Why has the xbox not been emulated up to now?

Just gimme 4K60 remasters.

Legit surprised that Team Ninja hasn't announced Ninja Gaiden duology. There was no 3rd game.
 
Last edited:
Stating the obvious but there is the PS2, where early emulators also ran slow because of the need of exact timings. You're not emulating a single CPU, you're emulating a full machine state.

PS2 emulation is not and has never been anywhere close to the level of accuracy you described, where cache state/timing, bus interaction, etc is emulated properly. It's nowhere remotely close to the standard of games not being able to detect that they're running on an emulator through evaluating timing. Pretty much nothing more complex than SNES is (and even on higan there may still be ways to detect you're not running on hardware if you're determined enough)

Full machine state emulation is something we do a lot where I work. We're not interested in emulating consoles of course, but we do a lot of machine of security bespoke security hardware which presents very similar problems

I write console emulators. Getting perfect accuracy is a great goal but people also just want to play games, and for the more complex consoles you won't be able to get them anywhere close to perfect on existing hardware while still running at the right speed.
 
This is actually not true.

There's only one case I've ever heard of, and that's UltraHLE. Nintendo sent a C&D letter and the team acquiesced..
I'm probably just remembering wrong. Project Unreality didn't get one?

I might be mixing Nintendo up with bloodthirsty 3dfx. :)
 
Out of curiosity, what emulators have you written?
 
I'm probably just remembering wrong. Project Unreality didn't get one?

I might be mixing Nintendo up with bloodthirsty 3dfx. :)

Maybe they did, it was around the same time as UltraHLE. Not sure why they'd have bothered seeing as how Project Unreality had very little progress, AFAIK it only showed an opening framebuffer logo from one commercial game. If Nintendo was aggressively going against emulators with legal threats I think it was at best limited to N64 emulators over a year or two.

Out of curiosity, what emulators have you written?

Emulators for GBA (gpSP), PC-Engine (Temper), Nintendo DS (DraStic), and the GPU part of a PS1 emulator (PCSX-ReARMed). They're all targeting mobile platforms and ARM in particular. I've done some other stuff that didn't really merit releases.
 
Last edited:
I just tried a ps2 emulator and it was slow
you really need an top of the range intel cpu running at 4.5ghz for 1080@60hz
 
I just tried a ps2 emulator and it was slow
you really need an top of the range intel cpu running at 4.5ghz for 1080@60hz
Some aspects of the PS2 are 'expensive' to emulate. The PS2's bus to DRAM is 2,560-bits wide. Think about that for a moment, this is five times wider than a Titan X. The bus is split as one1,024-bit write bus, one 1,024 read bus and one 512-bit read/write bus and some visual effects only work if this is emulated properly on a per-cycle basis.

edit: typo.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some aspecst of the PS2 are 'expensive' to emulate. The PS2's bus to DRAM is 2,560-bits wide. Think about that for a moment, this is wide times as wider than a Titan X. The bus is split as one1,024-bit write bus, one 1,024 read bus and one 512-bit read/write bus and some visual effects only work if this is emulated properly on a per-cycle basis.
2,560 bit bus? Bloody hell no wonder they could pull off multiple layers of transparencies to beat the band on the PS2
 
Wasn't it the death of the 'bit wars'? Prior to that we had 16, 32, then 64 bit with some claiming to be 64 bit with dubious qualifications. Then along comes PS2 and 2560 bits and everyone shuts up about it!
 
Wasn't it the death of the 'bit wars'? Prior to that we had 16, 32, then 64 bit with some claiming to be 64 bit with dubious qualifications. Then along comes PS2 and 2560 bits and everyone shuts up about it!
That may have been the Atari Jaguar which Atari marketed as 64-bit because it had two 32-bit processors - Tom and Jerry(!)
 
People can read about the various explanations. Certainly the CPU wasn't 64 bit. Curiously as a 68000 it's tooted as a 32 bit processor, while the ST and Amiga with the same CPU were considered 16 bit machines. Some Jaguar processors were 64 bit though. Ultimately, a bit metric was considered important, like the old MHz metric, until finally something laid the smack down and people moved on (to find some other number to crow about : Mega/gigaflops - I'm looking at you!).
 
The 68000 is indeed a 32-bit processor but it has a 24-bit address range and a 16-bit databus and back in the day manufacturers like Motorola were honest about stuff like this so it was marketed as a 16/32bit processor. Most people look at the internal architecture - the internal datapaths, register sizes and data sizes the CPU instructoons can handle :yep2: To give them credit, Sony never tried marketing the PS2 a 2,560-bit console!
 
Curiously as a 68000 it's tooted as a 32 bit processor, while the ST and Amiga with the same CPU were considered 16 bit machines

Hardware guys might consider the 68000 a 16bit CPU. The data bus is 16bit, and the ALU handled 16 bits at a time (32 bit ops took twice as long). However the registers were 32bits, the programming model is 32bit, hence the architecture is 32bit.

The physical bit width is an implementation detail. Otherwise we'd have:
1. 8088 (from the original PC) would be a 8bit CPU while the 8086 would be 16bit.
2. 386SX would be a 16 bit CPU.
3. Exynos 7420 (Cortex 4xA57+4xA53) would be 32bit processors.

Ie. plainly wrong.

Cheers
 
People can read about the various explanations. Certainly the CPU wasn't 64 bit. Curiously as a 68000 it's tooted as a 32 bit processor, while the ST and Amiga with the same CPU were considered 16 bit machines. Some Jaguar processors were 64 bit though. Ultimately, a bit metric was considered important, like the old MHz metric, until finally something laid the smack down and people moved on (to find some other number to crow about : Mega/gigaflops - I'm looking at you!).
Weak correlations are not necessarily all bad. There was a clear difference in 8 bit and 16 bit machines, and 16 bit machines and 32 bit ones, so it was a useful metric at some point. Likewise with Megahertz in the early pentium days, and err Gigaflops.
 
I'll add, It's only when they become less and less correlated that it becomes more misleading than useful. Like in the Pentium 4 and Athlon days.
 
Some aspects of the PS2 are 'expensive' to emulate. The PS2's bus to DRAM is 2,560-bits wide. Think about that for a moment, this is five times wider than a Titan X. The bus is split as one1,024-bit write bus, one 1,024 read bus and one 512-bit read/write bus and some visual effects only work if this is emulated properly on a per-cycle basis.

I don't really want to beat a dead horse here but what games and what effects could only work if the bus width is emulated properly on a per-cycle basis?

Nowhere in any PS2 emulator does the interface width to eDRAM play a role.
 
Back
Top