|
| |
There are 49 guests and 5 MSX friends online
You are an anonymous user.
|
| | MSX Emulator Comparison - Brand new version |
| | Monday, January 31, 2005 - 11:47 Submitted by: snout Topic: MSX Resource Center | | As of today a brand new version of the MSX Emulator Comparison has been published in the articles section of our website. In this review, no less than 12 different MSX Emulators for Windows have been put to the test, not only looking at accuracy, but also taking usability, features and sound quality into account. In the MSX Emulator Comparison, you can find the following reviews: To make things even easier, we invented a ranking system that results in a score of 0 to 100%, depending on how accurate, feature-rich, user-friendly and well-sounding a certain emulator is: MRC EmuRank. An explanation on which testing methods we used and how the MRC EmuRank is calculated can be found over here. If you can't wait to see the results of this Emulator Comparison, you can head over to the MRC EmuRank charts or the conclusion to the Emulator Comparison.
From now on we'll try and maintain the MSX Emulator Comparison, following new releases of MSX Emulators and changing the testresults and, if needed, conclusion accordingly. Ideally, updates to the Emulator Comparison will be posted within a week after the release of an emulator. At the moment MSX emulators for Linux are not being put to the test just yet, but it is our intention to add reviews of Linux emulators in the future.
Relevant link: MSX Emulator Comparison |
| | |
|
| By BiFi on January 31 2005, 11:49 | It's about time 
| | |
| By viejo_archivero on January 31 2005, 12:00 | Good and exhaustive article. Keep on the good work!.
| | |
| By mars2000you on January 31 2005, 13:16 | Excellent and great work, Snout ! 
Maybe a little error in the tests for openMSX and blueMSX : the intro color must be different on a MSX2 (yellow) and on a MSX2+ or Turbo-R (dark purple), because it doesn't use the same VDP and the same screen (screen 8 on MSX2, screen 12 on MSX2+/Turbo-R)
For the rest, I think that your conclusions are very good : the real choice is indeed between blueMSX and openMSX, and we are still waiting for NLMSX 0.49 ...
| | |
| By mars2000you on January 31 2005, 13:17 | I was speaking about the FCS demo of course ....
When an edit feature ???
| | |
| By snout on January 31 2005, 19:05 | m2k - Edit function: Soon. Turnix: thx for explaining, I'll do some extra testing to get more accurate results.
| | |
| By pitpan on January 31 2005, 19:19 | Too bad that there are no more updates to NO$MSX and BrMSX (not included in the emulator comparison). There is a BrMSX version for Windows, but I still prefer the MS-DOS version, fast and accurate (for MSX1, of course).
| | |
| By hap on January 31 2005, 19:23 | Nice article !
Could you also update openmsx, msxplayer, nlmsx, on these N/A values ? which shouldn't be N/A.
turboR CPU Benchmark: N/A
turboR VDP Benchmark: N/A
CPU load turboR idle: N/A
And why is it a downside for bluemsx to have accurate diskdrive emulation enabled by default ? The speedhack liked by some can even be enabled.
| | |
| By snout on January 31 2005, 19:55 | Jonemaan - the N/A's will be corrected. About correct drivespeed emulation by default being a downside : 95% of the MSX software doesn't need such accuracy and thus this option will in most cases only slow the emulator down a -lot-. I'd prefer it if it were disabled by default and manually/automatically enabled if needed.
| | |
| By tfh on January 31 2005, 21:11 | @Snout: Ehm.. That is a matter of personal taste...
Most software doesn't require 100% perfect CPU timing, but you still count that for the accuracy precentage.
Most software doesn't require 100% perfect VDP timingg, but you still count that for the accuracy percentage.
And as for the disk-timing.. Even our fantastic Fony Demo Disks require them to be perfect. Or at least: You will be missing out on stuff probably if the timing is not correct.
| | |
| By mars2000you on February 01 2005, 01:16 | Accuracy is the main word for advanced emulators like blueMSX and openMSX.
That's why by default, blueMSX comes with an accurate drive emulation.
If the user wants to change that, it is possible, but he must know that he can't then complain if some demos or games don't work correctly, you can't combine at 100% speed and accuracy.
Besides, even if an user unchecks the accurate emulation of the drive, blueMSX won't run as fast as fMSX, because a lot of other parameters determine the accuracy of the emulator.
In other words : if the speed is really more important for an user than all the rest, then he must use fMSX of one of his clones, because fMSX doesn't care about accuracy and the MRC tests prove it.
With the reactions that we receive, I can say that only maximum 5% of the blueMSX users regret the fMSX speed. We are no more at the beginning of the MSX emulation, but in 2005 and the accuracy scores of blueMSX and openMSX are really high, only the MSX-PLAYer is at the same level for the Turbo-R part (strangely not for the MSX1/2 part ..... is the fMSX base the explanation ?)
| | |
| By snout on February 01 2005, 01:23 | mars2000you - I think the MSXPLAYer MSX1/MSX2 vs turboR scores only show that the turboR production in the tests are still far from squeezing every single bit of performance out of the R800.
| | |
| By iamweasel2 on January 29 2006, 15:00 | Hello, wouldn't be time to update the MSX Emulator Comparison?
| | |
| By snout on January 29 2006, 23:04 | It really should! I wonder what the wait is for....
| | |
| By mth on January 29 2006, 23:33 | About loading speed: in openMSX 0.6.0 you can do "set fullspeedwhenloading true", which will speed up emulation when loading from disk or tape. Since it only speeds up the emulator and not the MSX, it will not cause compatibility problems, unlike emulators that intercept Disk ROM calls (such as fMSX).
| | |
|
|
| | |
