Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

(Wii) Performance degradation in 1.2.2 #2164

Closed
ghost opened this issue Sep 24, 2015 · 13 comments
Closed

(Wii) Performance degradation in 1.2.2 #2164

ghost opened this issue Sep 24, 2015 · 13 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Sep 24, 2015

16-bit emulator cores have an obvious degradation in performance compared to the previous milestone release, which was 1.0.0.2. Both Snes9x Next and Genesis Plus GX have an issue where frames drop where they're not supposed to be, a great example is any fast-paced game such as Sonic the Hedgehog 3. Effects such as the strobe effect (flickering at 60 frames per second), are not rendered perfectly or consistent, this issue is akin to v-syncing issues; Sky Sanctuary Zone is a great place to test this issue. The section where Sonic is transported via the light beam flickers at 60 fps, but you can see where the frames drop and strobe effect is not consistent. Now, with 1.0.0.2, the smooth framerate in Genesis Plus or Snes9x Next does not occur (unless they are the few games that don't run 60 fps due to performance issues like SA-1 ROMs), Sky Sanctuary Zone has a perfect 60 fps and there are no signs of performance degradation.

This issue has been confirmed by Libretro forum user retrogamer. I don't know what changes were implemented in the actual 1.2.2 RA GUI itself, but the core works far better on 1.0.0.2 than it did on 1.2.2. I monitored the FPS counter, not sure if it can be logged though. If you need more information, please let me know.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

Build from source and see if it's better, a couple of things changed since.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 24, 2015

So try one of the nightly builds and report back (I see one that was compiled today, will try a few nightly builds)? Okay, I'll let you know after testing. Thank you.

Edit: Only compilation guide I could find was from a couple of years back http://libretro.com/forums/showthread.php?t=720 Not sure if that guide still holds true.

Edit: 2 NVM, the cores won't do much good, as I need the main boot.dol.

@andres-asm
Copy link
Contributor

RetroArch for consoles is a two step process:

  • Build the core
  • Build retroarch and link it statically with the core

The simplest method to achieve this is:

  • build the core
  • copy the .a file to the retroarch repository / dist-scripts
  • run dist-cores.sh $platform (wii in this case)

This is assumming you have the toolchain configured correctly. It should put everything you need under pkg/wii

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 29, 2015

I tested Genesis Plus cores (most up to date) with 1.0.0.2, and 1.2.2 and both performed without speed degradation or dropped frames; which leads me to assume that cores that come with 1.2.2 (not including nightly builds) are outdated and broken.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

So you are telling me that with the latest Genesis Plus GX core and the latest RetroArch compiled from source, speed is good again?

I want to be sure that I'm getting this right because I am not sure what you are referring to as '1.2.2' - whether you mean the last official release or the current source.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Sep 29, 2015

Yes,1.2.2 as in the plain version and not a nightly derivative of 1.2.2. The cores were compiled by Retrogamer on the forums for me to test

1.2.2 Genesis Plus
https://anonfiles.com/file/1a58efcf0f09923e14128f123d489701

1.0.0.2 Genesis Plus
https://anonfiles.com/file/f2ce03ffe1e72bebd9041d880215081e

I tested Sonic 3 as it is a fast game and uses the strobe effects a lot, never once dropped frames. What recent source Genesis Plus was built from, I don't know, but it is the most up to date and does not have issues. I assume other cores need to be compiled similarly (as in being updated). I hope this info is useful.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

No this info is not useful. I specifically asked you to test the latest source, not some old version that is no longer current. This does not help us at all. What do you expect us to do with this info? Test against latest source or ask him to provide you with a latest nightly, anything else will not do.

I need to know if the current RA source with the current core sources have the same performance as 1.0.0.2. Please be specific and please provide me with test results of exactly what I am asking for , and no deviations.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 1, 2015

Well, Retrogamer has specified that the 1.2.2 dol is exactly up to date in both cases, the core and RA source, the 1.0.0.2 dol is the latest genesis plus core source and RA is the old one.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

Again I have no idea what you are actually trying to confirm.

All I want to know is results with latest RA source and latest cores. Anything else - combining latest cores with RA 1.0.0.2 - is not something that is going go help.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 1, 2015

What I'm trying to confirm is with the original build of 1.2.2, the cores that came with it had performance issues, dropping frames.

With the compiled cores compiled with the latest 1.2.2 nightly, the issue no longer remains as again, the cores were compiled with the latest build. Vanilla 1.2.2 is the one with the unstable cores, I don't understand what it is about my wording that's confusing.

Original 1.2.2 Genesis, Snes9x Next, etc cores had framerate drops/performance degradation
Nightly compiled cores for the aforementioned emulators do not have this issue.

That is all I'm trying to explain.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

Alright, so what you are telling me that with the current source, things are back to normal and we can close this issue.

Alright then, that is all that I wanted to know. You can go ahead and close the issue then if the issue is truly fixed.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Oct 1, 2015

My apologies for wasting your time. Okay.

@inactive123
Copy link
Contributor

Well the wording was confusing and I couldn't really get what you are getting at and it was geting a little frustrating, that is all. No hard feelings intended.. If you can confirm that with the latest sources and the latest RetroArch performance is back to normal, that is a relief indeed. Thanks for confirming that if that is the case.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants