HQ4X woes...

[Criftus]

I have a P4 3.0Ghz., 1024Mb. RAM, and a 128MB ATI RADEON 9800 PRO ... HQ4X brings it to it's knees.

While playing Chrono Trigger @ 1024x896 (double the native SNES resolution, right?) in a window, walking around the overworld map gives me an FPS of 24. Similar results when moving either horizontally or vertically around any screen for that matter. Standing still though, I get 60 FPS. lol =(

Is this normal? I didn't think a filter could hit my performance that badly... =\

[Clements]

I didn't think a filter could hit my performance that badly...

Well, you were wrong.

This is not your average filter.

[Criftus]

So it's the filters doing?

... but... it looks so *good*. ;_;

[Guest]

So what if you have a high end machine when it's using an inferior operating system.*Wink Wink*
Ever seen a really old person behind the wheel of a car keep up with traffic?

[Agozer]

HQxx filters are extremely heavy. On some machines , the HQxx filters work flawlessly and on others they can cripple the framerate badly. Those machines that run HQxx smoothly don't even have to be faster than those machines that HQxx cripples.

IIRC, MaxSt once said that the performance relies on the speed of the AGP data transfer, but don't chop my head off if I'm wrong.

@Controlled force: It has very little to do with the operating system, so quit trolling.

[Clements]

So what if you have a high end machine when it's using an inferior operating system.*Wink Wink*
Ever seen a really old person behind the wheel of a car keep up with traffic?

I do not see how this is relevant.

[Guest]

On the contrary my friend, how an OS handles the hardware can make a world of difference.

[Clements]

On the contrary my friend, how an OS handles the hardware can make a world of difference.

Not in this case.

[Noxious Ninja]

I have a P4 3.0Ghz., 1024Mb. RAM, and a 128MB ATI RADEON 9800 PRO ... HQ4X brings it to it's knees.

While playing Chrono Trigger @ 1024x896 (double the native SNES resolution, right?) in a window, walking around the overworld map gives me an FPS of 24. Similar results when moving either horizontally or vertically around any screen for that matter. Standing still though, I get 60 FPS. lol =(

Is this normal? I didn't think a filter could hit my performance that badly... =\

Do you have the latest motherboard and video drivers? That could possibly make a large difference. I used to have a, Athlon XP 2100+, 512 MB of RAM, and a Radeon 9700 Pro, so your system should be able to handle it, unless you have a crap motherboard.

[Guest]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

[SquareHead]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

I can't help but wonder that myself. But then again ... ... ... I'll just shut up.

[Joe Camacho]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Maybe they are trying to make the window fit their screen. I dunno, I like small windows.

[Agozer]

Those high resolutions are available, so why not use them? Besides, certain HQxx filters are only available for certain resolutions.

[Clements]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Well, if you haven't ever owned a TFT Monitor with a high native resolution, I guess you wouldn't, unless you enjoy the scaling artifacts. There are other reasons but this one sticks in my head as the most important.

[Agozer]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Well, if you haven't ever owned a TFT Monitor with a high native resolution, I guess you wouldn't, unless you enjoy the scaling artifacts. There are other reasons but this one sticks in my head as the most important.

Correct. My TFT has a native resolution of 1280x1024.

[SquareHead]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Well, if you haven't ever owned a TFT Monitor with a high native resolution, I guess you wouldn't, unless you enjoy the scaling artifacts. There are other reasons but this one sticks in my head as the most important.

I obviously need to get out more. I havent bought anything over a native 1024 X 768 TFT. Anyone have any experience with connecting plasma diplays to their PC? (If I want to pick up another monitor, that would be my choice. I will have to get a DVI compliant card too wont I?)

[Joe Camacho]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Well, if you haven't ever owned a TFT Monitor with a high native resolution, I guess you wouldn't, unless you enjoy the scaling artifacts. There are other reasons but this one sticks in my head as the most important.

I obviously need to get out more. I havent bought anything over a native 1024 X 768 TFT. Anyone have any experience with connecting plasma diplays to their PC? (If I want to pick up another monitor, that would be my choice. I will have to get a DVI compliant card too wont I?)

you could get a DVI -> VGA adapter, but that would kill the image, at least that's what I've been told.

[Agozer]

Another thing I find strange is why do people insist on playing in high resolution on a 16 bit system emulator?

Well, if you haven't ever owned a TFT Monitor with a high native resolution, I guess you wouldn't, unless you enjoy the scaling artifacts. There are other reasons but this one sticks in my head as the most important.

I obviously need to get out more. I havent bought anything over a native 1024 X 768 TFT. Anyone have any experience with connecting plasma diplays to their PC? (If I want to pick up another monitor, that would be my choice. I will have to get a DVI compliant card too wont I?)

you could get a DVI -> VGA adapter, but that would kill the image, at least that's what I've been told.

The funny thing is that my video card has a DVI plug, but my monitor doesn't. I have a DVI --> VGA adapter, but I've been hearing the same thing as you, so I haven't tried it yet.

[Noxious Ninja]

My card only has DVI. I use the included DVI -> VGA adapter with my CRT, and there's absolutely no problem.

[grinvader]

While playing Chrono Trigger @ 1024x896 (double the native SNES resolution, right?) in a window

1- Nah. At BEST, a NTSC SNES could do 512x448 - and CT didn't use this mode, it's a good ol' lowres 256x224 game (you're just asking for 16 times as much surface).
2- Try fullscreen. Sometimes it's better for FPS than windowed.

[funkyass]

you know whats neat about DVI?

in some configurations, they carry an analogue VGA singal on extra pins(the part of the DVI port that looks like a cross with four squares).

It should be on most non-cheap cards that feature a DVI output.

[Criftus]

grinvader: Thanks for the suggestions! I'll change my settings accordingly and see if it improves my performance.

[Akaroo]

personally, I don't like the filter. The Super 2xSai or whatever looks the best, although you have to knock it down to 640x480 to make it a little sharper.

problem with the HQ4X is that it's "smart" sensing that detects what needs to be "smoothed" often doesn't help the sprites that need it the most.

Super Eagle is TOO smooth, so I go with the 2xsai. Or just hook it up to my TV via s-vid and see the game in it's perfect NTSC glory.

[Akaroo]

oh and too bad you already got your LCD. The newer ones coming out, like mine, have double-scan which elimintates the blur with non-native resolutions.

[snkcube]

personally, I don't like the filter. The Super 2xSai or whatever looks the best, although you have to knock it down to 640x480 to make it a little sharper.

Super Mario World looks great with any HQ filters. But then again, it's up to you.