2600 emulator for older hardware

[jhd]

My desktop is rapidly approaching 10 years old. It is running Windows XP, SP1. It has an integrated video card (I don't know the specs).

 

I have limited interest in replacing it because it does what I need (Word, basic photo editing software, download e-mail, create/edit web pages) and I'd rather spend my money on other things.

 

I'm currently running a very old version of Stella; what is the most recent version that will reasonably run on my hardware? Is there another emulator that I should consider instead?

 

My approach to software (and hardware) is when I get something that works well, I do not change it.

[+stephena]

I suspect that anything in the 3.x series or later will be too slow, since more full-featured emulation typically requires a faster computer (and 3.0 is when the emulation compatibility jumped up a notch). That being said, in testing the recently added Blargg TV effects, one tester reported that it ran sufficiently on Intel integrated graphics down-clocked to 650MHz or so (using OpenGL). So there's hope that the latest versions might be fast enough.

 

If not, the 2.x series should work, but keep in mind that quite a few homebrew ROMs won't run, and even some older ROMs will have glitches because of incomplete emulation.

 

As for other emulators, most of them require hardware acceleration at this point. Older versions of z26 are probably fastest on vintage hardware, but again, won't be compatible with the latest ROMs. And the newest versions of z26 are hardware accelerated with OpenGL, so they may be too slow (and if they aren't, then Stella will run too).

 

I would suggest trying a few releases. Try the latest (3.7.2). If too slow, try something in 2.x series.

[Keatah]

What is the hardware specs? Processor type and speed? Graphics card/chip?

[jhd]

If not, the 2.x series should work, but keep in mind that quite a few homebrew ROMs won't run, and even some older ROMs will have glitches because of incomplete emulation.

 

I understand that the older version is less perfect. Good enough is good enough.

 

Is there a list of the homebrew ROMs that won't work?

 

What is the hardware specs? Processor type and speed? Graphics card/chip?

 

The processor is 2.5 Ghz., single core. I have no idea about the graphics card.

 

Gaming is not a high priority on this hardware -- that's what my PS 2 is for.

Edited August 20, 2012 by jhd

[Rex Dart]

With 2.5GHz, I would just start with the most recent version & work my way backwards.

[Keatah]

If for some reason you need an extra 30% more speed, change the flipping policy from blit to flip.

[ProperRogue]

@jhd

 

We have roughly the same specs minus the video card, and I can easily run Stella 3.1.1. I stayed with that version simply because it's the last to use OpenGL, IIRC.

 

Since you mention running a PS2, have you ever looked into PVCS.

[jhd]

I've never heard of PVCS.

 

I do have the commercial Atari and Activision collections for the PS 2. I have not (yet) tried any "non-commercial" emulators on the PS 2.

[+stephena]

If not, the 2.x series should work, but keep in mind that quite a few homebrew ROMs won't run, and even some older ROMs will have glitches because of incomplete emulation.

 

I understand that the older version is less perfect. Good enough is good enough.

 

Is there a list of the homebrew ROMs that won't work?

 

Newer bankswitch schemes such as DPC+, FA2, CTY, etc, as well as older ones that were only supported recently (Compumate). I don't know exactly how many ROMs that is, but it includes some of the cool new stuff coming from spiceware (Space Rocks, Berzerk clone, etc) and cd-w (Star Castle). In particular, the DPC+ scheme basically emulates the hardware from the Harmony cart, so I expect a lot of new ROMs will be excluded.

 

This doesn't even include the many glitches in TIA emulation that were fixed in the 3.x series.

 

But in any event, I don't consider a 2.5GHz computer slow, even one from the P4 era. Paired with even the most basic Intel-integrated video, OpenGL should still be possible.

[+stephena]

With 2.5GHz, I would just start with the most recent version & work my way backwards.

 

Yes, because ironically enough, OpenGL performance improved in 3.7, even though Blargg TV effects were added and the internal graphics were switched from 16-bit to 32-bit colour. This was because of bugfixing and a redesign of certain graphics functionality.

 

Stella 4.0 will support SDL2 and native Direct3D support for Windows, which tends to be slightly faster (in Windows). So things should improve eventually.

[+stephena]

We have roughly the same specs minus the video card, and I can easily run Stella 3.1.1. I stayed with that version simply because it's the last to use OpenGL, IIRC.

 

Not sure why you say that. OpenGL has been supported since 2.0, and in fact is used more-so in the latest versions. If it isn't working for you after 3.1.1, it's definitely either a bug or a problem with your system. OpenGL support was definitely not removed. In fact, eventually software rendering will be removed, and OpenGL/Direct3D will be required.

[ProperRogue]

My mistake. Not OpenGL, but rather the TV effects, I believe. Something along those lines anyway. It was a distinct feature that I enjoyed using but IIRC you were doing away with that certain option in future versions. Basically the reason I just stayed with 3.1.1.

Edited August 21, 2012 by ProperRogue

[Hoessi666]

If it´s still interesting: I play my Games with the newest Version of Stella 3.7.2 and TV-Effects enabled on an Intel Atom 1.6 GHz- Nettop with Intel onboard-Graphics GMA950, 1GB RAM and Win XP SP3. Absolutely perfect at full Speed although the System is not really the strongest!

[+stephena]

Yep, the older TV effects were very resource-intensive, and were due to be replaced by Blargg filtering. It took longer than I expected (as I don't have a lot of free time), but newer TV effects were added in 3.7. And as reported in the post above, it's definitely faster on lower-end systems.