/vr/ - Retro Games

>>6312884
post specs

ARM optimization is only a focus because mobile devices mainly use ARM, which is underpowered due to power constraints.
high level code can be targeted for any platform.
any modern desktop will emulate those consoles at full speed just fine.
stop falling for the memeberrypi and whatever else kool aid your drinking

Unless you've got an OG Optiplex from 1993 then you ought to get pretty god damn good performance with PS1 games. You can run PS1 on a bloody 500MHz Pentium 2 at 640x480 with flawless performance.
What emulator are you using? And what's the exact specs of your Optiplex?

Thinly veiled pi shill thread.

>>6312897
>You can run PS1 on a bloody 500MHz Pentium 2 at 640x480 with flawless performance
No, you can't. The bare minimum for accurate PS1 emulation is an i5 haswell. epsxe has dirt-tier accuracy, and hardware rendering will never, ever be even remotely as good as software.

>>6312884
>i pretended i fell for a non-meme for some reason
Sounds like you need professional help

>>6312884
"Optimizing" for gaming, emulation or otherwise, is a meme from the Windows XP era. Put a better CPU in your Optiplex (while being aware of thermal limitations), and if you're using hardware-accelerated emulators (like Beetle PSX HW), throw a SFF GPU in there. Something newer that has decent Vulkan support and can run from the 75-watts the PCIe slot provides.

What Optiplex did you buy? The old Ivy Bridge and Haswell models are the most performance/cost efficient. The have good iGPUs that can handle OGL hardware-accelerated emulators with ease. Too old for Vulkan though.
Did you get an Optiplex with a Core2Duo and on-board graphics or something?

>>6312894
500 gb hard drive, USB 3.0, 8 gb of RAM, DVD drive, i3 CPU.
And is there any way to hook it up to my CRT? It's a Sony TV with the red white yellow ports.

>>6312909
>The bare minimum for accurate PS1 emulation is an i5 haswell. epsxe has dirt-tier accuracy, and hardware rendering will never, ever be even remotely as good as software
This is entirely wrong. Hardware rendering for PSX is superb, unless you're an autist who thinks that cycle accuracy means anything to the end user who just wants to play Ape Escape and have it look nice. Which from the wording of your post, I assume you are.

Anyone who isn't leveraging GPU power for PSX emulation is missing out on massive performance advantages and great QoL features. I encourage them to try Beetle PSX HW and see for themselves. And I say this as a loooooong time epsxe holdout. Once I got Beetle PSX HW up and running to my liking, I never went back - except for lightgun games, which didn't work with its hardware renderer last time I checked, which is no biggy because I just run them in software mode.
tl;dr Beetle PSX HW is the bees knees

>>6312956
>This is entirely wrong
It's objectively true.
>ardware rendering for PSX is superb
it's not.
>I encourage them to try Beetle PSX HW and see for themselves
I encourage them to check the git for all of the issues exclusively with the hardware renderer. It's shit.

Install Gentoo. You get the best performance if you compile everything yourself.
Be sure to study all the compiler flags.

>>6312930
Drop the garbage HDD. Optimally you should get a SSD but a USB3 flash drive will work as well.
You can hook it up to a CRT via VGA. The VGA signal may be hidden in a DVI-I port.

>>6312930
>post specs
>usb3.0, DVD drive
>no cpu info other than i3
You absolute brainlet retard.

>>6312960
If you can articulate your claims in something other than sentence fragments, I'd be curious to hear them.

Boring thread.

>>6312930
The fact you are even asking a question like that is proof the issue is you and only you. If you don't feel like learning how to use emulators/retroarch, stick with the pi. There should be zero issued running anything up to ps1.

>>6312930
tell us the exact CPU model

>>6312884
>I just fell for the used Optiplex meme
What the fuck does this mean? Is buying something a “meme” now? I hate your generation so fucking much.

Why not make a lakka or ecalbox stick? It should be just as simple as a pi. Just boot from the stick and you're good to go. Must be an issue on your end. Or maybe try a fresh install. Try d3d video drivers as well. OGL fucking rapes the cpu.

>>6313198
>recalbox

>>6313196
Same here. People can't read for a half hour to enjoy the benefits of emulation and call it a "meme".

>>6313196
It's less that buying something is a meme, and more that 4chan has reached the point where typing an OP in plain English won't get a reply.

>>6312919
>if i say words i don't understand people will think i are smart
No

>>6313213
So it's all about the (You)s? Splains a lot.

>>6312919
>throw a SFF GPU in there
You obviously don't know how emulation works these days.

>>6312930
i see you know nothing about computers

>>6313278
You need a decent GPU for shaders.

>>6313318
Nobody needs shaders.

>>6313321
lol

>>6313321
nonsense

>>6312982
If he wants quick results he should just delete his system32 folder, a lot of those processes cause a ton of bloat

>>6313318
No, you don't. This is Ledgen Of Dragoon 4k crt-royale-xm29plus, but that wasn't the point. The point is emulation is mostly cpu based unless you wantall the bells and whistles. D3D shaders are more limited, but work fine. I'm using Vulkan, but D3D has very similar performance. Stay away from OGL.

>>6313213
If that were the case- it's not- you would be part of the problem. Talk like an adult.

>>6312930
Imagine having less than 10TB in 2020

>>6313364
Just for the hell of it.

>>6313364
Why would you get a F CPU? A normal 9400 would come with a GPU built in.

just remove boot.ini as it's uneeded bloat for an emustation.

>>6312930
textbook perfect bait

>>6312905
this
/thread

>>6312956
>great QoL features
Like what?

>>>/emugen/

>>6313404
Who uses integrated gpus unless you absolutely have to? I at least try out newer games. Most are garbage, but the option is there.

>>6313253
He didn't say anything wrong, his post made perfect sense. Don't be such a willfully ignorant and defensive faggot.

>>6313364
A GTX 1660 ti is a "decent" budget GPU suitable for emulation and shaders. You've just proven the whole point that started with
>throw a SFF GPU in there
which would be something like a 1660 ti.

Your absurdly powerful current gen CPU isn't really playing much of a role when it comes to shaders.

>>6313710
By the way when I said decent I actually meant something like a GTX 750. Something you can get off ebay for $50.

>>6313710
>Your absurdly powerful current gen CPU
>Less than 3ghz and retroarch isn't multithreading.
>Emulator running shaders at 4k and still have massive headroom.

Give it up, you have no idea what you're talking about. The fact you either choose to ignore that the cpu is doing most of the work or are to stupid to read the graphs says it all. GPUs aren't very important for emulation.

>>6313804
Ghz is a very rough measurement and barely tells anything about CPUs overall performance. There were 3 ghz Pentium 4s but they are a fraction of the power of your i5-9400F.

Additionally one core of your CPU is using 50% power and that's not nothing when it's a CPU like that. That one core is probably equal to the total performance of the older i3 in OP's optiplex.

Your GPU is actually quite a bit more than decent tbqh. A 1660 ti is more powerful than a GTX 1060, which in turn is more powerful than a PS4 pro.

Your 2% utilization looks like it was previously about 10% utilization, which itself is magnitudes more GPU power than the integrated graphics of an i3 optiplex which probably has 10 years old Intel HD Graphics 3000.

It is you anon who is in over your head in this discussion. You have the hardware, but not the technical knowledge.

>>6313895
Retard. Learn to read.
>>6313804
>Emulator running shaders at 4k and still have massive headroom.

Now, on the i3 (no one mentioned a p4, but nice try), wouldn't it make sense to rn at 720p with a pi shader? Again, since you neglected to read, the usage graphs are at 4k with one of the heaviest crt shaders and a less than desired cpu for gaming. Lots of headroom after the fact. 720p with a light shader or even just an overlay for scanlines is a breeze on most systems from the last decade. Usually people stop posting when they are clueless, but you're really going at it for whatever reason.

>>6313905
You're an idiot that has moved your goalposts so many times you don't know what you're even arguing anymore.
>light shader at 720p

>720p with a light shader or even just an overlay for scanlines is a breeze on most systems from the last decade.
It also looks like dog shit and defeats the point of using it. Of course an overlay is a "breeze" because it's a fucking overlay and is not relevant to this discussion at all.
aka "not worth the fucking time to bother".

If you're going to use shaders you're going to use the good ones, and they need GPU power.
>and a less than desired cpu for gaming.
You have no idea what the relative power level of your system is to the rest of what is out there in the world.

This is a stupid argument at this point. YES YOU NEED A DECENT CPU AND GPU FOR SHADERS. And by decent I actually mean "decent" as in something like the 5-10 year old i3 in OPs system + a GPU roughly equivalent to a base level PS4 or perhaps a little less. I used a GTX 480 in the past for CRT-Royale i5-2400. That's actually "decent" PC hardware. What you have is current generation hardware in the $500+ build range, and is considered "extremely powerful" when we're talking about an emulation system, or a daily use computer, or even in the range of current gaming computers since many people still running old stuff like a 750 ti.

OP, if you actually want to utilize shaders properly on this system you're going to want an add-in GPU.

>>6313932
Sad.

>>6313932
So, a pi 3 has a "decent" gpu? Give me a break.

>>6312884
lmfao what a shit bait thread start. Some random pi seller trying to pretend their brand new pi is better than even a decade old pc.

>>6313321
If you're emulating on anything other than a CRT you do.
>>6313364
>No, you don't
>posts a cutting edge system

>>6313932
Here's your "decent gpu". Instead of going on and on, maybe learn a thing or two so you don't embarrass yourself in real life.

https://youtu.be/kig_xZTR8dE?t=594

>>6313939
>I was wrong so now I'll just keep repeating insults to save face
>>6313946
I don't keep up with those things so I have no idea what GPU performance they can give. I'd bet not very good.
>>6313952
Shaders have uses even on CRTs.

>>6313954
That's some horrible shader designed for a pi running at a low resolution that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

You've got some idea in your head that is completely disconnected from the topic of how much performance you need to run shaders properly on a PC.

>>6313952
>posts a cutting edge system
Again, it's the cpu usage at 4k with a crt-royale shader I was showing. I guess no one can read or follow a thread. Drop it to 720p with a light shader and a toaster can run it.

>>6313967
>a pi running at a low resolution that has nothing to do with what we're talking about
It does though. You said you need a decent gpu to run shaders, but you don't. A pi is a cheap sbc with no dedicated gpu and runs light shaders fine. Just because it proves you wrong, it's off topic? Cmon now.

>>6313968
>Drop it to 720p with a light shader and a toaster can run it.
Even CRT-easymode requires a little bit of power at 720p. My old Thinkpad can't consistently run at 60 fps with that shader. It also looks like crap, so it's not worth it at all.
If you're going to use shaders shoot for at least 1080p.
>>6313962
The screen darkening is not worth it imo. You need something with a very high brightness like a modern 400 to 1000 nit display to compensate for the loss in luminosity. PC CRT monitors were never that bright to begin with.

>>6313973
Pi shaders are a joke. Assume when someone on /vr/ says shaders they mean the real thing.

>>6313979
Besides the point, an i3 can run "the real thing" without a fancy graphics card. Not royale, but something good enough.

>>6313528
I do. I haven't had problems with newer releases.

>>6313983
CRT-Royale is the benchmark. If you can't run it then you're making compromises.

>>6313989
I personally prefer something like easy. Royale tries too hard and just looks fake.

>>6313698
>i am him

>>6312884
Use that shit as a firewall or mail server instead, or use it to play old DOS games.

>>6313992
Calling the Based Dept on you for stealing my comment.

>>6313976
>The screen darkening is not worth it imo
You can just turn your monitor's brightness up. Properly calibrated in a dimly lit room is usually in the 40% range, so even if every other line was blacked out (it won't be), and you were losing 50% relative brightness (you aren't), you could still double your brightness and get things to where they should be.

>>6312982
>>6313009
>>6313357
>>6313426
>>6313318
>>6313932
So now I need to upgrade my hard drive, upgrade my CPU, install a graphics card, and optimize my OS by deleting things or install another OS called Gentoo?
This is a fucking nightmare I just wanted to play games at a normal framerate.

>>6313992
IMO royale looks best if you sit a few feet or more from the screen, but if you're playing at a desk close to your monitor other shaders look better. Royale looks fuzzier than the real thing, as if it's emulating a CRT that hasn't been configured correctly.

Bait thread produces actual discussion. The classic 4 channel dot org meta we all love.

>>6314326
>This is a fucking nightmare
Evidence to the contrary is abundant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1NpJj9rUMM
You have no excuse.

>>6312884
>worse performance ...than on my Raspberry Pi
>tips for optimizing a PC
>focusing on ARM processors these days

>>6312930
wtf? You should literally be able to start it up right away? That's a potato sure but it should have no issues running anything from ps1/n64 down.

>>6314326
Brah, just put Lakka or Batocera on a flash drive and boot from that. An i3 should be fine but a dedicated gpu will give you more performance and allow you to run shaders and shit.

I have a GTX 650 ti in mine and it runs pretty well. you don't need a 1050 or some shit.
8gigs is plenty for emulation. Its probably overkill for retro shit.

>>6312884
Optiplex MTs are where its at. At least you can put a low profile card in there. The slims and super slims are decent but getting a dedicated gpu in there will be a bitch.

This thread is silly.

I have a budget desktop CPU from 2011 and it has zero problem emulating PlayStation games, although it is nearing 100% usage for some games.

I have no idea how recent OP's Intel i3 is but given that they were first released in 2010 there is an excellent chance it is at least as powerful as mine.

>>6313009
do you use a VGA to component converter to hook it up to the CRT?

>>6315631
He's saying that the easiest way is to use a VGA CRT although you can push the RGB coming out of a VGA port down to 15khz with custom drivers. Then you can transcode it to component. You want to avoid "converters"

>>6316071
Thanks for the info, that's what I thought about converters

>>6314146
Based? based on what?

>>6312884
Anyone that has access to any given dual core PC has access to emulation up until the ps2 era.
Heck, my i3 notebook can run everything just fine.
Just don't forget to get a 1ms monitor if you can notice more than 5-8ms input lag on retro games.

>>6312897
>You can run PS1 on a bloody 500MHz Pentium 2 at 640x480 with flawless performance.

Does it have to be human?

>>6316337
Based=not debased.

>>6314332
>but if you're playing at a desk close to your monitor other shaders look better
Stock royale doesn't look great, especially at lower resolutions, but you can configure it to look like anything you want. Here's default.

>>6314332
>>6317517
Triad size set to minimum and max line width decreased.

>>6314332
>>6317520
Subpixels offset with some bloom. All very minor changes between each preset, yet providing a vastly different image. I honestly don't see a reason to use anything but royale with how advanced and ridiculously configurable it is, these examples are barely scratching the surface.

>>6317520
Holy based

>>6312884
Bump.

So I got a 1440p LCD in hopes it has enough pixels to scale retro games to a 4:3 aspect ratio without half pixels causing that horrible odd longer non-uniform pixel every so many pixels. I prefer 4:3 with sharp pixels as that is how I remember a lot of CPS2 games. Even at 720p, the image is blurry. How do I achieve sharp pixels with sharp pixels at a 4:3 aspect ratio on emulator and with an OSSC?

So I got a 1440p LCD in hopes it has enough pixels to scale retro games to a 4:3 aspect ratio without half pixels causing that horrible odd longer non-uniform pixel every so many pixels. I prefer 4:3 with sharp pixels as that is how I remember a lot of CPS2 games. Even at 720p, the image is blurry. How do I achieve sharp pixels with no shimmering at a 4:3 aspect ratio on emulator and with an OSSC?

>>6323502
Why didn't you get a 4k screen?

>>6323504
They were no 4K screens that were high refresh rates that were affordable.

>>6323502
For proper 4:3 systems, you integer scale. For retarded shit like the SNES, you can't stretch 8:7 to 4:3 without getting distorted pixels. It's either interpolation, and losing a small amount of clarity, which may or may not even be noticeable depending on the distance you're sitting from your screen, buying a CRT, or playing at the console's proper internal resolution with integer scaling.

>>6326461
You can scale it by 7/6 to get 1792x1344. That's the one thing that a 1440p is better capable than the 4k.
but the pixels in 4k are so tiny that you won't see much of a difference between 9x9, 9x10 or 10x10 pixel blocks from non-integer nearest neighbor scaling.

This entire thread makes me so happy that I just play playstation by turning on my ps2 that's plugged into my crt, like a normal person

>>6326524
inb4 some retard chimes in something like Beetle emulates playstation more accurately than the ps2 does or something about warping textures etc

>>6326461
A CRT just stretches it to fill the screen man. The SNES had no standard and isn’t even consistent within single games. IE Metroid/Zelda/SMW

Anything better than a nvidia shield that could play ps2 and GameCube games? I want to play something comfortably away from my computer without streaming it.

>>6326545
>A CRT just stretches it to fill the screen man
They do, but you won't get any weird scaling issues on a consumer sdtv, it'll just look wide. If the system is generating a 256x224 image, and we're displaying it on an lcd, you need to integer scale to get square pixels, which means scaling by multiples of the native. So for 2x scaling, each native res pixel is being represented by 2x2 pixels on your screen, 3x scaling by 3x3 pixel. But if you want to play the snes at 4:3 on an LCD, you can't get square pixels without accepting some blur and going with interpolation. At best you can integer scale it in multiples of 4:3, so on a 1440p screen, 8x width, 6x height to 2048x1344. That would fix that guy's problem of having non-uniform pixels, as they would all be uniformly stretched to 8x6 rectangles.
>The SNES had no standard
You're right, but the 8:7 vs 4:3 debate is something else entirely.

>>6312930
NOOO,WHEN YOU GET A USED OPTIPLEX FOR GAMING YOURE SUPPOSED TO GET AN i7.

>>6326525
The PS2 has missing sound and grpahical effects in lots of games and can't even play many PS1 games, unlike Beetle. Beetle is much more accurate.