problem with HQ2X mode

DethLord · Post by **DethLord** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:20 am

Whenever I turn on the HQ2X mode, I get 45-58 FPS whenever my character does not move, but when the character moves it slows down to 20 FPS or even lower. I don't understand why.

I have the frameskip and the skip at 9 which is by zsnes default. I pretty much have everything else on default settings and the resolution at 640 x 480 DR Full.

Without the HQ2X mode, it works great.

ONE LAST QUESTION, which setting is the optimal setting for a Celeron 366MHz Machine?

I am using ZSNES 0313 WIP Windows version.

Magus` · Post by **Magus`** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:22 am

The filter you are using is (arguably) the most CPU intensive one (not counting the 3x/4x ones).

You have a somewhat slower computer, and thus it can't handle the filter at full speed.

On a side note, make your sig smaller. Fit more stuff on the same line.

LDAWG · Post by **LDAWG** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:24 am

You may want to put Windows 98 on a machine like that.
Maybe use the DOS Port, as it will give you more FPS (in pure DOS Mode).
Video Filters make your CPU do extra work, for some visual improvement.
I wouldn't really recommend using any Video Filters, on your machine.

Joe Camacho · Post by **Joe Camacho** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:42 am

Those filters choke alot of machines, you need a powerful one if you want to run them, stick to super eagle or super 2xsai, or as LDAWG said, don't use any filters.

Paul Bunyan · Post by **Paul Bunyan** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 3:47 am

My computer occasionally sucks when I have HQ4x mode on with 0 frameskip, and it's 9-10 times faster than yours with a lot more VRAM and RAM.

Post by **grinvader** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:17 am

hq*x is very CPU-intensive. With a system like yours I advise to use other filters or no filter at all.

You can use the hq filters flawlessly once you're over 1~1.5GHz...

illegal eagle · Post by **illegal eagle** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:15 am

DethLord wrote:Whenever I turn on the HQ2X mode, I get 45-58 FPS whenever my character does not move, but when the character moves it slows down to 20 FPS or even lower. I don't understand why.

Normally you'd get 20 fps all the time, but ZSNES and HQ?X are heavily optimized.

You could use the filter in games with not much movement, like Mario's Picross, but simple Interpolation is probably better.

DethLord · Post by **DethLord** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:46 pm

so far with no filter, it works great. I was wondering which filter would be good without sacrificing that much fps. system specs listed as my sig.

if not then i should start using snes9x they got that 320 x 200 mode which fills up almost the full screen. The problem with my laptop is that the graphics doesn't fill all of the screen and when it does, it looks all stretchy and runs really really slow. so 640 x 480 dr full is the only one besides the default res that came with zsnes that does not slow down. If I can't get that full screen look that is okay, I already got used to it.

Clements · Post by **Clements** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 1:53 pm

Simple Interpolation would probably work well with your Llamatop, as already suggested.

Dead · Post by **Dead** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:27 pm

grinvader wrote:You can use the hq filters flawlessly once you're over 1~1.5GHz...

I have a 2Ghz CPU and HQ3x and HQ4x do not run flawlessly. Could it be my ancient GeForce2 MX?

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:18 pm

Yes, it would.

I have a 1.2GHz and a GeForce FX 5200, and it works just fine.

Cecil · Post by **Cecil** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:16 pm

The frame rate I get with HQ2X or HQ3X depends on the game I'm playing. If it's something like Chrono Trigger or FF3/6, It'll slow down to like 48FPS. If it's something like Super Mario World or Zelda:LttP, it'll run at a constant 60FPS. I wouldn't know about HQ4X since my monitor's max resolution is 1024x768.

Post by **Agozer** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:47 pm

Register wrote:
grinvader wrote:You can use the hq filters flawlessly once you're over 1~1.5GHz...
I have a 2Ghz CPU and HQ3x and HQ4x do not run flawlessly. Could it be my ancient GeForce2 MX?

Hell, I have an AMD Anthlon 64 3000+ with an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro and can't get smooth HQxx.

Post by **grinvader** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:48 pm

How about a good ol' P4 ? Even my old P4 1.8GHz can handle hq4x 60/60.
With a GeForce4 MX 440.

LDAWG · Post by **LDAWG** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:53 pm

Cecil wrote: System Specs:

1.3 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM
ASUS ATI Radeon 7000 64MB DDR
SoundMAX Digital Audio, DirectX 9.0c
Microsoft WindowsXP Home Edition SP2

It's systems like this, that give Hardware Filters a bad name.

Put some more RAM in that system boy!!!
Windows 2000/XP choke badly with ONLY 128MB.
I wouldn't dare have less than 256MB on 2000 or XP.

Heck, the last 3 PCs I got had 1GB of RAM...

Post by **Agozer** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:53 pm

The innerworkings of HQxx is a complete mystery to me. More precisely, what is it that makes it work prefectly on some systems while on others....

Cecil · Post by **Cecil** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:09 pm

LDAWG wrote:
Cecil wrote: System Specs:

1.3 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM
ASUS ATI Radeon 7000 64MB DDR
SoundMAX Digital Audio, DirectX 9.0c
Microsoft WindowsXP Home Edition SP2
It's systems like this, that give Hardware Filters a bad name.

Put some more RAM in that system boy!!!
Windows 2000/XP choke badly with ONLY 128MB.
I wouldn't dare have less than 256MB on 2000 or XP.

Heck, the last 3 PCs I got had 1GB of RAM...

I was barely able to afford the video card, which my comp actually needed WORSE than extra RAM, believe it or not. What I had before was an integrated Intel 82815 Graphics Controller 4MB. I couldn't even set the color depth to 32-bit, nor could I run zsnes at my monitor's native resolution. Now I can. Everything else is what came with the comp, except WindowsXP didn't have any service packs back then, I think it was 2001 or 2002. And, no, I'm not getting a new comp, either. IF I get the money somewhere in the future, I probably will get more RAM, but for right now, i'm content with what I have.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:51 pm

Agozer wrote:The innerworkings of HQxx is a complete mystery to me. More precisely, what is it that makes it work prefectly on some systems while on others....

HQx depends mainly on three things: CPU speed, memory bandwidth, and framebuffer upload bandwidth. Video cards/motherboard chipsets tend to differ wildly in the latter, which is the likely cause of the problems.

I believe MaxSt did a test on that once. I wonder if he still has the results.

DethLord · Post by **DethLord** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:34 am

It's funny how I have more RAM than cecil, but he beats me in everything else.

I was wondering since I am using 640x480 DR Full. Is there a difference if I keep my desktop at 16bit color and 24 bit color. Right now my desktop is at 24 bit color.

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:00 am

24-bit colour isn't recommended for use with ZSNES, as I recall.

snkcube · Post by **snkcube** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:57 am

Vareni Stargazer wrote:24-bit colour isn't recommended for use with ZSNES, as I recall.

ZSNES won't even run with 24-bit color.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:29 pm

Cecil wrote:
LDAWG wrote:
Cecil wrote: System Specs:

1.3 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM
ASUS ATI Radeon 7000 64MB DDR
SoundMAX Digital Audio, DirectX 9.0c
Microsoft WindowsXP Home Edition SP2
It's systems like this, that give Hardware Filters a bad name.

Put some more RAM in that system boy!!!
Windows 2000/XP choke badly with ONLY 128MB.
I wouldn't dare have less than 256MB on 2000 or XP.

Heck, the last 3 PCs I got had 1GB of RAM...
I was barely able to afford the video card, which my comp actually needed WORSE than extra RAM, believe it or not. What I had before was an integrated Intel 82815 Graphics Controller 4MB. I couldn't even set the color depth to 32-bit, nor could I run zsnes at my monitor's native resolution. Now I can. Everything else is what came with the comp, except WindowsXP didn't have any service packs back then, I think it was 2001 or 2002. And, no, I'm not getting a new comp, either. IF I get the money somewhere in the future, I probably will get more RAM, but for right now, i'm content with what I have.

That's all fine and understandable. I think the point people are trying to make is you can't expect to run the HQxx filters on your machine without upgrade. That's all.

Cecil · Post by **Cecil** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:59 pm

Nightcrawler wrote:
Cecil wrote:
LDAWG wrote:
Cecil wrote: System Specs:

1.3 GHz Celeron, 128 MB RAM
ASUS ATI Radeon 7000 64MB DDR
SoundMAX Digital Audio, DirectX 9.0c
Microsoft WindowsXP Home Edition SP2
It's systems like this, that give Hardware Filters a bad name.

Put some more RAM in that system boy!!!
Windows 2000/XP choke badly with ONLY 128MB.
I wouldn't dare have less than 256MB on 2000 or XP.

Heck, the last 3 PCs I got had 1GB of RAM...
I was barely able to afford the video card, which my comp actually needed WORSE than extra RAM, believe it or not. What I had before was an integrated Intel 82815 Graphics Controller 4MB. I couldn't even set the color depth to 32-bit, nor could I run zsnes at my monitor's native resolution. Now I can. Everything else is what came with the comp, except WindowsXP didn't have any service packs back then, I think it was 2001 or 2002. And, no, I'm not getting a new comp, either. IF I get the money somewhere in the future, I probably will get more RAM, but for right now, i'm content with what I have.
That's all fine and understandable. I think the point people are trying to make is you can't expect to run the HQxx filters on your machine without upgrade. That's all.

Yeah, I realize that. I prefer Super 2xSAI for games with more detailed graphics, anyway.

grinvader wrote:You can use the hq filters flawlessly once you're over 1~1.5GHz...

I was more or less replying to this post. I guess I should have mentioned that in my original post.

adventure_of_link · Post by **adventure_of_link** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 5:10 pm

DethLord wrote:The problem with my laptop is that the graphics doesn't fill all of the screen and when it does, it looks all stretchy and runs really really slow.

That would be true with all laptops, dude. Hell I got a laptop and the Windows 98 splash screen (the screen that shows up after the BIOS screen) doesn't stretch to full screen. I could go on and on about this, but I think the point has been made.
PS: DethLord, nice system.

jdratlif · Post by **jdratlif** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 10:57 am

snkcube wrote:
Vareni Stargazer wrote:24-bit colour isn't recommended for use with ZSNES, as I recall.
ZSNES won't even run with 24-bit color.

I run 24-bit color in Linux with ZSNES. It prints out doomsday warnings of possible crashing with fire and brimstone, but it does run. (And I haven't had it lock up since 1.36 - the WIP versions have all been solid).

Can you set X to 32-bit color? I thought this was not possible.

ZSNES board

problem with HQ2X mode

problem with HQ2X mode

Re: problem with HQ2X mode