Gngeo - Selector Vs Rage 2x


DaveC

Internal Development
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
9,208
I have been using Selector for selecting NeoGeo games. I tried to use Rage 2X but I noticed games ran real choppy when using it. I am running it at 200 MHz, so I think. When using selector it says "CPU 200 MHz" at the bottom. When I run a game with Rage 2X set at 200 MHz the framerate is much worse. I am not sure what is going on. The only thing I can think of:

Selector is really running higher than 200 MHz, but has a bug that shows 200 at the bottom.

Rage 2X is doing something weird in memory that is slowing games down.

There is a setting in some file somewhere that is overriding the CPU speed in selector but not Rage 2x. Bug in selector doesn't show true speed.

Anyone else notice this? Try to load with both frontends and see if there is a difference.
 
i've never had that happen, but...

- check to make sure that you are using the same sound sampling rate in both
- there used to be a bug where "raster effects" would stay selected in rage2x, but i think it's been fixed.

other than that i can't think of why.
 
Never had that with Rage2X , probally launching them in Rage2X is changing your settings somehow when it launched them .


Edit just did a comparison with windjammers and didn't notice a diffenrce . Maybe that is not the best rom to test though .
 
for selector probleme use the lastest version (1.0) in place a selector executable in the archive of gngeo ;)

for Rage2x, i don't see any problemes with the last version.
 
Hum interesting :)
Unfortunatly I always use rage2x and you're the first to compare the 2 frontend that's why I never compare and detect any difference ;)
I'm sure linux use cache (I've tested) and dont free it, but I'm not linux expert and I dont know how to free this cache.

Oh I'm always in firmware 1.4 ... my sd is uncompatible with gph updater :(
 
JyCet posted on May 19 2006 at 05:43 PM said:
Hum interesting :)
Unfortunatly I always use rage2x and you're the first to compare the 2 frontend that's why I never compare and detect any difference ;)
I'm sure linux use cache (I've tested) and dont free it, but I'm not linux expert and I dont know how to free this cache.

Oh I'm always in firmware 1.4 ... my sd is uncompatible with gph updater :(


I test with "last resort". It starts out and you can't tell much. Then it gets very choppy with Rage 2X. It stays smooth when using selector. Maybe there is a config file conflict somewhere, Don't know. I DO know there is a bug with Selector as when I set to 266 it shows CPU speed as 166 at the bottom. Don't know.

@ rokdcasbah I have both frontends set to 11025 KHz for sound.

UPDATE: I loaded Rage 2X again to try. When I exit a game it returns to Selector rather than Rage 2X. Probably because I have both installed. Fine no big deal but it did show something.

When I played with Rage it was again, choppy. Ok I exit and it goes into selector. Now I notice something weird, Selector shows *150 MHZ* on the bottom not 200. So I load last resort with selector with the clockspeed shown. It is the same choppy that it was in Rage. It seems that Rage is setting the CPU to 150 MHz even though it is showing 200. That is weird why would that happen?

Ok so now I go back to rage and set to 250 figuring that it is off by 50 MHz. It is smooth like it IS running OC ed to 250 MHz. I exit, it goes to Selector and it still shows 150, I load a game with selector and it is choppy, 150. If I load Selector from the start it shows 200 MHz and is smooth. This is weird it is like these programs are setting the CPU speeds and confusing the other.

More weirdness. I delete selector, and set rage to reload GUI. I go into rage fresh and had an idea. I set the CPU speed to 201 MHz. Now we know that 1 MHz would not make a bit of difference right? Wrong, at 201 MHz it runs silky smooth. Ok so I set back to 200 and play, it is a choppy mess again. Obviously the 1 MHz should not produce a 20+ FPS framerate difference. I don't get it. Try it and see what you get (use Last Resort).

As far as updating the FW, I had the same problem with my 1 GB sandisk. It never upgraded. Then I read that formatting to fat 32 worked. I put my 1 GB sandisk in Windows and formatted with it set to fat 32 and it worked. Weird.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top