PSX Emulator (FAO Jari, Dag & Friends)

  • Thread starter Thread starter NightStar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
some more C VGS news:
looks like sonys out of court settlement might be good or bad, SCE plan to aquire all PSX emulation technologies as of 1 of july 2001, while connectix will be part of a joint program for SCE and playstation emulation.
whats that mean? dont ask me!
check out the details at [url="<a]http://www.psxemu.com[/url]" TARGET=_blank>www.psxemu.com
skillster
 
That'd be hard to get all of them and even then what happens if someone releseas a new one?
 
That makes it clearer, that should mean a good but probably overpriced emu though
 
no no no, u dont see the whole picture.
sony aquiring these assets sets them up tp either dump them, use them internally for softDev or even use it in research in their fight against emulation of the PSX/PS2 (cos PS2 emulation WILL happen, just a matter of time).
But then again there maybe somegood coming out of it,
i feel sony just "bought" VGS so they r out of their way, cos with Joshua helping sony couldnt win in court so they just did a micro$oft and bought them out!!  :D
 
have u heard what sony MIGHT be doing with the VGS technologies?
check it out at [url="<a]http://www.psxemu.com[/url]" TARGET=_blank>www.psxemu.com
 
seems to me that if that were to happen it would be accepting that not enough people are going to buy the PS2 to warrant re-releasing or continued production of psx games
 
Damn.. I was sent to an emergency outstation work in Singapore, so this late reply ( all the way from Singapore too ). So if I can reply fast enough, well I got lot of work to do.
I'll ask again: Why does your UDMA100 only get 40MB/s (faster than mine, yes, but still nowhere near 100MB/s) if it's not due to the physical construction? The bus can transfer over 100MB/s. The UDMA standard can transfer 100MB/s. Yet you've just said you're only getting 40. Could it be, perhaps, that the drive can only attain 40MB/s?
Click to expand...
The bus can transfer 100Mb/s, but as what I've said earlier, PCI bus are used by peripherals like internal modem, NIC, soundcard etc. so not all 100MB/s could be used for HDD transfer. Thus 40Mb/s at best.
UDMA100 HDD won't ever do 100MB/s either, but it could do a lot higher than 20MB/s.


Oh, and in case you want to check up about hard disks: [url="<a]http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/personal/family/0,1128,234,00.html[/url]" TARGET=_blank>http://www.seagate.com/cda/products/discsales/personal/family/0,1128,234,00.html  
 [url="<a]http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl/desk/ds75gxp.htm[/url]" TARGET=_blank>http://www.storage.ibm.com/hardsoft/diskdrdl/desk/ds75gxp.htm  The first link is the datasheet for a Seagate drive supporting UDMA66. It states the average data transfer rate is 20MB/s, the interface supports the full 66MB/s though.

The second link is the datasheet for an IBM UDMA100 drive. It supports the standard properly, but the maximum sustainable data transfer is given as 40MB/s.
Click to expand...
The IBM figure were tested on a standard computer ( with all the bottlenecks in it ). Did you think that IBM ( or any other HDD companies on this matter ), will use their own  measurement device, take the numbers from it and use it as a marketing/tech spec data? No! If any company do such things, they will get their ass hauled to court for misleading the customers.


I didn't pick these drives out on purpose; they were the first two UDMA drives I found. Now, since the manufacturers seem to say that it's the hard disk that can't use the full bandwidth, how are you claiming its not?
Click to expand...
You take it wrong again. The HDD, at least from IBM could use all the bandwidth left, up to the HDD own limitations ( IBM GXP series could do 60-70MB/s in sustained transfer rate - lab report ). But current PC architecture don't permit such events from happening. As all the HDD will be used on PCs anyway, the manufacturers ( or at least IBM ) WON'T CLAIM that their HDD can attain theoritical UDMA33/66/100 speeds because of possible legal issues.
 
But I'm not using a NIC, soundcard, modem, video capture card or in fact *anything* else while doing these tests. Neither will IBM be. So what's soaking up the remaining bandwidth?Also, you'll notice that hard drive rotation speeds are increasing. Most are (or used to be) 5400rpm, now we're seeing 7000rpm or so, even 10000rpm on some. The increased rotation speed gives faster data transfer. If the hard drives were already being throttled by the bus, why on earth would they bother to rotate them faster? After all, the bus is already maxed out, so they can't send any more data! Conclusion: The bus *isn't* maxed out, it's still the hard drive that's the limitation.

As for not quoting theoretical specs - why not, everybody else does. I could quote CDROM drives for a start. Technically, a 50X drive can transfer 7.5MB/sec, but it won't. The only time it's ever come near to that is in the manufacturers labs.

BTW, if you look at SCSI drives they bear out the same story. Ultra2 SCSI offers 80MB/sec transfer rate. The Ultra2 SCSI hard drive I looked at transfers data at 40MB/sec. Now, SCSI has its own bus - you can copy data from one SCSI device to another without the data ever touching the PCI bus or the CPU. So if hard drives are throttled by the bus, why on earth can't the SCSI drives (which in basic physical construction are the same as their IDE equivalents) max out at the bus maximum?
 
But I'm not using a NIC, soundcard, modem, video capture card or in fact *anything* else while doing these tests. Neither will IBM be. So what's soaking up the remaining bandwidth?
Click to expand...
The AGP card is one instance. They will still take bandwidth off the system bus as AGP itself is a derivative of PCI specifications. Ever wonder why AGP 4x card can never reach its theoritical speed of 1.05GB/s? Because other suckers take up bandwidth too. And about the other PCI devices, just being there will take up bandwidth, if you have to know. Also PS/2 and USB devices will also take up bandwidth ( mouse etc. ) and ISA too. Older computers ( post i8xxe ) have that limitations.


Also, you'll notice that hard drive rotation speeds are increasing. Most are (or used to be) 5400rpm, now we're seeing 7000rpm or so, even 10000rpm on some. The increased rotation speed gives faster data transfer. If the hard drives were already being throttled by the bus, why on earth would they bother to rotate them faster? After all, the bus is already maxed out, so they can't send any more data! Conclusion: The bus *isn't* maxed out, it's still the hard drive that's the limitation.
Click to expand...
The faster rotation will only reduce latency in most computers, it usually WON'T increase availabale bandwidth. When transferring data, it's all the same. Faster rotation will only reduce the time the HDD need to access the data, not making the HDD have more bandwidth.


As for not quoting theoretical specs - why not, everybody else does. I could quote CDROM drives for a start. Technically, a 50X drive can transfer 7.5MB/sec, but it won't. The only time it's ever come near to that is in the manufacturers labs.
Click to expand...
Give me a company that will quote theoritically numbers/specs. Seagate and IBM certainly didnt't do such things. Both companies will take numbers from a standard computers and publish it, instead of using devices that only available on labs. Why no company ever quote 50x CD-ROMs to be able to transfer 7MB/s data? Because it's only possible in labs via special device and not in current computers.


BTW, if you look at SCSI drives they bear out the same story. Ultra2 SCSI offers 80MB/sec transfer rate. The Ultra2 SCSI hard drive I looked at transfers data at 40MB/sec. Now, SCSI has its own bus - you can copy data from one SCSI device to another without the data ever touching the PCI bus or the CPU. So if hard drives are throttled by the bus, why on earth can't the SCSI drives (which in basic physical construction are the same as their IDE equivalents) max out at the bus maximum?
Click to expand...
Wrong, SCSI will still touch the CPU for CRC redundancy check for instance. Data won't touch the system bus? In copying files, the data will still have to go through primary memory and the SCSI controller ( especially if RAID is in action as well ). If you use SCSI add-on card, which is usually a PCI card, well, I don't know then how that data move to memory without skipping the PCI bus.
SCSI HDD is usually faster than IDE ones because simply that SCSI HDD architecture is different ( and expensive ) than IDE ones.
 
Excuse me? Faster rotation *does* give faster HDD access time, which is exactly the point I was making!Plus, if it's the bandwidth limiting hard disks why are they getting faster without changing the bus they're running on?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top