Related
I'm trying to figure out good settings for aDOSBox to run on my TF. X-Com 1 game is pretty sluggish, no matter what frameskip and cycles count I set. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it's bad, but I can't figure out optimal settings.
Maybe someone at least have correct cycles number for our Tegra 2, so emulation will run with the same speed as CPU?
Oh, and also getting mouse pointer to work IN the game, not ABOVE the game during emulation would be brilliant. Using touchscreen as touchpad is pretty awkward.
Hope someone've been toying with aDOSBox on TF as I did and have some recommendations =)
+1 from mehr for that.
I also look for a good setting for the TF for master of Orion 2.
adosbox is just slower than ANdosbox. That's just how it is, I was a long time user of adosbox and went over to andosbox because it had more features and more compatible.
I think, from personal experience, with both emulators you can't set the cycles to higher than 8000-10000. You can set it higher, but the tegra2 SoC won't let it go any higher than that. So games that need 15,000 or up will stutter or run slowly. I have this happening with Crusader: No Regret and No Remorse, and Doom1/2 as well.
Basically, with andosbox it'll run okay for anything that was supposed to be ran on a 386 (wolf3d, Raptor, OMF are some popular ones). Anything more than that is gonna slowdown.
Adosbox feels like it runs 1000-2000 cycles slower for my experience.
kaijura said:
adosbox is just slower than ANdosbox. That's just how it is, I was a long time user of adosbox and went over to andosbox because it had more features and more compatible.
I think, from personal experience, with both emulators you can't set the cycles to higher than 8000-10000. You can set it higher, but the tegra2 SoC won't let it go any higher than that. So games that need 15,000 or up will stutter or run slowly. I have this happening with Crusader: No Regret and No Remorse, and Doom1/2 as well.
Basically, with andosbox it'll run okay for anything that was supposed to be ran on a 386 (wolf3d, Raptor, OMF are some popular ones). Anything more than that is gonna slowdown.
Adosbox feels like it runs 1000-2000 cycles slower for my experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Holy crap! It IS much better! ANdosbox ftw, really. Worth every penny. And it has much better mouse emulation - I just use pen mode + tap-click when on base/geoscape, and touchpad style + volUP-volDOWN in combat. Some wrong clicks in combat happen, but not very often. Thanks for the tip!
I'm curious -- how stable / compatible do you guys find Andosbox?
Probably can't do anything about the sluggishness, it's probably just the limitations of the hardware you're working with.
knoxploration said:
I'm curious -- how stable / compatible do you guys find Andosbox?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stable is probably 99% or near 100%. If Dosbox can run it, most likely anDosBox can run it, just my opinion.
The question is how intensive is the program. Like I mentioned earlier, ~8-10k seems to be the limit for the cpu cycles.
There are two parts of it. One part of this I think is due to the limitations of the SoC, it probably runs andosbox at 1.0ghz in single core. The other part is the code itself, as you can tell adosbox runs slower than andosbox. Something was improved in his version of the ported code, we don't know what unless we contact the andosbox dev. He's pretty quick with support emails.
Here are the hardware requirements/compatibility listed on the Dosbox page itself. I imagine our android devices need a little more juice than the desktop CPU equivalents.
http://www.dosbox.com/wiki/System_Requirements
Code:
Host Architecture Host CPU Speed = Equivalent to Emulated CPU Class (dynamic core)
x86 (Pentium II) 400 MHz 386
x86 (Duron) 800 MHz 486
x86 (Pentium III) 1.0 GHz high-end 486
x86 (Intel Atom) 1.6 GHz high-end 486
x86 (Pentium 4) 3.0 GHz high-end Pentium Duke Nukem 3D tested, smooth at 640x480; Quake runs at ~40 frames per second in 320x200 mode. x86 (Pentium M) 1.8 GHz Pentium II
x86 (Athlon XP) 1.8 GHz Pentium II
x86 (Athlon 64) 1.8 GHz Pentium III
x86 (Core 2 Duo) (any speed) Pentium III
Apple G3 500 MHz 3/486-class Games tested: Leisure Suit Larry 6, Fuzzy's World of Miniature Space Golf. Extrapolated from ~50% CPU usage on a 1GHz G4. Apple G4 1.0 GHz 486-class Performance adequate for most DOS games. SVGA likely to be too much.
knoxploration said:
I'm curious -- how stable / compatible do you guys find Andosbox?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very stable. One thing though - on TF you want to save before switching to other app. Because in background mode it just restart, most of the time, so after checking that new mail and switching back - you'll be greeted by command line in andosbox.
Maybe it's only on my TF though, if you guys got some workaround for that - would be nice to know. God I want app that can set other apps to not EVER going to background - let them eat memory, it's ok for me.
tixed said:
Very stable. One thing though - on TF you want to save before switching to other app. Because in background mode it just restart, most of the time, so after checking that new mail and switching back - you'll be greeted by command line in andosbox.
Maybe it's only on my TF though, if you guys got some workaround for that - would be nice to know. God I want app that can set other apps to not EVER going to background - let them eat memory, it's ok for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's just a "feature" of Android, and one of the reasons I believe it needs proper multitasking. Android decides when programs get closed, not you. The same thing frequently causes me to lose a connection on a website chat client I have to use for work...
It's a good feature. The problems you see are because lazy programmers don't save the state when they should. (I'm guilty of it too in one of my game, which had to complicated state to easily save). Every time you leave a program for a while it should save the state it's in in order to restore it in case it's thrown out of memory.
The best solution for Google to fix that problem would be to add automatic save and restore - by saving the whole VM (it would be probably slow on some devices though).
Magnesus said:
It's a good feature. The problems you see are because lazy programmers don't save the state when they should. (I'm guilty of it too in one of my game, which had to complicated state to easily save). Every time you leave a program for a while it should save the state it's in in order to restore it in case it's thrown out of memory.
The best solution for Google to fix that problem would be to add automatic save and restore - by saving the whole VM (it would be probably slow on some devices though).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lazy programmers like Google themselves? The stock Android web browser does it.
Sorry, but it's not a good feature if it can't be overridden by the user when it gets it wrong (as it always will). It's a bad feature.
knoxploration said:
Sorry, but it's not a good feature if it can't be overridden by the user when it gets it wrong (as it always will). It's a bad feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. Exactly.
I know that it's a feature, but android (apart from iOS for example) is all about user control and user customizations. At least OS should save whole VM state when app is going to background, not depending on programmers.
Maybe they won't do that because it might affect speed, and android was called "sluggish" enough times already...
knoxploration said:
Lazy programmers like Google themselves? The stock Android web browser does it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you are talking about the slow, laggy and often crashing stock browser from HoneyComb, then I'd say, yes.
I think they should've just automated the process (by automatically hibernating the VMs of apps that need to be closed and resuming when user gets back to them). That would've solve this problem once and for all and made programmers happy.
[POST Deleted]
Guys, I've been trying out the various DosBox emulators available on the market.
I tried aDosBox, andoxbox and I just found a new one the other day called DosBox Turbo.
I figured I'd give DosBox Turbo a try with X-Com, cause its sluggish on the other emulators.. After playing X-Com for a while, I can say that DosBox Turbo is definitely faster than the others. The virtual joystick also supports multi-touch, which is a bonus.
I also tried C&C Red Alert, I had to change the memory limit to 8MB, but it too worked just fine.
Edit: Now has full Trackpad support in DOS Games! YES!! =)
gururise said:
Guys, I've been trying out the various DosBox emulators available on the market.
I tried aDosBox, andoxbox and I just found a new one the other day called DosBox Turbo.
I figured I'd give DosBox Turbo a try with X-Com, cause its sluggish on the other emulators.. After playing X-Com for a while, I can say that DosBox Turbo is definitely faster than the others. The virtual joystick also supports multi-touch, which is a bonus.
I also tried C&C Red Alert, I had to change the memory limit to 8MB, but it too worked just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do they emulate mouse clicks? Because in X-Com combat I think my volume up key would be broken very soon
tixed said:
gururise said:
Guys, I've been trying out the various DosBox emulators available on the market.
I tried aDosBox, andoxbox and I just found a new one the other day called DosBox Turbo.
I figured I'd give DosBox Turbo a try with X-Com, cause its sluggish on the other emulators.. After playing X-Com for a while, I can say that DosBox Turbo is definitely faster than the others. The virtual joystick also supports multi-touch, which is a bonus.
I also tried C&C Red Alert, I had to change the memory limit to 8MB, but it too worked just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do they emulate mouse clicks? Because in X-Com combat I think my volume up key would be broken very soon
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There have been three updates in the past 3 days. I'm happy to say the latest one added FULL support for my transformer's trackpad. Left clicks work great on Honeycomb, with the right click mapped to the 'back' button as usual.
On my Transformer Prime with ICS, both left and right clicks are working great! So I guess if you are on Honeycomb, you'll get left click.. If you are on ICS, you'll get both Left & Right clicks. I've been playing lots of MOO2 and XCom lately! =)
Been playing around with DosBox Turbo the past week and its just amazing on the Transformer.
It's already up to v1.1.3 just in the last week, and the author has listened to feedback. Absolutely everything works on the Transformer. Trackpad performs flawlessly, I even have right click (using ICS). You can map the back key to escape, and its in the perfect location to use as an escape key. The search key can also be re-mapped.
Its significantly faster than adosbox and around 15% faster than andosbox and supports all the hardware on the transformer. I played Doom, warcraft, ufo, space quest and even got the 11th hour to work acceptably. Where the other dosbox emulators wouldn't even support the trackpad on the transformer, this one even worked perfectly with my external usb mouse (both left and right click!)
Bell points the finger at chipset makers - "The way it's implemented right now, Android does not make as effective use of multiple cores as it could, and I think - frankly - some of this work could be done by the vendors who create the SoCs, but they just haven't bothered to do it. Right now the lack of software effort by some of the folks who have done their hardware implementation is a bigger disadvantage than anything else."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think about this guys?
He knows his stuff.
Sent from my GT-I9300
i would take it with a pinch of salt, though there are not many apps that takes advantage of multi core processor lets see what intel will tell when they have thier own dual core processor out in the market
Pretty good valid arguments for the most part.
I mostly agree though, but I think android makes good use of up to 2 cores. Anything more than that it doesn't at all.
There is a huge chunk of the article missing too.
Sent from my GT-I9300
full article
jaytana said:
What do you think about this guys?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.
Reckless187 said:
I think they should all be covered in honey and then thrown into a pit full of bears and Honey bees. And the bears should have like knives ductaped to their feet and the bees stingers should be dipped in chilli sauce.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?
Actually is a totally fail but in android 5 I think it's can be solved
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA
This was a serious problem on desktop Windows OS as well back when multi cores first starting coming out. I remember having to download patches for certain games and in other cases, having to set the CPU affinity to run certain games/apps with only one core so that it wouldn't freeze up. I am sure Android will move forward with multi-core support in the future.
simollie said:
wow, saying Android isn't ready for multip-core deserves such treatment? or this guy had committed more serious crime previously?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its a harsh but fair punishment imo. They need to sort that sh*t out as its totally unacceptable or they're gonna get a taste of the Cat o Nine Tails.
Android kernel is based on Linux. So this is suggesting the Linux kernel is not built to support multi-core either. Not true. There is a reason the SGS3 gets 5000+ in Quadrant, the the San Diego only gets 3000+. And the San Diego is running 200MHz faster.
Just look at the blue bar here. http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/31/orange-san-diego-benchmarks/ . My SGS3 got over 2.5K on just CPU alone.
What Intel said was true. Android is multicore aware but the os and apps aren't taking advantage of it. When this user disabled 2 cores on the HTC one x it made no difference at all in anything other than benchmarks.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=26094852&postcount=3
Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?
I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3
916x10 said:
I've been hearing this for some time now and is one of the reasons I didn't care that we weren't getting the quad core version of the GS3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay folks... firstly linux kernel, which android is based on, is aware of multicore (its obvious) but most the applications are not aware, thats true!.. but is not the android which to blame neither the SoC makers. This is like the flame intel made that they wanted to say their single core can do faster to a dual core arm LOL, (maybe intel will make 1 core has 4 threads or 8 threads) <- imposibruuu for now dunno later
you will notice the core usage while playing HD video that require cpu to decode (better core decode fastly)... and im not sure single core intel does better to arm dual core.. ~haha~
but for average user the differences are not noticable.. if intel aiming for this market yes that make sense... but android user are above average user.. they will optimize its phone eventually IMO
What they have failed to disclose is which SoC they did their test on and their methodology. Not much reason to doubt what he's saying but you gotta remember that Intel only have a single core mobile SoC currently and are aiming to get a foothold in the mobile device ecosystem so part of this could be throwing salt on competing products as it's something that should be taken care of by Google optimising the CPU scheduling algorithms of their OS.
The problem is in the chip set. I currently attend SUNY Oswego and a professor of mine Doug Lea works on many concurrent structures. He is currently working on the ARM spec sheet that is used to make chips. The bench marks that he has done shows that no matter how lucky or unlucky you get, the time that it takes to do a concurrent process is about the same where on desktop chips there is a huge difference between best case and worse case. The blame falls on the people that make the chips for now. They need to change how it handles concurrent operations and then if android still cant use multi-core processors then it falls on the shoulders of google.
that is my two cents on the whole situation. Just finished concurrency with Doug and after many talks this is my current opinion.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using XDA
Flynny75 said:
Disabling the CPU cores will do nothing to the GPU, hence still getting 60 FPS. And you say that like you expected to see a difference. Those games may not be particularly CPU intensive, thats why they continue to run fine. They will more than likely be GPU limited.
Android is not a difficult OS to run, thats why it can run on the G1, or AOKP can run smooth as silk on my i9000. If it can run smooth as silk on one 2yr old 1GHz chip, how COULD it go faster on a next-gen chip like in the SGS3 or HOX? In terms of just using the phone, ive not experienced any lag at all.
If youre buying a phone with dual/quad CPU cores, and only expecting to use it as a phone (i.e, not play demanding games/benchmark/mod/what ever else), of course you wont see any advantage, and you may feel cheated. And if you disable those extra cores, and still only use it as a phone, of course you wont notice any difference.
If a pocket calculator appears to calculate 1+1 instantly, and a HOX also calculates 1+1 instantly, Is the pocket calculator awesome, is the HOX not using all its cores, or is what it is being asked to do simply not taxing enough to use all the CPU power the HOX has got?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't mean daily task doesn't need the cpu power. When I put my sgs 3 in power save mode which cut back the cpu to 800mHz, I feel the lag instantly when scrolling around and navigating the internet. So I can conclude that performance per core is still much more important than number of cores. There isn't any performance difference either with the dual core sensation xe running beside the single core sensational xl.
The hardware needs to be out for developers to have incentive to make use of it. It's not like Android was built from the ground up to utilize 4 cores. That said, once it hits enough hand it and software running in it will be made to utilize the new hardware.
They are not horrible but they are not smooth as glass either. I know the simple answer is they are not optimized for tegra 3, but what does that actually mean? What I'm getting at is I'm used to the pc world of things. Let's say when doom 3 came out and my system could barely muster 25 fps on it. Well, 3 years later when I get a new kick-ass machine, it can crank out 60+ in doom 3 without breaking a sweat and doesn't need to be 'optimized' for my new card. It's opengl compatible so it's good to go.
I use doom 3 as an example because it's opengl as are android based games. But even on the direct x side, say batman arkham asylum/city. If your card is dx 11 capable you get some additional effects but for the most part the faster your card the more fps/higher res you can run it at, again no optimizations required. Yes sometimes patches are needed (I'm looking at you ATI), but that's dealing with bugs.
It's rare that a newer card would have performance issues that an older card wouldn't with the same game. Rarely there would be an issue like a game doesn't vsync properly and runs too fast or maybe crashes and needs a patch, but they never actually need to be optimized for a specific card/chipset.
So if these games are opengl based, what does that actually mean here? And say they release new versions that are tegra 3 optimized (and charge again?!) say two years down the line when some other chipset is popular, would they yet again need to be optimized?
I thought the tegra 3 is one of if not the fastest video chipsets for android (and from what I've read it is) but it's disappointing to see some games not perform well and get the reason 'not optimized'. Not really complaining, but would like to understand how this works behind the scenes and will it continue to be an issue with future chipsets.
this is pure speculation, as i have little knowledge with this sort of thing, but maybe the games are not making use of the 4 cores at all, and only seeing the companion core. or maybe just the companion core, and one other.
I've both games on mine, but they run like butter.
My os is rooted stock
I don't really use the N7 for gaming as I already own a high-end gaming computer, besides I find tablets kind of uncomfortable for serious gaming, but I keep finding games that don't run as smooth as they should because of the same reason: This game is not optimized for tegra 3. I can't help but wonder: Will they ever optimize games for tegra 3? And I mean generally, not just a couple of games.
As you ask for "generally" i.e. ALL future games, the answer will (with a probabilty of 87.4%) be: No, they won't.
I don't think you can ever have "serious gaming" on a touch screen. You need real controllers or a keyboard + mouse for that. I also don't think you're going to get your serious gaming on a device that has 1GB of ram and runs everything in a virtual machine. You've got the whole android OS running along side the game, so the game is having to share that piddly 1GB of ram.
Look at the minimum requirements for big PC games and then look at the resources available to games on this tablet. The nexus doesnt even have half the specs for the lowest recommended settings in far cry 3, dishonored, dark souls, most of the other games that showed up on the list when I googled for "popular PC games".
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=3410&game=Dark Souls
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2186&game=Dishonored
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=883&game=Far Cry 3
In most cases, I'd say developers won't take the time to optimize a game for a specific CPU. SoCs change about as often as you change your underwear. What is hot today will be obsolete next quarter and a handfull of newer chips will be out. If game makers had to optimize every game for every possible SoC, they'd never get nything released.
gianptune said:
I don't think you can ever have "serious gaming" on a touch screen. You need real controllers or a keyboard + mouse for that. I also don't think you're going to get your serious gaming on a device that has 1GB of ram and runs everything in a virtual machine. You've got the whole android OS running along side the game, so the game is having to share that piddly 1GB of ram.
Look at the minimum requirements for big PC games and then look at the resources available to games on this tablet. The nexus doesnt even have half the specs for the lowest recommended settings in far cry 3, dishonored, dark souls, most of the other games that showed up on the list when I googled for "popular PC games".
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=3410&game=Dark Souls
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=2186&game=Dishonored
http://www.game-debate.com/games/index.php?g_id=883&game=Far Cry 3
In most cases, I'd say developers won't take the time to optimize a game for a specific CPU. SoCs change about as often as you change your underwear. What is hot today will be obsolete next quarter and a handfull of newer chips will be out. If game makers had to optimize every game for every possible SoC, they'd never get nything released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And where did I say I wanted to use it for serious gaming? Read the first post again because it seems you didn't understand it quite well. I'm just wondering if tegra 3 will be of any use in the future, nothing else.
It is not in game makers' interest to optimize games for specific chipsets. They make more money by cranking out 1 version of a game that runs on as many devices as possible. If they spend 3 months optimizing it for our chip, and then 3 months optimizing it for the snapdragon s4, the game is already released 6 months later and costs much more to make.
They will only optimize a game for the tegra3 if they are sure they can get their money back out of that extra effort. Will they sell enough "tegra optimized" versions to make up for all the copies they didn't sell in their 3 months of delay? Will they sell enough copies to pay the people that worked to do the optimizing? Do they even want to pay somebody to sit and figure out the math on that?
My point of view
gianptune said:
I don't think you can ever have "serious gaming" on a touch screen. You need real controllers or a keyboard + mouse for that. I also don't think you're going to get your serious gaming on a device that has 1GB of ram and runs everything in a virtual machine. You've got the whole android OS running along side the game, so the game is having to share that piddly 1GB of ram.
Look at the minimum requirements for big PC games and then look at the resources available to games on this tablet. The nexus doesnt even have half the specs for the lowest recommended settings in far cry 3, dishonored, dark souls, most of the other games that showed up on the list when I googled for "popular PC games".
...cut...
In most cases, I'd say developers won't take the time to optimize a game for a specific CPU. SoCs change about as often as you change your underwear. What is hot today will be obsolete next quarter and a handfull of newer chips will be out. If game makers had to optimize every game for every possible SoC, they'd never get nything released.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you compare the situation with PC gaming, it's also a matter about different CPU architectures (x86 vs ARM), CISC vs RISC etc., it's not only a matter of plain comparison of MHz or RAM.
However Tegra 3 IMHO sadly gave results below expectations in gaming due its limited memory bandwidth that's an issue for high resolution screens. So even if it's an overall good SoC, I think we won't see many optimized games for it, mainly because the market leader (yeah, it's the bitten apple in the gaming department), focuses on different specs and recode a game to fit the requirements costs too much compared to the revenue they could achieve with a tailored version.
The saddest thing (and I hope to be proved wrong), is that with the release of Tegra 4, we'll be forgot like the devices with Tegra 2...
There are a couple of nice games to get, I wished there where free ones though which where tegra optimised so I could see the difference.
But with all the different chipsets they would never do it, and if they where going to do it id say they would optimse the chipset what samsung uses because there are so many more of those sold.
N732 said:
I'm just wondering if tegra 3 will be of any use in the future, nothing else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tegra 3's future started about a year ago, and will be over some time next year. 'tis the nature of SoC's.
Loved the underwear comment above (c: and there is a fair amount of truth in it. While seeing the Tegra optimized stuff was cool, it is a sales tool with a limited window.
N732 said:
I don't really use the N7 for gaming as I already own a high-end gaming computer, besides I find tablets kind of uncomfortable for serious gaming, but I keep finding games that don't run as smooth as they should because of the same reason: This game is not optimized for tegra 3. I can't help but wonder: Will they ever optimize games for tegra 3? And I mean generally, not just a couple of games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Download the Tegrazone app. There's a good many optimized games and some great free ones like shadowgun: Deadzone
Hello to you all.
I'd like to hear your view about which version of the phone has more potential in the years to come when dealing with future emulators such as the Wii, 360, PS3, and any previous gen game console to date. With that I have a few questions I ask to you all.
With the Snapdragon running Quad 1.9's. What could be the maximum overclock on these?
In this wikipage, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S4, it explains the Exynos runs only 1 of the 2 sets of quad 1.6 and 1.2 cores respectfully. I'd like to know if there is a bypass to get all 8 cores running concurrently at the same time. And if so, To get the overclock on every core for this model as well.
The ultimate goal is using a BT controller(Moga Controller), maximum processing and graphics powers(These phones), Connector cables for HDMI, and the proper emulators to enjoy(Which I'm currently working/dealing with).
Hear from you soon.
Sincerely,
Sincereless
Sincereless said:
I'd like to hear your view about which version of the phone has more potential in the years to come when dealing with future emulators such as the Wii, 360, PS3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're highly overestimating the performance of the phone. While there's a Dolphin emulator in the works to emulate Gamecube and Wii games on Android, the S4 will never be able to run them at a decent frame rate. 360 and PS3 emulators are out of the question, even for the most powerful desktop computers available.
Yeah, it takes many times the power of the original to emulate it. Phones are only close in capabilities to those 7 year old consoles which means there's no hope of emulating them.
ChronoReverse said:
Yeah, it takes many times the power of the original to emulate it. Phones are only close in capabilities to those 7 year old consoles which means there's no hope of emulating them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THE ADRENO 320 ITS WORKING TOO CLOSE OF THE PS3 PERFORMANCE... AND THE 1.9GHz OF THE CPU IS OVERLOCKABLE TO 2.0GHz EVEN 2.2GHz BUT THE PHONE ALREY SUFFERS THOROTTLE SO LETS SEE WHAT HAPPEN
Sincereless said:
Hello to you all.
With the Snapdragon running Quad 1.9's. What could be the maximum overclock on these?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt it will get overclocked, it already feels like it's gonna burn a hole through the screen after 15 minutes use...
Before we get into whether it can or can't run an emulation it's best to discuss the absolute limits of the Exynos phone and Snapdragon. I'm currently discussing the situation with a group working on the PS3 emulation. But first we need to know what the phone can and can't do.
So the question now is how high can the Exynos 1.6 and 1.2 cores be overclocked, and how high can the 1.9 Snapdragons? What would be a good stable overclock speed? One that won't burn out the CPU's.
(On a side note is there such a thing as portable external CPU's. After browsing extended batteries I got the notion you could kinda fit a second phone motherboard in the size of one of the extended cases. Say for example a second Galaxy S4.) <.<
Your thoughts?