Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

masterotaku Wrote:Well, I usually play in 3D at 3xIR or 4xIR (depending on the game, and in N64 games usually more) with 2xMSAA, which is more than double of 1920x1080 (3D is like rendering double the pixels), and 3D requires a bit more than just the resolution increase. And I have an overclocked GTX 760.

3D is quite literally doubling the pixels, but it isn't much compared to 4k.

1920*1080 = 2,073,600
2,073,600*2 = 4,147,200

Comparing to some common resolutions...

1440p = 2560*1440 = 3,685,400
4k = 3840*2160 = 8,294,400

So "double" of 1080p by pixel count in rendered pixels is roughly 4.5x native. And 4k has double the rendered pixels of 1080p3D. Both of which make sense, since 4k is 1080p with doubled height and doubled width, and 1080p3D is basically just doubled width. Both 1080p3D and 1440p are a lot easier to run than 4k!

Just to be clear, you don't need 5x native for 1080p3D. The 3D system in Dolphin will double the rendered pixels for you; all you need is 3x native.

guevp619 Wrote:I am in the same boat. I want to run Dolphin at 4k. TRUE 4K (4096 x 2160) not "4k" (3840 X 2160)

Um... the numbers matching "4000" is irrelevant... Though admittedly "4k" is a silly silly name. >_< I always preferred "Quad HD" myself, but they didn't go with that... 3840x2160 is double the height and width of 1920x1080, and that's what the industry is calling 4k and what displays are being made for. Of course there are a lot of reasons for using 3840x2160, since it has excellent backwards compatibility with 1080p, remains in 16:9 so no format changes are required, and "double the resolution" is easy to sell (as Quad HD which they should have done, grr).

Of course you can render 4096x2160 on a 4k device if you want, but 4096x2160 isn't even 16:9. 4096/2160 = 1.89629629629 (629 repeating forever) which is 16:8.4375, or 256:135. 16:9 is 1.77777 (7 repeating forever), or 256:144. Running in 4096x3160 would result in cropping on any 16:9 display and it would stretch Dolphin's output horizontally. It wouldn't really be good by any measure...


Anyway, the wrong people on the internet have been informed! *flies off*

(07-18-2015, 12:23 PM)aJoR Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, the wrong people on the internet have been informed! *flies off*

Don't fly too soon, because you're going to be beaten   .

(07-18-2015, 12:23 PM)aJoR Wrote: [ -> ]3D is quite literally doubling the pixels, but it isn't much compared to 4k.

1920*1080 = 2,073,600
2,073,600*2 = 4,147,200

Comparing to some common resolutions...

1440p = 2560*1440 = 3,685,400
4k = 3840*2160 = 8,294,400

So "double" of 1080p by pixel count in rendered pixels is roughly 4.5x native. And 4k has double the rendered pixels of 1080p3D. Both of which make sense, since 4k is 1080p with doubled height and doubled width, and 1080p3D is basically just doubled width. Both 1080p3D and 1440p are a lot easier to run than 4k!

Just to be clear, you don't need 5x native for 1080p3D. The 3D system in Dolphin will double the rendered pixels for you; all you need is 3x native.

You aren't wrong about this. I already knew those calculations!

You missed something I said: that I usually play between 3xIR and 4xIR in 3D.

In the 3xIR case, that's not 1080p. It's 1920x1584, which means 3041280 pixels. Double that for 3D and you get 6082560 pixels.

I've tried something in Zelda Twilight Princess: 5xIR and 2xMSAA in 2D and 3D in a GPU limited case. I got 71fps in 2D and 28fps in 3D (spawning in Kakariko Village and not moving, with HD textures, per pixel lighting, 16:9 and a no culling code).
My point now isn't the fps per se (it's a lot lower in Hyrule field for different reasons), but the difference. In 2D I got x2.53 the fps. The requirements for 3D are usually higher than just doubling pixels in Dolphin.

So I can manage to play at least at 3xIR in 3D in the most demanding games, even with the 3D overhead (if I disable HD textures in ZTP's case I get more fps, maybe enough for 4xIR in 3D, but I haven't tested much). Let's ignore that 3D extra and say my GPU can do 6082560 pixels in the most demanding games. And remember, that's with 2xMSAA.

Is 4k (3840x2160) more demanding than just that number of pixels? Yes, it's 36.36% more pixels. But the point of this thread is that the OP has a GPU that is usually 1.8 times as powerful as mine. Can he overcome that difference of pixels? I say yes. He will play at 3840x2160 easily. But he may have problems with 6xIR, because it's around 1.5 times as demanding as 4k. 5xIR is more similar to 4k in number of pixels.

masterotaku Wrote:In the 3xIR case, that's not 1080p. It's 1920x1584, which means 3041280 pixels. Double that for 3D and you get 6082560 pixels.

*sigh* I addressed this but deleted that bit because it was too wordy. >_<

Didn't you ever wonder why an NTSC gamecube game is 4:3 in 1x Native? 640x528 is even taller than PAL's 5:4 (640x512)! When rendering in NTSC, Dolphin only runs at 640x480 at 1x native, and ignores the rest of the field. And 640x512 in PAL, which was nice for them but became a huuuuge mess when widescreen and new resolutions became standard, but that's another topic.

But anyway, because those areas are ignored, 3x Native in widescreen is not rendering 1920x1584, it only rendering 1920x1080. Since you included the areas that are not being rendered to, your math is incorrect.

(07-18-2015, 08:54 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]*sigh* I addressed this but deleted that bit because it was too wordy. >_<

Hey, I don't mind long explanations .

(07-18-2015, 08:54 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]And 640x512 in PAL, which was nice for them but became a huuuuge mess when widescreen and new resolutions became standard, but that's another topic.

Yeah, like bad PAL versions of many PS2 and earlier games. FFX had huge black bars that stretched the image.

(07-18-2015, 08:54 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]But anyway, because those areas are ignored, 3x Native in widescreen is not rendering 1920x1584, it only rendering 1920x1080. Since you included the areas that are not being rendered to, your math is incorrect.

Then I won't say that games use all that resolution, but what about the obvious improvement in antialiasing of 3xIR compared to Auto (fractional) and also the GPU usage increase?

"Obvious improvement"? You are going to need to be more detailed...

Hey guys,

At first i have to mention that my english is not good all - so sorry for that.

Im new to this topic, so i have a few questions:

1) For dolphin an intel i5 4690k is better than an intel 4790k, right?

2) Can a GTX 980 handle 8x internal resolution?

3) If i buy a 4k monitor can i use the downsampling method with 8x internal resolution?

Thank you!

Quote:2) Can a GTX 980 handle 8x internal resolution?
3) If i buy a 4k monitor can i use the downsampling method with 8x internal resolution?

Yes
GTX 960 can handle 6xIR . So yes

Quote: 1) For dolphin an intel i5 4690k is better than an intel 4790k, right?

No . i7 4970k is faster because it's clocked higher ( 4.4GHz turbo boost vs 3.9GHz turbo boost)
You have to overclock i5 to 4.6GHz if you want to beat i7 (keep in mind that i7 can be overclocked as well)
The only good thing about i7 4790k is : you don't have to overclock it , 4.4GHz is very fast. So non-Z97 mobo (H97 for example) can be paired with it to save money

(07-18-2015, 10:53 PM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]"Obvious improvement"? You are going to need to be more detailed...

Here's a screenshot at Auto (fractional), which in my case is 1920x1080: http://i.cubeupload.com/qFYZ3y.png

And here the same place at 3xIR (well, clouds have moved between the screenshots): http://i.cubeupload.com/5xkPKT.png

You can see that the edges are more antialiased at 3xIR (both cases have texture shimmering, because the texture pack lacks mipmaps, I think. But that is a different issue). Although I see that at the left it looks as if the horizontal resolution were a bit lower than 1920, but it may be the downsampling filter or something. Anyway, in 100% of cases (at least for me) 3xIR needs more GPU power and gives less fps than Auto (fractional).