unite the most up-to-date and accurate versions of system emulations in a single software
I wouldn’t worry about accuracy in cores available in RetroArch. They are as accurate as the standalone emulators, because they use basically the same code to emulate the game itself, if they are the same version. The other changes made to the core in order to plug it into RetroArch are way bigger, such as UI or controls and other features in example.
In your opinion, is the emulation in Retroarch more accurate and faithful to the original console? Which shaders are better? From the separate emulators or from Retroarch?
As I said, the emulation itself should be as accurate as standalone emulators, if you use same version. Shaders have nothing to do with the cores or emulators. It depends on which shader you are actualy comparing. Some developers ported existing shaders from RetroArch to some of the standalone emulators and the effect should be roughly the same. I did not compare them.
And importantly, we need to talk about specific emulators or specific Shaders. As said, you don’t need to worry about accuracy differences from cores in RetroArch to standalone emulators. Also the discussion about standalone emulators is discouraged in this forum. If you want a generalized answer to the Shaders, then I’ll say that RetroArch has some of the best Shaders in the entire emulation scene.
2 Likes
When was the latest version Retroarch for PC latest full pack cores and latest full shader pack released? Which ones simulate the CRT best without generating too much heat in the hardware and too much processing?
Well the question which CRT is best simulated is an old question here, and lot of people debate about it. I’d say there is no best. You have to try them out. If you are on a weak hardware, then I there are a few Shaders suited for that task. Some you can try, can be found in “shaders/shaders_slang/crt” subdirectory.:
- fakelottes: Another fast CRT shader
- crt-guest-advanced-fastest: New CRT shader from Guest + CRT Guest Advanced updates
- there are a few more you can test, I have no link about these particular versions of the Shaders: crt-hyllian-fast, fake-crt-geom-potato, crt-pi, zfast-crt-composite
No one can tell what looks best for you and what runs best on your hardware. You have to test them yourself if you want to find the best for you.
I play on PC with i5 3470 16gb ram ddr3 and also on tvbox with emuelec 4.6 in tvbox T95 max plus (Amlogic S905x3 4gb ram) or R36S handheld console
When was the latest version Retroarch for PC latest full pack cores and latest full shader pack released?
Website says The current stable version is: 1.19.1 . Click Download Stable. On the right column of the page says 2024-06-05 03:20. Scroll down to the latest version, click the folder, click Windows and x86_64. Here you should be able to download. This is obviously for Windows. You could also update through the RetroArch GUI Online Updater. https://docs.libretro.com/guides/install-windows/ I don’t know how to do this stuff for all the other devices you mentioned.
BTW you can also always go to the official RetroArch / Libretro blog and see the dates there too. And find out whats new as well: https://www.libretro.com/index.php/category/blog/
Try the suggested Shaders from my previous reply. Look how well it runs on the system you are playing and if they look good enough. There is no “one-fits-all” Shader.
For older systems (usually, before the year 2000), they’re pretty much identical. However, RetroArch lags behind with some systems released after the year 2000, like the PS2 and Gamecube/Wii. Even so, many of those cores are still very usable, so stick with them if you like all the other advantages RetroArch brings along.
1 Like
Depends on the cores.
Some are up to date with the standalone sources so the accuracy is the same.
Some cores are out of date so these are less accurate than the standalone source.
So RetroArch cores can be either as accurate or less.
There are also some cores that are basically forks that follow their own path. But i don’t think RetroArch has any that are more accurate than the standalones they are based on. It used to have Parallel/Parallel RDP which was the most accurate way to play N64 games for a while but it’s way too old now, plus Parallel RDP is now available for standalones that are more accurate (Ares/Simple64)
1 Like
My focus is snes, megadrive, nes, mastersystem, n64, ps1, mame, gba, gbc is better accuracy precision retroarch + cores or individual emulators? and shaders?
what latest full pack shaders and latest full pack cores?
Standalones that are better are ps2 and possibly melonds, citra if someone runs on a weaker device. Could be dolphin too as it doesn’t (seem to) support rvz files on my phone on retroarch. Yabasanshiro Android standalone runs better on an old sd650 phone i have, looks like frame skipping isn’t working in Retroarch. Redream runs faster there too than RA flycast.
Then don’t worry. RetroArch is great on providing high-level of accuracy for those systems, on par with individual emulators.
1 Like
Except N64.
Graphics emulation is great in both RA Mupen64plus-next core and standalone emulators since they all use Parallel RDP and even though the RetroArch core has a slightly older version, there are no major differences yet.
However, speed/timings emulation is still bad in Mupen64plus-next because the N64 core emulation is based on Mupen64, which was always an HLE, inaccurate emulator.
In standalones, there has been a lot of progress recently when it comes to that though. Simple 64 (a standalone emulator) also uses Mupen as it’s base but it’s author has made a lot of timing fixes to it the last couple of years. I’m not sure if these fixes get backported to the source though.
There’s also Ares, which has a N64 core. This one doesn’t use Mupen at all and it’s a completely new core. It’s not 100& compatible yet (about 90% currently) but that also is far more accurate because that’s what it strives for. It too has similar results with Simple 64 when it comes to timings emulation, though it’s most likely even better.
The RetroArch core though… Yeah, it’s still based on an older Mupen code and has none of these fixes backported yet.
Here’s the catch though. With it’s inaccurate timings, the RA has the ability to run N64 games at faster frame rates. You can’t do that in Ares or Simple 64. They are accurate so they will run the games at the original frame rates only. So this inaccuracy may be a good thing for people who just want to play the games the best they can.
Personally, i like the option so i would prefer the core to stay as is and maybe someone could port N64 Ares to RetroArch for those who want a more accurate option.
2 Likes
So Ares 64 is the most accurate and faithful emulator to the original N64 hardware? For SNES, MegaDrive, NES, MasterSystem, which is the most accurate and faithful?
Being up to date or not does not automatically make a core any more or less accurate compared to a standalone emulator.
2 Likes
Depends on the emulator? Both Dolphin and PCSX2 got many accuracy related updates after the last time the cores were on par. Thus the standalones are more accurate because of that.
1 Like
Yes Ares is the most accurate for N64 right now. For SNES it’s BSNES, for Genesis it’s BlastEm, for NES i would say Messen, for Master System i’m not sure.
BSNES, BlastEM and Messen all have pretty up-to-date RA cores so you are set.