Disgaea D2 [BCAS20301]

It -should- work for any version of any Disgaea game. But you will have to check before and after frame rate to be sure.

I think it does, yeah. I was only able to try the English version of this game, which goes into a black page after the intro. That's understandable though as the compatibility isn't good yet. I think I'll just wait for the game to be compatible before trying again. Thanks

I have the English version and it works. You need to post the log file in the appropriate thread (not this one, this is about another version).

However IIRC it just randomly does that. Restart until it works.

Okay I'll try it on the latest master build and then post the log file on the appropriate thread. But like I said OpenGL doesn't work for me on the latest build so I'll try with Vulkan or D3D12.

So uhm, I just can't wrap my head around this particular issue, so I wonder if any of the resident experts could shed some light on this mystery:

[Image: ka31qb.png]

As you can see in the picture, even though none of my PC resources are used up (CPU load 63%, GPU load 27%, RAM load 28%), I still can't go higher than 30 FPS.

Now, what makes this even weirder is that I've seen plenty of youtube videos where people with specs similar to mine achieve much greater results, with this one being the most blatant example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uV9Gy54Yw-8

Basically, he can achieve 60 FPS on normal stages (like the one in my picture), and 30 FPS on castle (where I get up to 15 FPS).

These are his specs vs. mine:

Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.5GHz vs. FX-6100 Six-Core 3.30GHz
Nvidia GTX 1050 4GB vs. Nvidia GTX 1060 Turbo 6GB
8GB RAM vs. 12GB RAM
Windows 10 x64 vs. Windows 10 x64
HDD vs. SSD

As you can see, my only device that is inferior to his is the CPU, and yet it is only loaded up to 65% on normal stages, so that shouldn't be the bottleneck of my configuration, unless I'm misunderstanding something.
By the way, I am using the Disgaea speed hack, and I do get 90+% CPU load while in the castle.

I've tried all conceivable rpcs3 versions and configurations too, so I'm at a loss; if anyone is able to solve this conundrum, I'd greatly appreciate it.

There is always going to be a single thread that is a bottleneck for the rest, so one out of six cores on your CPU is loaded to its max while the other have a little less to do. A single Kaby Lake core is almost twice as fast as an AMD FX core too (Take note that his laptop CPU likely could turbo higher than 2.5 ghz, maybe up to 3 ghz or so).

Anyway, there is a performance hack/patch for this game, use it: https://www.patreon.com/posts/march-progress-8627774

There is always going to be a single thread that is a bottleneck for the rest, so one out of six cores on your CPU is loaded to its max while the other have a little less to do. A single Kaby Lake core is almost twice as fast as an AMD FX core too (Take note that his laptop CPU likely could turbo higher than 2.5 ghz, maybe up to 3 ghz or so).

Anyway, there is a performance hack/patch for this game, use it: https://www.patreon.com/posts/march-progress-8627774

Thanks, that does explain it.

I've already been using the patch anyway, guess I'm going to need a stronger CPU on a single-core basis... well, that or some time for the developers to optimize the software for multicore systems.

EDIT - strangely though, the Resource Monitor indicates that all cores are used at even levels:

[Image: 2mcunme.png]

Windows moves the threads between the cores hundreds of times per second actually. One core can do one thing at a time but you have a lot of programs running at the same time (Windows and everything that's part of it for example) which is why this happens. The graphs show some kind of average of one second or so.

So as an example: You have one CPU core and are running exactly two programs "at the same time". But what is actually happening is that the first program runs for 1 ms, then the second program runs for 1 ms while the first one is not being processed by the CPU, and they continue to alternate like this. Now with a lot of programs and a lot of cores they just move around a lot and the graphs show the average load of each core for one second.

Windows moves the threads between the cores hundreds of times per second actually. One core can do one thing at a time but you have a lot of programs running at the same time (Windows and everything that's part of it for example) which is why this happens. The graphs show some kind of average of one second or so.

So as an example: You have one CPU core and are running exactly two programs "at the same time". But what is actually happening is that the first program runs for 1 ms, then the second program runs for 1 ms while the first one is not being processed by the CPU, and they continue to alternate like this. Now with a lot of programs and a lot of cores they just move around a lot and the graphs show the average load of each core for one second.

I see, it sounds like when it comes to running a single taxing program, it's better to get a CPU that doesn't "spread the power" over too many cores, so the one that actually runs it is faster.

No, the performance impact of this is basically 0 %. More cores is better for something like RPCS3.

No, the performance impact of this is basically 0 %. More cores is better for something like RPCS3.

Then I guess I really underestimated how much more powerful an Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.5GHz is compared to my AMD FX-6100 Six-Core 3.30GHz.

If, as you say, one of the former's cores is twice as fast as one of the latter's, I'm picturing their rough "power" in these terms:

FX-6100: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6
i5-7300HQ: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8

Basically, in my uninformed point of view, the i5 has got 33% more "power"; and yet, even though it has fewer cores and it's paired with an inferior GPU, it can achieve twice the performance that I can get (and that's when I'm running at the lowest resolution vs. his 720p, otherwise it's more than double).

I'm sure there are a lot of factors I'm not considering though, but this is good to know.

No, the performance impact of this is basically 0 %. More cores is better for something like RPCS3.

Then I guess I really underestimated how much more powerful an Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.5GHz is compared to my AMD FX-6100 Six-Core 3.30GHz.

If, as you say, one of the former's cores is twice as fast as one of the latter's, I'm picturing their rough "power" in these terms:

FX-6100: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6
i5-7300HQ: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8

Basically, in my uninformed point of view, the i5 has got 33% more "power"; and yet, even though it has fewer cores and it's paired with an inferior GPU, it can achieve twice the performance that I can get (and that's when I'm running at the lowest resolution vs. his 720p, otherwise it's more than double).

I'm sure there are a lot of factors I'm not considering though, but this is good to know.

We are getting into a complicated subject but there are two important factors:
1) Games will usually have one or two threads that take longer to do their thing than the other ones. This is why you only see roughly 50 % CPU usage on average. Most threads will in the end wait for another to finish. Therefore high single core performance is also important. AMD FX may have many cores but each core is very weak so it doesn't matter, it creates a bottleneck. "The chain isn't stronger than the weakest link" so to speak

2) There is more to a CPU than the ghz number. Ryzen at 3 ghz is something like 80-90 % faster than FX at 3 ghz, Ryzen is just more efficient. And this is while doing calculations like 1+1 = 2. A modern CPU also has more features like AVX2 (while FX only has AVX1). RPCS3 maskes use of this too (unlike most oher programs) which makes the performance gap even larger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_V...Extensions

Hi there, new member here. I have been getting around 2-3 fps in the castle hallways area, around 10 during battles
Here are my specs: Intel-i3, 3110M@ 2.4 Ghz (4CPUs) ,Nvidia GeForce GT 720M. I am using the latest build as on 20/7/2017. I am using OpenGL since it is the only graphics option that comes up. I have heard that Vulkan gives quite a significant performance boost, so can you suggest a stable build with Vulcan since the ones I tried crashed?

Another thing is I am not being able to select the Graphics card option to set it to my dedicated Nvidia card. Is it just me though?
If it helps, I am using Win 8.1, so no DirectX 12 for me. I am also using that speedhack patch that was mentioned earlier (something by the name of patch.yml). Is there anything I can do to improve the fps?