-fighting in 3d terms) which is caused by the GPU (an issue caused by the plugins) try running the game in software and it wont occur at all. Once again Framebuffer is GPU related, and the opacity of the walls in mario golf is improper rendering of a texture. Its not CPU related where the 3d mesh has been deformed due to the CPU's inability locate coordinates and such. All of these issues disappear when the emulator is run in software mode. Also there is no way u should have problems emulating with a 6200, and an atholon XP (unless ur running in high resolution. try switching between different plugins and the issues will vary. Those notes only represent the result of one user using the default setup, and do not account for the emulation as a whole. Aside from advance physics etc one other area where the CPU does actually pose a problem (for the n64) is certain errors and glitches. For example in OOT in the beta world certain paths give errors when u enter them during emulation compared to native gameplay on a N64 where they dont. This is an issue caused by the CPU. i do not have a theory, i have facts. Like i said before i acknowledge teh CPU is important, but the GPU is just as important especially in modern systems like the N64. i dont know why its so hard for you to acknowledge that. Seriously just try software rendering, and different video plugins, compare and ull will see what i mean.Rydian said:Painguy said:all those systems u mentioned were more CPU intensive then graphically intensive. Modern systems are graphically intensive PSX as the exception.Since the rest of your post seems to hinge on this (as the last poster showed, PLEASE use paragraphs and lines to separate your content, it's really hard to read right now), I'm going to have to call BS and demand proof. Proof in actual numbers and third-party links and results. Anecdotal Evidence is not proof.
But sure, yes, let's go onto N64 emulation, since you seem determined to undermine yourself.
As I originally stated, my computer with a GeForce 6200 graphics card (a score of 46 on passmark) and an Athlon XP 2800+ (a score of 446 on passmark) can play N64 games fine at greatly increased resolutions and with AA and texture filtering (all depending on the graphics card)... However there are some games that do not run at full speed all the time, these games (such as Rush 2049) cause high CPU usage and can lag. They are noted in PJ64 as "high requirements".
- You'll notice that Goldeneye states no plugin issues, it's a "core" issue, meaning emulation of the CPU.
- Gauntlet states the same, though there's a flicker/display issue with the default plugin, not a speed one.
- Mario Golf again has high requirements, and it's video issue is listed as... QUOTE(http://www.pj64-emu.com/by-game/)Mini Golf mode: while you're moving, the graphics are fine, but when you hold still, the framebuffer is used, and then there's a problem that makes the yellow "walls" show through the ground and partly obscure the view.
Again, I'm not stating theory, passmark is benchmarking software, I'm telling you about actual real-world benchmarks and numerical results of running benchmarks and emulators. You have theory on your side, I have hard numbers and actual emulator documentation on mine. Maybe, JUST MAYBE you're wrong.
- Which has nothing to do with speed, so it's high requirement again is the CPU.
That's nothing special.Rydian said:No, it's power has not been stated, any "it's better than X" is a rumor, nothing more than a guess.
Yes it has, 4.6V I believe. Same as the DSi.
There's no reason to assume Nintendo won't be able to do N64 VC games on this, it should have enough grunt to that. An emulator developed inhouse by Nintendo should be a lot more efficient than a emulator developed by a 'bedroom coder'.
You only have to go through the emulators over the years, and sometimes you can come across one which has far better efficiency than it's peers. It's all down to the coding.
According to the spec sheet for the r4300i CPU: http://gshi.org/eh/documents/r4300i_datasheet.pdf
QUOTEHigh Performance at 100MHz:
• 60 SPECint92
• 45 SPECfp92
Okay, I laughed, thank you. XDtk_saturn said:Yes it has, 4.6V I believe. Same as the DSi.Rydian said:
