Emulation Difference in performance between PAL vs NTSC versions

[Veho]

I've seen this question posted elsewhere but no definitive answer. Here goes:

Is it true that, all other things being equal, PAL games are less hardware intensive/demanding to emulate than NTSC?

I recently watched a review of a retro handheld device, and it was running some emulator at the edge of its capabilities, (think NGC/PS2 here) and the reviewer found that PAL versions ran better / less slowdowns, audio glitches, frame skips, than NTSC versions. His reasoning was that all other things being the same, the fact that a PAL version runs at 50 frames per second, and the NTSC version at 60 frames per second means a little less "work" for the emulator / hardware, which translates into better performance.

Now, since I know nothing about the current state of emulation, that made sense to me at the time, but is it actually true?

With the modern emulators interpreting the code more directly (rather than simulating a virtual machine and then converting the outputs of that simulation to standard output), and not bound by the physical constraints of the original hardware, many aspects of games can be tweaked on the fly, including textures, resolution, effects - and framerate. So does the original framerate mean anything any more? I know frame skipping is one of the tricks to run a game at full speed when the hardware is struggling so it means something (and the above explanation makes sense that way), but does the PAL/NTSC version "impose" the native framerate by default, and runs on it, or do both versions run on whatever the emulator prefers?

Enlighten me.

 

[FAST6191]

Some PAL stuff got optimised a bit when it made the trip across the pond -- while most was slowdown and black borders it is not always the case, and even more so by the emulators that trouble things today even to get basic play*. Equally some PAL stuff in the system grinder emulators today might well have had 60Hz modes either optionally -- plenty of GC stuff did, some even required it, some XBOX stuff also did things here (though PAL xboxes and high res and frequencies is more a hacked affair). Some PAL stuff might have also used full PAL resolutions or higher multiples than the NTSC offerings.

*I enjoy the crazy emulate things at transistor level and timings precisely vs more fast and loose of days of old but it is a somewhat frivolous affair for the vast majority of games/code, and mostly a handful of games nobody cares about or coders that would otherwise be doing challenges that run into the issues.
My usual three links for those new to all this
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011...-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/
https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break-all-your-emulators/


Dynamic recompilation is probably what you are referring to there for interpreting code, the idea being where you can you have your emulator learn to recognise certain instruction patterns as something that could more easily be turned into native code on the system rather than performing instructions as written that possibly takes several cycles per instruction (while you also have to keep timings working for the sound, graphics and whatever other chips are having their outputs emulated). It is more efficient but very rarely will it accelerate code for anything likely being emulated today beyond the frame limiters**, just means there is more overhead for when the GPU emulation aspect wants more cycles to do something in that virtual frame blank or similar timeline as it were rather than not draw that frame and incur a frame drop.
Having fewer frames per unit time might well give that little bit more overhead (PAL at either 25 frames of 50 fields to NTSC's 30 frames or 60 fields is quite a notable jump rather than just a few percent, certainly conventional video does not just speed it up like it might do from traditional film speeds of 24 frames a second) so somewhat plausible.

**for most of console history and indeed even a lot of PC gaming history the frame and internal timings were the concept you worked to, under, with and around. Today some things will display a frame as soon as it is ready and as many as you can produce (variable frame rate even in some cases), or maybe just up the limits from 30 or 60 frames per second to 120, 140 or whatever Hz number your current fancy "gaming" screen displays that my higher end CRT from 1995 could possibly beat (though high frequency in CRT world is a somewhat different affair).

 

[Veho]

So... is that a "no"?

 

[FAST6191]

Actually it was a tentative yes if it is a quick and dirty translate strings any graphics and recompile with 50Hz timings. If the devs did some optimisations for the PAL version (happened enough to note, and in some notable games as well -- Perfect Dark being a pretty good example and possibly also why the PAL folks liked it/remember it that much more), bumped the effective resolution (possibly same line of thought as the optimisations, don't have any examples offhand but there easily could be) or left it at 60Hz then going to be much of a muchness unless the PAL version had extra or lacked hardware (which most emulators will probably have in there anyway and just maybe taking up a bit of memory if badly written) or retimed the CPU.

It would only really change on super modern stuff (doubt there is some esoteric arcade hardware but I await "actually") that slips away from fixed frame rate you hope you have a new picture drawn for to some more variable where all bets are off.

 

[AncientBoi]

If I understand it right, @FAST6191 is saying PAL is better than NTSC in emulating.

Right?

 

[Lostbhoy]

I would say it does matter as the emu in question is still working within the og settings its emulating and we have many ways of tweaking this as you say but then it's not og anymore if they are tweaked. Doesn't the power differences between PAL and NTSC play a part tho?

Ultimately the end result of an emulator is to be a 1:1 recreation of its source material so framrate at 50 still makes sense to me re the performance comparison. I think i need to test this now!!

 

[SG854]

I've seen this question posted elsewhere but no definitive answer. Here goes:

Is it true that, all other things being equal, PAL games are less hardware intensive/demanding to emulate than NTSC?

I recently watched a review of a retro handheld device, and it was running some emulator at the edge of its capabilities, (think NGC/PS2 here) and the reviewer found that PAL versions ran better / less slowdowns, audio glitches, frame skips, than NTSC versions. His reasoning was that all other things being the same, the fact that a PAL version runs at 50 frames per second, and the NTSC version at 60 frames per second means a little less "work" for the emulator / hardware, which translates into better performance.

Now, since I know nothing about the current state of emulation, that made sense to me at the time, but is it actually true?

With the modern emulators interpreting the code more directly (rather than simulating a virtual machine and then converting the outputs of that simulation to standard output), and not bound by the physical constraints of the original hardware, many aspects of games can be tweaked on the fly, including textures, resolution, effects - and framerate. So does the original framerate mean anything any more? I know frame skipping is one of the tricks to run a game at full speed when the hardware is struggling so it means something (and the above explanation makes sense that way), but does the PAL/NTSC version "impose" the native framerate by default, and runs on it, or do both versions run on whatever the emulator prefers?

Enlighten me.

Oh I'll be glad to enlighten you. I'll be glad to enlighten you alright.

 

[FAST6191]

If I understand it right, @FAST6191 is saying PAL is better than NTSC in emulating.

Right?

If the end result is a slow and janky game that runs differently to how you remember because it is the PAL version (not always but often enough slow the game down to 50 frames a second as it is easier than recalculating things based on frame timings, and oh dear PAL is higher resolution at least on the output so just stick black borders on) then not so much.

If your emulator (or chosen settings with it -- fancy filters, accuracy preferences and the like do come at a cost) is running right on the tipping point of workable such that a demanding section (which may not be what you think it is compared to PC games or same as in the game itself running on the console) will cause you to drop frames then the PAL version being north of 10% slower will gain you that 10%+ back which could then keep it at a comfortable consistent framerate.

 

[Veho]

Okay, found another review claiming the same. Retroid Pocket 3+, GameCube games, and on same emulators the PAL version of the same game runs better than the NTSC version, and he recommends using the PAL version if possible.

Interesting.