mbd30 Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Apparently with the latest release it's all "low level emulation" now. The CX4 chip (Megaman X2) has been cracked. Too bad you still need a high end PC to not get massive framedrops on certain games. This will be the perfect SNES emulator as soon as computers catch up. And they will soon. I stick to version .70 because newer versions run slower on my 2.5ghz Dual Core. http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1741 http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1768 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3vor Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 sounds like it has some pretty high system requirements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted June 26, 2011 Author Share Posted June 26, 2011 sounds like it has some pretty high system requirements. Most games run well on a modest PC. Special chip games have steeper requirements for full speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 Should be no problem on my rig, thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuckleCat Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Yeah, BSNES has been the best and most accurate SNES emu for awhile now. .80 runs great for me, with Mega Man X2 and X3 running at 60 fps. Make sure you're running the 32-bit "compatibility" version. If all you want to do is play the games, and have no desire to do any SNES programming, you don't need the 64-bit version. Also make sure you grab the CX4 rom from his site, as X2 and X3 need it. (I'm running a 2.6 Ghz AMD X2) Edited June 27, 2011 by HuckleCat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 Yeah, BSNES has been the best and most accurate SNES emu for awhile now. .80 runs great for me, with Mega Man X2 and X3 running at 60 fps. Make sure you're running the 32-bit "compatibility" version. If all you want to do is play the games, and have no desire to do any SNES programming, you don't need the 64-bit version. Also make sure you grab the CX4 rom from his site, as X2 and X3 need it. (I'm running a 2.6 Ghz AMD X2) Okay, I tested version .80. I did get the framerate halving during the wireframe part of the introduction in "Megaman X2" and my CPU speed is similar to yours. See if it does the same thing for you. There might be other parts during the game where the framerate dips. I've noticed that some filters such as HQ2X are much slower in the newer versions of BSNES compared with version .70. Using HQ2X in a more demanding game such as "Star Fox" results in a big FPS hit. LQ2X is still decently fast. I'm not sure whether I want to stick with .80 or go back to .70. The new version is pretty sweet in a lot of ways despite some decrease in performance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuckleCat Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Ok, yeah, the wireframe part in X2 does cause a dip in FPS, but that's the only part. As for the filters, I don't use any of them. I pretty much like it looking all pixel-crisp, so I'm not having any problems with Starfox or Stunt Race FX. Sorry it took so long to reply to this. I've had some "real-life" things to deal with recently, but everything is cool now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 I decided to keep both .70 and .80 installed. Most games run fine with .80, whereas "Yoshi's Island" benefits from using the Performance core in .70... no periodic framerate dips and sound crackles when eg. entering a new location by going down a pipe. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaWarrior Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I beg to differ ZSNES is the best Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I beg to differ ZSNES is the best As one who has no idea.......for what reasons do you make this claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaWarrior Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I have ZSNES on my PC so I know.... I will try BSNES later on my laptop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldSchoolRetroGamer Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I have ZSNES on my PC so I know.... I will try BSNES later on my laptop Er, you know what? what is "better" in Zsnes? So you have it on your pc, that means nothing.......... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuckleCat Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I have ZSNES on my PC so I know.... I will try BSNES later on my laptop First off, no. Zsnes is now actually behind Snes9x, and WAY behind BSNES. This is no longer a matter of opinion. I'll bet you also think Nesticle and Genecyst are the best NES and Genesis emus. Second off, your reasoning totally sucks. You say Zsnes is "better" because that's the one you have. That's not only stupid, but it's the main symptom of the common console fanboy. You follow up with this by then saying "I will try BSNES later", which means you haven't even tried it. Come back when you know what you're talking about. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I beg to differ ZSNES is the best ZSNES is the most popular and fastest, but not the most accurate. If you're not a developer and you stick to the most popular games then you might not notice the difference. But ZSNES still has inaccurate sound and other glitches in various games that work fine in BSNES. BSNES is more CPU intensive but you can be assured of a bug-free experience in 99.9% of games... like playing on the real thing. However if speed is a a pressing issue then you might want to go with ZSNES or SNES9X. Here is an article from the BSNES site on "why accuracy matters". http://byuu.org/bsnes/accuracy. And here is a forum thread that discusses the differences between accurate and inaccurate emulation http://board.byuu.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1306 I think the main flaw that casual users will notice about ZSNES is the poor sound compared to better emulators such as BSNES and SNES9X 1.53. Edited July 4, 2011 by mbd30 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akator Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 To play devil's advocate here... emulating a 16-bit console with a 3.55 MHz CPU should not require a 3GHz quad core computer. I understand that cycle exact emulation is "the ultimate," but sometimes "ultimate" is not "the best" in the real world. I have a computer that uses BSNES perfectly fine, but I also have 2 that don't... and every one of those computers that can't run BSNES is under 3 years old. Something about that just seems wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 To play devil's advocate here... emulating a 16-bit console with a 3.55 MHz CPU should not require a 3GHz quad core computer. BSNES doesn't require that fast of a computer unless you are running the super slow "Accuracy" profile which is really only needed for displaying the shadows under your plane in "Air Strike Patrol". Otherwise a 2.5ghz dual core CPU is enough to get a steady 60fps with the majority of games. You might get the occasional framerate dip in an extra demanding special chip game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuckleCat Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 To play devil's advocate here... emulating a 16-bit console with a 3.55 MHz CPU should not require a 3GHz quad core computer. I understand that cycle exact emulation is "the ultimate," but sometimes "ultimate" is not "the best" in the real world. I have a computer that uses BSNES perfectly fine, but I also have 2 that don't... and every one of those computers that can't run BSNES is under 3 years old. Something about that just seems wrong. I hear what you're saying, and you're "sort of" right. The "ultimate not always being the best" point just does not apply here. For example, a Ferrari and a souped up Honda Civic - both can do what the other does, even though the Ferrari is the "ultimate" it does not make it "the best". BSNES can do what Zsnes cannot. To be more fair, Snes9x can also do what Zsnes cannot. While you can't put a finger on "the best" car, you can put a finger on "the best" Super Nintendo emulator. Not being able to run it does not detract from this fact. As a curiosity, what are your other 2 PC that can't run it? (Mine is over 3 years old.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 To play devil's advocate here... emulating a 16-bit console with a 3.55 MHz CPU should not require a 3GHz quad core computer. I understand that cycle exact emulation is "the ultimate," but sometimes "ultimate" is not "the best" in the real world. I have a computer that uses BSNES perfectly fine, but I also have 2 that don't... and every one of those computers that can't run BSNES is under 3 years old. Something about that just seems wrong. I hear what you're saying, and you're "sort of" right. The "ultimate not always being the best" point just does not apply here. For example, a Ferrari and a souped up Honda Civic - both can do what the other does, even though the Ferrari is the "ultimate" it does not make it "the best". BSNES can do what Zsnes cannot. To be more fair, Snes9x can also do what Zsnes cannot. While you can't put a finger on "the best" car, you can put a finger on "the best" Super Nintendo emulator. Not being able to run it does not detract from this fact. As a curiosity, what are your other 2 PC that can't run it? (Mine is over 3 years old.) The official recommended requirements for BSNES are a Core 2 Duo or Phenom processor. Practically any modern PC can handle BSNES. People should make sure to download the 32-bit "Compatibility" profile. The 64-bit "Accuracy" profile has no advantages except for developers testing SNES code or for playing "Air Strike Patrol" with the shadow under your airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulBlazer Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I started using BSNES a few weeks ago, and it's handled everything very well that I've tossed at it. The only thing I might quibble with is the screen options are more limited compared to ZSNES. I wish I could just have it full screen save for the task bar on the bottom. The only game I've noticed any issues with is Super Mario RPG, the music has some static in it. I still need to play around with it more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) I started using BSNES a few weeks ago, and it's handled everything very well that I've tossed at it. The only thing I might quibble with is the screen options are more limited compared to ZSNES. I wish I could just have it full screen save for the task bar on the bottom. The only game I've noticed any issues with is Super Mario RPG, the music has some static in it. I still need to play around with it more. "Super Mario RPG" uses the Super Accelerator 1 chip. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips#SA-1 SA-1 emulation in BSNES isn't too speedy. Drops in framerate result in audio crackles If you employ filters, I recommend using either LQ2X or no filter with SA-1 and Super FX games. You might also want to switch from Direct Sound to XAudio2. I can't get vsync with Open GL but you can try that instead of Direct 3D and see if that improves performance on your system. Byuu makes previous versions of BSNES available on his site. For special chip games you might want to download a prior version such as .70 that includes the Performance profile. You can keep it installed alongside the latest version because they use different folders for their config files. Performance should get you a steady 60 frames per second even in SMRPG. Edited July 4, 2011 by mbd30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akator Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 As a curiosity, what are your other 2 PC that can't run it? (Mine is over 3 years old.) My only machine that can play everything I've tried in BSNES is my 3 GHz quad core work computer. Our Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz laptop can't run BSNES reliably. Some games are fine, but at least 2/5 aren't worth playing. I use Snes9x on it. Our HTPC is a dual core Atom with ION graphics. I know the Atom isn't a great processor... but most emulators run perfectly fine on it. I use Snes9x on that one, too. BSNES is almost useless on this nettop. MAME is great on it, even OutRun and Street Fighter 2 scaled to 1920... but not BSNES. For what it's worth, even my wife's 3 year old netbook with a single Atom and crappy integrated Intel graphics can run Snes9x at full speed. I haven't even bothered trying BSNES on the Eee PC because if the dual core netbook can't do it, there's no way the netbook will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulBlazer Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Holy fuck, what the hell did they DO in these new versions? My computer is not THAT old....it's a AMD Phenom 9750 Quad Core Processor running at 2.40 GHZ. I was running .75, I didn't realize they were up to .80 now. I used to play all my games at about 55-60 FPS with no static or anything in the sound. Now with the new version .80, ANYTHING I try is running at about 45-55 FPS with either small or moderate ammounts of static. It doesn't seem to matter WHAT settings I try with it. I know BSNES is trying to emphaize accuracy over speed, but come on here! ZSNES and SNES9X never had these kinds of issues! I did try several games out in BSNES .70 including Super Mario RPG and it all runs just fine, so either I'll have to stay in that version or go back to another emulator. Also, with .70 I have more control over the video input. I can expand it to full screen with the game taking up more of it and still leave my task bar at the bottom visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 Now with the new version .80, ANYTHING I try is running at about 45-55 FPS with either small or moderate ammounts of static. It doesn't seem to matter WHAT settings I try with it. You must have downloaded the 64-bit "Accuracy" profile. Don't use that unless you have something like a Core i7, and even then it's hardly worth it. Version .80 with the 32-bit "Compatibility" profile works fine for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulBlazer Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Now with the new version .80, ANYTHING I try is running at about 45-55 FPS with either small or moderate ammounts of static. It doesn't seem to matter WHAT settings I try with it. You must have downloaded the 64-bit "Accuracy" profile. Don't use that unless you have something like a Core i7, and even then it's hardly worth it. Version .80 with the 32-bit "Compatibility" profile works fine for me. Yeah, I was just coming back to edit my post. That's what I did, since I have a 64 bit system. With the 32 bit version of .80 I can do anything I want with the settings and MOST games run just fine with no static at a good 60-63 FPS. Still can't get the sound perfect on Mario RPG, though. No matter what options I try, it chugs a bit slower, at about 53-58 FPS. I guess I'll just use the older version .70 to play this. How do you have your video options set up to play on your monitor, BTW? I have a 19 inch widescreen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbd30 Posted July 4, 2011 Author Share Posted July 4, 2011 I have a 2.5ghz E5200 Dual Core and "Mario RPG" plays _okay_ with the LQ2X filter... usually holds at 60fps with the occasional dip. But with version .70 and Performance core I can play it with HQ2X. My monitor is 22" widescreen LCD. For video settings I use "Scale" and have NTSC gamma ramp disabled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
AtariAge on Instagram
Watch us on YouTube
Chat on Discord
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.