Emulators on Win 7 64 Bit

[Frostmourne]

Yeah, I know, but this one should do for a couple of years.

Thanks for all the help, guys.

Use the guides in my sig if you need help too.

 

[cloud8521]

ok my final word on what you can play is. anything up to PSx should be fine, but PS2 will be choppy and slow.

 

[smsff7]

ok my final word on what you can play is. anything up to PSx should be fine, but PS2 will be choppy and slow.

So you agree with me then

 

[Intelly]

Why would PS2 be choppy and slow? Is the problem with the graphics card or the OS?

It was somewhat slow and choppy when I played it on my computer a while ago (P4 3.0, 512 RAM, a crappy Intel Express Chipset. Now I've upgraded to 2.5 RAM and a "better" Intel video card), so I figured a Core 2 Due 2.2 with 4 GB RAM and a GT 230 1GB would be able to run it well.

But I don't play any PS2 games on the computer, so it doesn't really matter that much to me.

 

[cloud8521]

Why would PS2 be choppy and slow? Is the problem with the graphics card or the OS?

It was somewhat slow and choppy when I played it on my computer a while ago (P4 3.0, 512 RAM, a crappy Intel Express Chipset. Now I've upgraded to 2.5 RAM and a "better" Intel video card), so I figured a Core 2 Due 2.2 with 4 GB RAM and a GT 230 1GB would be able to run it well.

But I don't play any PS2 games on the computer, so it doesn't really matter that much to me.

cpu speed is the problem, the computer an emulator runs on must be have 10x the power of the original to work. it will only run on 1 thread even tho most have "munticore" options. and remember that you are on a intigrated mobile card which is not a plus in its own right, as for how much ram it has, it does not matter too much toward emulators.

 

[Intelly]

It's not a mobile card. I have a desktop with, as I mentioned earlier, an Intel 82945G Express Chipset (256 MB) and 2.5 GB RAM. I haven't tried a PS2 emulator with this one. I'll try it later and see how well it runs. If it's somewhat playable, then I figure the Toshiba Satellite A500-1DN would run it much better.

I have a friend with an HD 4550 and a PS2 emulator. The GT 230 is better than his graphics card, right? I'll ask him how well he runs the PS2 emulator.

 

[cloud8521]

It's not a mobile card. I have a desktop with, as I mentioned earlier, an Intel 82945G Express Chipset (256 MB) and 2.5 GB RAM. I haven't tried a PS2 emulator with this one. I'll try it later and see how well it runs. If it's somewhat playable, then I figure the Toshiba Satellite A500-1DN would run it much better.

I have a friend with an HD 4550 and a PS2 emulator. The GT 230 is better than his graphics card, right? I'll ask him how well he runs the PS2 emulator.

it is a mobile card NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 230M. the m stands for mobile. laptops cant use discrete cards without a expensive external adaptor. infact according to reviews i am looking at it is really slow, with all settings on high Call of duty 2 only reaches 13 fps, my card blazes past that on high at max fps. plus PS2 emulators are more reliant on the cpu then the gpu

 

[Intelly]

Oh, you were talking about the new laptop? I thought you were referring to the video card I have at the moment.

 

[Intelly]

infact according to reviews i am looking at it is really slow, with all settings on high Call of duty 2 only reaches 13 fps

But, according to Notebook Check (and others, but I have these three pages favorited), the GT 230 is pretty good.

Notebookcheck: Comparison of Graphic Cards
Notebookcheck: Computer Games on Laptop Graphic Cards
Notebookcheck: NVIDIA GeForce GT 230M

 

[Frostmourne]

You shouldn't have any problems with the GPU, but as I've said the CPU is a bottleneck - however the PS2 emulators are still pretty crap, so the situation will improve, eventually.

 

[Intelly]

How good/bad is the CPU? I won't really be using it for high-end games, so I don't see why it'd be important to have anything better than Core 2 Due 2.2.

 

[Frostmourne]

2.2GHz is slow. You'd want 2.6GHz+, every extra cycle counts.

 

[cloud8521]

i know when i has a 2.4 it was slow, so i got a 3.1 and the game smoothed out just fine

 

[Frostmourne]

i know when i has a 2.4 it was slow, so i got a 3.1 and the game smoothed out just fine

Agreed, although clock speed is only one part. You also need cache - you have 6MB L3 - and architecture. The Phenom 550 has the right extensions and pipeline. I would know - I have the same CPU in my gaming system.

 

[cloud8521]

i know when i has a 2.4 it was slow, so i got a 3.1 and the game smoothed out just fine

Agreed, although clock speed is only one part. You also need cache - you have 6MB L3 - and architecture. The Phenom 550 has the right extensions and pipeline. I would know - I have the same CPU in my gaming system.

yes thats true too, plus unlocking it doesn't hurt

 

[Frostmourne]

i know when i has a 2.4 it was slow, so i got a 3.1 and the game smoothed out just fine

Agreed, although clock speed is only one part. You also need cache - you have 6MB L3 - and architecture. The Phenom 550 has the right extensions and pipeline. I would know - I have the same CPU in my gaming system.

yes thats true too, plus unlocking it doesn't hurt

I can't be bothered. I'll upgrade to quad or six core instead if I want.

 

[cloud8521]

Agreed, although clock speed is only one part. You also need cache - you have 6MB L3 - and architecture. The Phenom 550 has the right extensions and pipeline. I would know - I have the same CPU in my gaming system.

yes thats true too, plus unlocking it doesn't hurt

I can't be bothered. I'll upgrade to quad or six core instead if I want.

its hardly a bother, it is essentially a quad only took me $25 and 2 changes in the bios, viola instant quad-core. no other changes on my part. i guess i am also poor lol

 

[Frostmourne]

yes thats true too, plus unlocking it doesn't hurt

I can't be bothered. I'll upgrade to quad or six core instead if I want.

its hardly a bother, it is essentially a quad only took me $25 and 2 changes in the bios, viola instant quad-core. no other changes on my part. i guess i am also poor lol

LOL.

 

[cloud8521]

I can't be bothered. I'll upgrade to quad or six core instead if I want.

its hardly a bother, it is essentially a quad only took me $25 and 2 changes in the bios, viola instant quad-core. no other changes on my part. i guess i am also poor lol

LOL.

well it would cost me 25$ for a new heat-sink if i wasn't poor all i can get is a tricore otherwise i run risk of overheat,

 

[Frostmourne]

Overheating? Maybe.