If one system can emulate another in some way that's 90% accurate in real time (probably true if you can fool a human or run most of its software library) which even the fast emulators do, I'd say it's safe to say that the emulating system eclipses the one being emulated. You can still make a reasonably good comparison about how capable hardware is via emulation over a direct hardware spec comparison across different architectures even though it'll be partially qualitative. Myself, I only get 140 fps on the most demanding scenes, and I have a 3.0 ghz Pentium Dual-Core 2160).Īm I making myself clear? Sorry, I just don't communicate well.
Quake ii running slow pj64 full#
Any CPU less than that will most likely not reach full speed or higher. The slow emulator could be a very accurate one that gets everything as correct as reasonably possible(bsnes, the most accurate emulator to date, runs fullspeed on a core 2 Duo 2.0 ghz or higher.
It can also runs code that would never work on the real console due to this last of accuracy.). a minor change can completely break a game, and it gets a lot of games wrong. The fast one would most likely not be very accurate, and could have many issues not caught by most people due to one thing or another(for example, zsnes' sound core is very bitchy. The thing I left out was a better description of what I meant. I was saying that you could make a slow as hell emulator and a fast one. Maybe you misunderstood me, or I'm misunderstanding you.
0 kommentar(er)
