Okay Bloodborne runs shockingly well on PC and was really weirdly easy to get working (and my laptop runs it great even with the 60 FPS & 1440p patches). Works fine with Steam Input so I can use my Steam Controller too lol

It's really funny just how much better emulated PS4 games run than than emulated PS3 games (not surprising if you know about the PS3's architecture vs. the PS4's, just an amusing consequence of it)

@nytpu oh is the ps4 less bizarre of an architecture

that would make sense then
-F

@nytpu i know the ps3, x360, and wii u specifically had a pretty hard time getting emulators going because those consoles all had pretty weird architectures
gamecube/wii had some issues early on (especially due to the weird lighting engine its gpu supports that doesn't directly translate to anything simple on standard gpus) but dolphin is now pretty exemplary of a Really Good Emulator
-F

@nytpu and then everything prior to that is pretty much a simple enough cpu/gpu setup to emulate entirely in software if you so wish

except maybe the sega saturn because what the fuck were they doing
-F

@nytpu oh the n64's weird nine-bit ram thing also

again, what the fuck were they doing
-F

@nytpu not aware of any other systems with hard-to-emulate baffling quirks though. the psx is reasonable but the lack of an fpu is a bit weird for a system otherwise so capable. the dreamcast... i don't know much about its internal architecture.

almost everything from the 1980s to the early 2000s used a standard or slightly customized general purpose processor with some custom silicon for video output and maybe sprite handling in pretty ordinary ways
-F

@Hearth The PSX also has such a pathetic amount of RAM versus contemporaries as another hardware quirk, not that that makes it hard to emulate.

Some MAME systems are notoriously hard to run, but that's just because MAME is kinda an unoptimized mess since the devs care about nothing but "accuracy". Plus its architecture is highly modular since it has to support so much, which prevents components from being optimized together as one unit like in single-target emulators, since they have to stay generic for anything that needs it.

@nytpu it looks like the psx and n64 had the same number of words of RAM, it's just that one is a 32-bit system and the other 64-bit

i'm not sure how this translates to performance, but native width does seem relevant to mention there
-F

@nytpu though on the topic of tiny amounts of ram i don't think we'll ever get over the fact that the 2600 had 256 bytes of RAM
-F

@nytpu those processors were usually based on the z80, the 68000, or the 6502, or derivatives thereof, or MIPS in the 90s specifically (both the n64 and psx had MIPS processors)
-F

@Hearth @nytpu i thought it only had 128 bytes of ram?

@unnick @nytpu you're right, i misremembered
-F

@unnick @nytpu twice as much as the channel F!
-F

@Hearth It's mostly significant because the N64 used memory-mapped cartridges while the PSX used discs, which means the game code itself and textures and such had to take up significant chunks of RAM.

I know I've seen dev interviews talk about severe RAM constraints on the PSX, while I've never really seen it come up much with the N64

@nytpu oh good point
-F

@nytpu is there a good ps4 emulator?
-F

@Hearth shadPS4 seems to be working fine for most everyone, other than some graphical issues that can be fixed with game patches (that seem to have to do with how VRAM is accessible from the CPU on the PS4, so just inherent with translating to PC graphics APIs)

@nytpu I wonder how well PS3 emulators would run on POWER (and if there are any that make use of hardware virtualization)

@noisytoot Hmm, probably better, but the thing with the PS3 is also the sorta superscalar architecture with processing units that use a completely custom architecture, and a weird memory controller that's channel-based I/O instead of just being directly addressed, sorta like the I/O controllers on old mainframes