Gaming Why does my PC emulate GC/Wii and PS2 so slowly

[the_randomizer]

What about this Laptop?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221051497371?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

You're better off getting a desktop. Less heat, easier to upgrade and aren't as limited. I have a laptop that can run Dolphin pretty well, but heat is major issue, causing the CPU to go up to 90 Celsius, even though I have a dedicated GPU in the thing. It's a Lenovo IdeaPad Y570. It's gets the job done, but heat can be an issue if you game on laptops. The machine I have now cost me $1100, but it has a third gen Core i5 3570, 2 GB nVidia GTX 660 GDDR5 GPU, 1 TB 7200 RPM HDD, 8 GB DDR3 SDRAM and a 23" LED monitor (among a few other things). It runs Dolphin beautifully, but even then, some games can't run if you don't overclock to 4.5 GHz.

 

[henn64]

OK, so my PC runs Dolphin and PCSX2 rather poorly. Games run around 30-40FPS, doesn't really feel playable. Now, I ask the question because my friend has a laptop with these specs and can run both emulators fine:

While my laptop's specs are:

1.5 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz. Duh.

 

[the_randomizer]

1.5 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz. Duh.

Ah, the MHz Myth.

 

[Foxi4]

1.5 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz. Duh.

Mhz Myth at work - the AMD A8 3500M is actually quad core wheras the i3 is dual core (with four logical cores, so it appears quad in windows). Moreover, I'm pretty sure it's scalable between 1,5Ghz and 2,4GHz, so that goes out the window anyways. The bigger problem here is their processing power measured in MIPS.

In any case, the i3 is a full-scale CPU with higher processing power wheras the A8 is a mobile processor used in HTPC's and Netbooks and its focus is lower power consumption, it's much weaker than the i3.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

Your problem is that you have an AMD APU. Even if it was the same CPU clock as your buddy, AMD APUs are way weaker.
My old Core 2 Duo 2.66ghz ran PCSX2 fine with just a GeForce 8600GT.
GC/Wii games however are much harder to emulate, they're more dependant on the GPU than PS2 games, but also require more CPU power.
Intel HD Graphics are also rather poor and are far too inadequate to run any GC/Wii games well. PS2 games should fare much better.

Mhz Myth at work - the AMD A8 3500M is actually quad core wheras the i3 is dual core (with four logical cores, so it appears quad in windows). Moreover, I'm pretty sure it's scalable between 1,5Ghz and 2,4GHz, so that goes out the window anyways. The bigger problem here is their processing power measured in MIPS.

In any case, the i3 is a full-scale CPU with higher processing power wheras the A8 is a mobile processor used in HTPC's and Netbooks and its focus is lower power consumption, it's much weaker than the i3.

4 cores in this case doesn't help at all, emulators don't take advantage of it.
Even if they did, his AMD APU would still be weaker.

 

[WiiUBricker]

I have an i5 with an intel graphics card and emulators run fine (notebook).

 

[henn64]

Mhz Myth at work - the AMD A8 3500M is actually quad core wheras the i3 is dual core (with four logical cores, so it appears quad in windows). Moreover, I'm pretty sure it's scalable between 1,5Ghz and 2,4GHz, so that goes out the window anyways. The bigger problem here is their processing power measured in MIPS.

In any case, the i3 is a full-scale CPU with higher processing power wheras the A8 is a mobile processor used in HTPC's and Netbooks and its focus is lower power consumption, it's much weaker than the i3.

Uhhh, Intel Turbo Boost anyone? i3 2.4GHz + ITB = 3.4 PER CORE. Not kidding, It HAS happened. Even up to 3.6GHz D:. Also read The Real Jdbye's post above.

 

[Foxi4]

Uhhh, Intel Turbo Boost anyone? i3 2.4GHz + ITB = 3.4 PER CORE. Not kidding, It HAS happened.

...and? That doesn't matter, a 2GHz CPU of today is still going to be faster than a 2GHz CPU of the past - GHz are a measure of cycles a CPU performs per second, not a measure of how much it actually does. You're interested in Instructions Per Second, or to be more accurate, Millions of Instructions Per Second, which is MIPS.

A theoretical CPU which performs 10 cycles and does 5 operations (10x5 = 50) each cycle is going to be faster than a CPU which performs 20 cycles, but only 1 operation per cycle (20x1 = 20). This is why GHz are not used as a measure of computational power.

 

[henn64]

...and? That doesn't matter, a 2GHz CPU of today is still going to be faster than a 2GHz CPU of the past - GHz are a measure of cycles a CPU performs per second, not a measure of how much it actually does. You're interested in Instructions Per Second, or to be more accurate, Millions of Instructions Per Second, which is MIPS.

A theoretical CPU which performs 10 cycles and does 5 operations (10x5 = 50) each cycle is going to be faster than a CPU which performs 20 cycles, but only 1 operation per cycle (20x1 = 20). This is why GHz are not used as a measure of computational power.

Ahem *Cough* This?

Your problem is that you have an AMD APU. Even if it was the same CPU clock as your buddy, AMD APUs are way weaker.
My old Core 2 Duo 2.66ghz ran PCSX2 fine with just a GeForce 8600GT.
GC/Wii games however are much harder to emulate, they're more dependant on the GPU than PS2 games, but also require more CPU power.
Intel HD Graphics are also rather poor and are far too inadequate to run any GC/Wii games well. PS2 games should fare much better.


4 cores in this case doesn't help at all, emulators don't take advantage of it.
Even if they did, his AMD APU would still be weaker.

 

[Foxi4]

Ahem *Cough* This?

Exactly. Even with the same clock speed, the APU is going to be weaker because it's a low power consumption mobile CPU - that's what I was continuously arguing.

 

[henn64]

Exactly. Even with the same clock speed, the APU is going to be weaker because it's a low power consumption mobile CPU - that's what I was continuously arguing.

The fact that i3s are shit anyway? Might as well add CPU thread arguments, too. How about Radeons being used (or even made) for games?

 

[Foxi4]

The fact that i3s are shit anyway?

They're definitely miles better than netbook-grade CPU's like the A8, I don't have any problems with my i3.

As for "Radeons used in games", I take it you mean GPGPU, meaning using the GPU to calculate floating point, which does help the CPU out a lot - CPU's are mainly made with integer math in mind, GPU's on the other hand specialize in floating point, so it's only logical to do such a thing - using specialized cores is definitely a step in the right direction, much like moving from single to multicore and stopping the GHz race was a generation earlier. Unfortunately, it's not widely supported yet, but I hope developers will start taking advantage of it en masse.

 

[henn64]

They're definitely miles better than netbook-grade CPU's like the A8, I don't have any problems with my i3.

As for "Radeons used in games", I take it you mean GPGPU, meaning using the GPU to calculate floating point, which does help the CPU out a lot - CPU's are mainly made with integer math in mind, GPU's on the other hand specialize in floating point, so it's only logical to do such a thing - using specialized cores is definitely a step in the right direction, much like moving from single to multicore and stopping the GHz race was a generation earlier. Unfortunately, it's not widely supported yet, but I hope developers will start taking advantage of it en masse.

Yeah, the whole Radeon thing was not very serious. More focusing on Threads which I am actually quite interested in after thinking about it.
But really, Turbo Boost I find is better for Intel than the AMD version (TurboCore I think). It is what allows Sonic Generations to run on an i7 2670QM(2.20GHz Laptop) with an HD 3000 at 97% (which is usually running at 10fps by just WALKING in front of Chemical Plant). i3s work better for me than AMDs too. Maybe I just have a crap ton of luck though.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, the whole Radeon thing was not very serious. More focusing on Threads which I am actually quite interested in after thinking about it.
But really, Turbo Boost I find is better for Intel than the AMD version. It is what allows Sonic Generations to run on an i7 (2.20GHz) with an HD 3000 at 97% (which is usually running at 10fps by just WALKING in front of Chemical Plant). i3s work better for me than AMDs too. Maybe I just have a crap ton of luck though.

Intel processors are generally well-known for being more efficient at lower clock speeds, AMD's strong point is that they're low-cost - they pack a punch for the buck and they generally tend to work better in conjunction with Radeon GPU's (well, d'uh). To me though, a high-end or mid-end will always be an Intel+NVidia combo.

 

[henn64]

Intel processors are generally well-known for being more efficient at lower clock speeds, AMD's strong point is that they're low-cost - they pack a punch for the buck and they generally tend to work better in conjunction with Radeon GPU's (well, d'uh). To me though, a high-end or mid-end will always be an Intel+NVidia combo.

"It [Intel Turbo Boost] is what allows Sonic Generations to run on an i7 (2.20GHz) with an HD 3000 at 97% (which is usually running at 10fps by just WALKING in front of Chemical Plant)."
Dude. Laptop. It is a 2670QM in a Toshiba Satellite.
Found this later:

gaming on a laptop?


pathetic. enjoy your not really portable system with 15" screens, trackpads and shitty mobile gpus.

Compared to OP and friend both having Desktops AFAIK.

 

[SAimNE]

actually the amd apus are known to be one of the best things to happen to the mid grade market in a LOOOONG time.... if you know how to work with them they can be amazing, they dont generate a lot of heat, and as i've said i have a mid grade mobile llano that is capable of running pcsx2 all by itself... trinity is already amazing, and the prospected specs on kaveri will flat out floor you. i can't argue that amd lost the highend market entirely thanks to that travesty called bulldozer, but in mid range and mobile markets the apu is one of the best things you can buy.

(also in the original thing you can overclock an amd a8-3500m to 2.4ghz using catalyst... you dont even have to do any actual overclocking. it basically just makes it keep turbo enabled. assuming you have a decent cooling pad most laptops can handle the heat given as well.... but still it doesnt stack up to the trinity apus... or the richlands that will be out soon, and especially not the kaveri that made a LOT of changes to the original design)

also richland apus will crossfire with 7750(based on the fact that with the new beta drivers you can crossfire a trinity a10 with a 7750 now) so their performance is increasing steadily. and kaveri is supposed to be able to crossfire with the 7000 and 8000 series.... plus if people come out with new versions of ram to better emphasize the needs of an apu(sorta like how GDDR5 is for gpus) that performance will increase insanely.... if you dont believe that just look at what happens to the gaming performance when you buy a set of decent ram... it can hit like 150% in comparison to stock ram. So anyway the apus are already an impressive technology and are only going to get better with advancements in hardware, and a lot of testing via the consoles.

 

[Foxi4]

*Snip!*

Why yes, APU's are fun and dandy - they are indeed great at saving power, they do their job and they do so with a very small footprint, plus they're incredibly cheap - nobody says they aren't. That being said though, they're not exactly gaming-grade or emulation-grade hardware (yet) and that's the underlying theme of the thread.

 

[trumpet-205]

also richland apus will crossfire with 7750(based on the fact that with the new beta drivers you can crossfire a trinity a10 with a 7750 now) so their performance is increasing steadily. and kaveri is supposed to be able to crossfire with the 7000 and 8000 series.... .

Last time I check you CANNOT crossfire 7750 with an APU.

Both Trinity and Richland are using VLIW4 from HD6000 series. HD7700+ series is using GCN instead. It is impossible to do crossfire on between VLIW4 and GCN together.

You have to wait for Kaveri (by then it will only crossfire with HD8000 series). In any case crossfire introduces too many problems that on low end GPU such as APU it is not worth it. Not to mentioned that emulators such as PCSX2 will never take advantage of crossfire.

Both SLI and Crossfire will only work on games that have respective profiles built into the driver, for those that don't your second GPU will be on idle during gaming.

 

[Foxi4]

Last time I check you CANNOT crossfire 7750 with an APU.

Both Trinity and Richland are using VLIW4 from HD6000 series. HD7700+ series is using GCN instead. It is impossible to do crossfire on between VLIW4 and GCN together.

You have to wait for Kaveri (by then it will only crossfire with HD8000 series). In any case crossfire introduces too many problems that on low end GPU such as APU it is not worth it,

He did mention the use of some kind of new beta drivers.

 

[trumpet-205]

He did mention the use of some kind of new beta drivers.

The latest beta driver adds support of 7790 and 7990 as well as couple crossfire profiles for newer released games. It does not introduce the ability of APU crossfire to a GCN GPU (and very doubtful it will ever be possible).

Unless he/she works for AMD and has some unofficial drivers.

 

[Foxi4]

The latest beta driver adds support of 7790 and 7990 as well as couple crossfire profiles for newer released games. It does not introduce the ability of APU crossfire to a GCN GPU (and very doubtful it will ever be possible).

Unless he/she works for AMD and has some unofficial drivers.

I'm sure he'll elaborate once he sees these posts, I'm interested myself (and honestly can't be arsed to look for'em ).