ok here goes. I am able to get power stone up and running with nullDC but the graphics are whack.
Sys specs:
2.2Ghz duo core
3GB 667 ram
Intel GMA 3100 integrated gfx
vista
ok so i know sound is a problem with vista in regards to nearly everything, but I've never, ever had a single graphics problem before with this machine. I know these integrated chips aren't all that hot, but I can slam 1080p hd video through it and play 3d PC games from 2006-7 and before, without much issue.
but running pstone (my all time fav game, was stoked thinking i was gonna be playing it), the gfx are just horrendous. It looks like Lego Power Stone, but with less textures! Speedwise it's blazing, especially when I turn on the chankast sound plugin. Also am using the chankast gfx plugin (faster than other one)
So what's the dealio? I got dx all updated, I got visual C++ all updated, gfx card is somewhat recently updated (new update from the idiots at Intel doesn't work LOL). I've turned off Aero, sidebar, got nothing else running, and it's just a mess.
Please help me play my fav game!
Full Version: Horrible Graphical Glitches Running Power Stone
You already pointed your problem out yourself. That Intel graphics chip is not capable of doing what the emulator needs it to do, you'll have to buy a proper video card.
Even though it's DX9 compatible and sports some "newer" types of features, it's still lacking in the hardware department. It's vertex shading is done in software as well as other functions a GPU should be capable of in hardware.
Your only choice is to buy a proper video card, there's no way around this.
Even though it's DX9 compatible and sports some "newer" types of features, it's still lacking in the hardware department. It's vertex shading is done in software as well as other functions a GPU should be capable of in hardware.
Your only choice is to buy a proper video card, there's no way around this.
see, what I don't understand is that it's not only dx9 compliant, it's running dx10 and dx10 effects. I figured that alone made it pretty decent, at least as far as integrated gfx chips go.
Well I guess it's off to Staples for me to get a REAL vid card. Can I get a good enough one for under a hundred bucks? LOL
Well I guess it's off to Staples for me to get a REAL vid card. Can I get a good enough one for under a hundred bucks? LOL
The chipset doesn't support DX10, so you must be mistaking something here.
These chipsets aren't puny weaklings, but they're far from on par with dedicated solutions that were available at the same time. They're designed for entry level machines where the focus isn't games, and have ALWAYS been a huge disappointment to anyone trying to play games as even if they will run a game, their performance is well.......very crappy in comparison to a dedicated card.
A PC game is designed with software rendering methods and the full spectrum of DirectX instructions implemented for "compatibility" sake.
An emulator is an entirely different beast, and the developers aren't worried about full support even in software rendering modes and almost always only support direct hardware methods for things like shaders (Keeps code minimal for starters), which your Intel chip does not support.
Some food for thought, Intel's previous IGP Chipset didn't even support Hardware Texturing and Lighting, something dedicated cards have supported for over a DECADE now.
Infact I'm not even sure if your chipset supports HW T&L, and that's like driving a race car on 3 wheels......and a sick joke on Intel's part.
These chipsets aren't puny weaklings, but they're far from on par with dedicated solutions that were available at the same time. They're designed for entry level machines where the focus isn't games, and have ALWAYS been a huge disappointment to anyone trying to play games as even if they will run a game, their performance is well.......very crappy in comparison to a dedicated card.
A PC game is designed with software rendering methods and the full spectrum of DirectX instructions implemented for "compatibility" sake.
An emulator is an entirely different beast, and the developers aren't worried about full support even in software rendering modes and almost always only support direct hardware methods for things like shaders (Keeps code minimal for starters), which your Intel chip does not support.
Some food for thought, Intel's previous IGP Chipset didn't even support Hardware Texturing and Lighting, something dedicated cards have supported for over a DECADE now.
QUOTE
GMA 3000
The 946GZ, Q965 and Q963 chipsets use GMA 3000.[3][4] The GMA 3000 3D core is very different from the X3000, despite similar names. It is based more directly on the previous generation GMA 900 and GMA 950 graphics, and belonging to the same "i915" family with them. It has pixel and vertex shaders which only supports shader model 2.0 features, and the vertex shaders are still only software provided. In addition, hardware video acceleration such as hardware-based iDCT computation, ProcAmp (video stream independent color correction), VC-1 decoding are not implemented in hardware. Of the GMA 3000-equipped chipsets, only Q965 retains dual independent display support. The core speed is rated 400 MHz with 1.6 Gpixel/s fill rate in datasheets, but was listed as 667MHz core in white paper.[5]
Memory controller can now address maximum 256MB memory.
The integrated serial DVO ports has increased top speed to 270Mpixel/s.
GMA 3100
The G31, G33, Q33 and Q35 chipsets use the GMA 3100, which is DX9 capable. The 3D core is very similar to the older GMA 3000, including the lack of hardware accelerated vertex shaders. However, the RAMDAC is reduced to 350MHz, and the DVO ports were reduced to 225Mpixel/s
The 946GZ, Q965 and Q963 chipsets use GMA 3000.[3][4] The GMA 3000 3D core is very different from the X3000, despite similar names. It is based more directly on the previous generation GMA 900 and GMA 950 graphics, and belonging to the same "i915" family with them. It has pixel and vertex shaders which only supports shader model 2.0 features, and the vertex shaders are still only software provided. In addition, hardware video acceleration such as hardware-based iDCT computation, ProcAmp (video stream independent color correction), VC-1 decoding are not implemented in hardware. Of the GMA 3000-equipped chipsets, only Q965 retains dual independent display support. The core speed is rated 400 MHz with 1.6 Gpixel/s fill rate in datasheets, but was listed as 667MHz core in white paper.[5]
Memory controller can now address maximum 256MB memory.
The integrated serial DVO ports has increased top speed to 270Mpixel/s.
GMA 3100
The G31, G33, Q33 and Q35 chipsets use the GMA 3100, which is DX9 capable. The 3D core is very similar to the older GMA 3000, including the lack of hardware accelerated vertex shaders. However, the RAMDAC is reduced to 350MHz, and the DVO ports were reduced to 225Mpixel/s
Infact I'm not even sure if your chipset supports HW T&L, and that's like driving a race car on 3 wheels......and a sick joke on Intel's part.
Most (if not all, AFAIK) Intel chips still do not properly support T&L in hardware. From what I've gathered, that lack of support is the prime reason these chips fail hard with Dreamcast emulators. Like Cinder already pointed out, comparing performance and available features of a chip when used for PC gaming versus emulation is like comparing apples and oranges.
Having said that, since the problem stems from your video hardware, no game will look any better.
Having said that, since the problem stems from your video hardware, no game will look any better.
thanks for all the info guys. I really thought integrated chips had come a long way. Looks like they're still stuck in the 90's! LOL!
Looks like I be upgrading this thing a little more than I thought, too. This tower is an HP and it's only got a 250watt psu, so I gotta get a 400 or something and a new card. At least all this stuff is cheap now!
Looks like I be upgrading this thing a little more than I thought, too. This tower is an HP and it's only got a 250watt psu, so I gotta get a 400 or something and a new card. At least all this stuff is cheap now!
Integrated graphics HAVE come a long way, unless you ask Intel. lol
NvIdia and ATi chipsets are pretty good solutions.
NvIdia and ATi chipsets are pretty good solutions.
QUOTE (IJTF_Cinder @ Feb 14 2009, 07:01 PM) 
NvIdia and ATi chipsets are pretty good solutions.
At the very least, they beat Intel's integrated chip offerings any day, and perform well even in emulation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.