Poll: How much would you spend for a PS2 emulator for your PS3?

Recommended Videos

ratix2

New member
Feb 6, 2008
453
0
0
Megacherv said:
Marq said:
I would not pay for an emulator. That's like paying for a torrent tracker.

Besides, I doubt a PS3 would have the power to emulate a PS2 to a playable standard. On PC, PS2 emulators require very high specs to run close to 100% speed during action.
The PS3 has an 8-core 3.2GHz processor, one core for its graphics. That's 3.2GHz for graphics. Power isn't the issue. The problem is architecture. It's hard to emulate the Graphics Synthesizer because of how strange it works, and Sony said that they basically can't be bothered to have to code for ages to get it working. I'd love a service where you could have a PS2's Graphics Synthesizer installed into your PS3, and that any PS1/PS2 accessories worked perfectly (I have the G-Con .45 and the G-Con 2), through USB adaptors if necessary.
please, not just you but EVERYONE

STOP BELIEVING SONYS MARKETING BULLSHIT!

first off, they are spu's (synegetic processing unit, also called spe's), NOT cores. each spu DOES NOT have the the same processing power as a traditional processing core. even when they are programed for to be used in their most efficient way each individual one is not as powerful.

second, cell is an in-order execution processor, which is why it runs at 3.2 ghz, if it were out-of-order execution it would run at a much higher speeds, but would be much more powerful. it isnt comparable to standard pc processors because of this reason.

third, each processor only has 7 functional spu's to improve yields, or how many processors on each silicon wafer come out functional, and another one is ALWAYS reserved for the system.

finally, with how cell works (spu's have to be chained together for each task) you not only decrease its overall performance but you have FEWER spu's to use as graphics processors.

oh, and one other thing, cell CANNOT be used for any meaningful graphics work. that has only been done is tech demos, demos that have had NOTHING else being done other than the graphics being done, but in the real world where physics, ai, collission detection among other things that have to be handled by the processor it becomes much less possible to do.

but other than that your right, emulating one archiecture on a completly different one is what makes emulation so hardware intensive. that being said however, the pcsx2 team is full of people who have lives, jobs and families, they do this in their spare time, and they dont have the technical resources that sony engineers who get paid gobs of money to sit down for 8+ hours a day 5+ days a week have. it would be much easier for to sony to make an emulator that a few people who do it in their spare time. if i had to wager id say that sony already has one but are just waiting for ps2 sales to tank before releasing it.
 

Megacherv

Kinect Development Sucks...
Sep 24, 2008
2,650
0
0
ratix2 said:
Megacherv said:
Marq said:
I would not pay for an emulator. That's like paying for a torrent tracker.

Besides, I doubt a PS3 would have the power to emulate a PS2 to a playable standard. On PC, PS2 emulators require very high specs to run close to 100% speed during action.
The PS3 has an 8-core 3.2GHz processor, one core for its graphics. That's 3.2GHz for graphics. Power isn't the issue. The problem is architecture. It's hard to emulate the Graphics Synthesizer because of how strange it works, and Sony said that they basically can't be bothered to have to code for ages to get it working. I'd love a service where you could have a PS2's Graphics Synthesizer installed into your PS3, and that any PS1/PS2 accessories worked perfectly (I have the G-Con .45 and the G-Con 2), through USB adaptors if necessary.
please, not just you but EVERYONE

STOP BELIEVING SONYS MARKETING BULLSHIT!

first off, they are spu's (synegetic processing unit, also called spe's), NOT cores. each spu DOES NOT have the the same processing power as a traditional processing core. even when they are programed for to be used in their most efficient way each individual one is not as powerful.

second, cell is an in-order execution processor, which is why it runs at 3.2 ghz, if it were out-of-order execution it would run at a much higher speeds, but would be much more powerful. it isnt comparable to standard pc processors because of this reason.

third, each processor only has 7 functional spu's to improve yields, or how many processors on each silicon wafer come out functional, and another one is ALWAYS reserved for the system.

finally, with how cell works (spu's have to be chained together for each task) you not only decrease its overall performance but you have FEWER spu's to use as graphics processors.

oh, and one other thing, cell CANNOT be used for any meaningful graphics work. that has only been done is tech demos, demos that have had NOTHING else being done other than the graphics being done, but in the real world where physics, ai, collission detection among other things that have to be handled by the processor it becomes much less possible to do.

but other than that your right, emulating one archiecture on a completly different one is what makes emulation so hardware intensive. that being said however, the pcsx2 team is full of people who have lives, jobs and families, they do this in their spare time, and they dont have the technical resources that sony engineers who get paid gobs of money to sit down for 8+ hours a day 5+ days a week have. it would be much easier for to sony to make an emulator that a few people who do it in their spare time. if i had to wager id say that sony already has one but are just waiting for ps2 sales to tank before releasing it.
*points to Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition* Sorry, blame them...