The rivalry between Connectix's Virtual PC and Insignia's RealPC is growing fiercer every day. Both companies are struggling to match each other, feature for feature, as well as trying to claim the position of fastest emulator.
These tests will try to focus on things that don't have direct Macintosh equivalents. For example, I don't consider it really important if one emulator runs Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Word better than the other, since there are perfectly usable Mac versions of those titles. The most important things to test are the unique titles which never make it to the Mac, or arrive years after the PC versions are released--stuff like Quake 2, perfect Genesis emulators, and Internet games like Acrophobia.
Our testing methodology will revolve around a point system. Each emulator will receive a certain amount of points based on its compatibility, performance and usability for each title. Compatibility points are docked for excessive problems in setup or glitching that a PC doesn't experience. Performance is docked when software becomes difficult to use due to speed issues, or programs slow down below expectation. Usability points are docked when emulation problems cause difficulty in using software at all. These scores will be averaged to find how close each emulator stacks up, in comparison to an actual PC. In the 3Dfx tests, scores are computed with the assumption that a 3Dfx is present; many titles would have received terrible speed points if the game were to be ran without acceleration.
Note that no direct benchmarking was done in this review. Personally, I find benchmarking emulators to be an extremely poor way of judging performance, since there are so many factors involved in the process which are not taken into account by typical benchmarking software. And finally, after completing this review, it seems obvious to me that neither emulator can claim the title of overall speed champion quite yet; it really does depend on what program you're running.
Two test systems were used for the following tests. The first was a Power Computing 604e/200 using a 512K L2 cache, with 104MB of RAM. 75,000K was allocated to each emulator. In the case of RealPC, the PC RAM was adjusted downward until the CPU was fully optimized; Virtual PC automatically allocates RAM usage, so this was not an issue. Future tests were also performed on an Apple Power Macintosh G3/266, equipped with 96MB of RAM and 512K of backside cache.
The Voodoo Graphics hardware (also known as 3Dfx) has recently become quite popular among both Macintosh and PC gamers. Due to its graphically impressive visuals as well as its widespread market acceptance, the 3Dfx chipset is now becoming a standard feature for several PC manufacturers, and the Macintosh supports 3Dfx hardware as well, via the Techworks Power3D card.
3Dfx acceleration doesn't just allow for sharper, cleaner images. Since 3Dfx-enabled software doesn't need to spend many CPU cycles rendering polygons, offloading video to the 3Dfx board actually increases emulation speed significantly. Every game tested had much better frame rates, as well as impressive high-resolution video, when 3Dfx acceleration was used.
Bargain shoppers should note that purchasing a 3Dfx board meant for PCs is an inexpensive alternative to buying the Techworks Power3D. Although you'll forsake the Mac software and drivers bundled in with the Power3D, you can also save a significant amount of money. With some careful shopping, 3Dfx cards for the PC can be had for as little as $100. (My system is currently running a Diamond Monster 3D, and I have had no problems whatsoever with compatibility.)
Note: screenshots provided are from non-3Dfx versions of software, since there is no mechanism available yet for capturing 3Dfx video.
Grand Theft Auto was very playable on both Virtual PC and RealPC. 3Dfx acceleration was extremely helpful, as well--trying to run the non-accelerated versions was painful in comparison to the fluid, sharp 3Dfx graphics. Very few problems were found at all; the software installed and ran without a hitch. For performance reasons, and for ease of configuration, all testing was done with the DOS installation of Grand Theft Auto.
In terms of raw 3Dfx performance, Virtual PC definitely had an edge in this test. RealPC experienced some lag time for screen refresh, and was less responsive to the controls. Virtual PC's refresh rates were definitely on par with a real PC throughout the game, while RealPC would occasionally experience stutters and slow downs in complex scenes. Neither emulator was able to reach full speed on the 604e/200 without 3Dfx.
It is interesting to note that neither emulator was able to correctly run Grand Theft Auto in 16-bit color without 3Dfx. Virtual PC displayed garbled video when switched to high-color mode, and RealPC wasn't even able to start the game because the Scitech Display Doctor does not support RealPC's video card. Both emulators lost compatibility points for this.
Performance: 9 |
Performance: 7 |
Tomb Raider also ran very well using the 3Dfx support in RealPC and Virtual PC. Using the G3/266, the frame rate was perfect on both emulators. On the 604e/200, RealPC was slightly more choppy than Virtual PC; the difference was very small, however.
Strangely enough, the biggest struggle for both emulators was not the game itself, but the movies that play between levels. RealPC could not display them at all, in fact, and drew screenfuls of garbage during the video. Virtual PC was able to handle Tomb Raider's full motion video, but it was somewhat choppy even on the G3. I think this is because the video uses a nonstandard video mode, but it's been my experience in general that full motion video runs poorly on either emulator.
Besides this small anomaly, this game was largely a success for both emulators.
|
Performance: 10 |
Performance: 9 |
Quake 2 is Id Software's newest action game, running under Windows 95 and supporting 3Dfx. This proved to be an extremely challenging test for both RealPC and Virtual PC. In fact, RealPC proved incapable of running Quake 2 at all. At first, Quake 2 responded with this error when trying to run through RealPC. Thinking that it might be a configuration problem, I reinstalled Windows 95 from scratch onto a fresh RealPC partition, added in the 3Dfx drivers, and tried opening Quake 2. This time, it simply crashed my system (including the Macintosh). A consecutive test once again froze the Macintosh. Therefore, RealPC scores a zero on this test. However, this problem is not mentioned on Insignia's 3Dfx compatibility page, so if a testing configuration is found which allows Quake 2 to work properly on RealPC 1.0.3, this score will be reevaluated.
Virtual PC turned out much better, but still remained far from perfect. On the 604e/200, Quake 2 was almost unplayable even with 3Dfx acceleration activated. Graphics performance was slow and choppy, and precise aiming was virtually impossible. With 3Dfx acceleration disabled, Quake 2 on the 604e/200 took over a second to render each frame.
The G3/266, understandably, had much better results. Although the results weren't stellar even with 3Dfx acceleration, it was definitely playable. Large rooms with lots of polygons tended to cause heavy lag, though, and multiple enemies appearing on-screen also caused slowdown. In short, you could have fun playing Quake 2 in this configuration, but don't expect to win any net games. And without 3Dfx acceleration, even the G3 was unable to draw more than a few frames per second.
Virtual PC was also unable to handle Quake 2's sound effects. It simply played random static noises whenever sound was supposed to play. However, I have witnessed this bug also occuring on a Gateway P2/233, so I have to wonder whether this is Virtual PC's fault or not.
Quake 2 is a game with extremely high requirements, even on actual PCs, so this sort of performance is not really disappointing. Unfortunately, though, it seems that even the best Mac hardware available today isn't quite enough to get a perfect version of Quake 2 running.
|
Performance: 6 |
Performance: 0 |
If you're a frequent visitor of emulation.net, you're probably just a little jealous of all the great emulators that have been developed on the PC recently. Much of this development is single-handedly due to a group known as Bloodlust; they have written extremely optimized, quite compatible emulators of the Nintendo console, Sega Genesis, and Capcom CPS-1 arcade hardware. In comparison, the Macintosh has several worthy competitors on the Nintendo front, but our only Genesis emulator lacks sound and we have no substitute for the CPS-1 emulator.
Depressing, isn't it? Well, not when you open up the box for your new PC emulator. As unbelievable as it may sound, emulation under emulation is actually feasible on fast machines. This is also an excellent test, as these emulators stress the PC quite heavily in both compatibility and speed.
This is the premiere Genesis emulator, and will run quite well on a suitably equipped Macintosh. Genecyst worked out of the box with Virtual PC, but required a lot of tweaking to work properly with RealPC.
When first testing Genecyst under RealPC, I was surprised that it completely failed as soon as I opened the program. Subsequent toying with RealPC's settings found that the "RDTSC" box in RealPC's CPU tab must be checked for Genecyst to start. This was a rather chance occurence; I must admit that I'm not quite sure what RDTSC does, or why it's off by default.
At any rate, even after RealPC began working properly with Genecyst, Virtual PC still trounced it, hands down, in speed. Genecyst features a frames-per-second counter which I used to time the emulators; on the 604e, Virtual PC ran anywhere from 12 FPS to a respectable 20 FPS, while RealPC ran from 4 to 6 FPS and wasn't even close to keeping up with the full speed of a Genesis. In fact, RealPC running Genecyst on the G3/266 wasn't even as fast as Virtual PC running Genecyst on the 604e/200. Virtual PC on a G3, though, was much like owning a real Genesis.
The only real complaint I had about Virtual PC running Genecyst was the sound lag. Although in the beginning it was fine, with excellent sound quality, over time sound effects and music started to lag very far behind the action. After playing through a few games, sound effects got as far as 5 seconds behind the on-screen action. It was quite disconcerting, and rather like watching a poorly dubbed movie. Hopefully this issue will be addressed in a subsequent update. Thankfully, it's only a minor annoyance in most games.
Both emulators also had small problems with video modes; Genecyst supports a wide array of screen resolutions, and neither emulator supported all of them. Both RealPC and Virtual PC experienced unexplainable errors if every video mode was tried in sequence; RealPC would revert back to its previous failure screen, and Virtual PC would abruptly drop to DOS with an obscure error message.
|
Performance: 9 |
Performance: 6 |
In comparison to the Genecyst test, Callus was quite disappointing under emulation. Callus is a Capcom CPS-1 system emulator, and supports games like Street Fighter 2: Championship Edition, Strider, Willow and around 30 more. Unfortunately, this emulator failed to meet expectations on both RealPC and Virtual PC.
Both emulators maxed out around six or seven frames per second on a G3/266. The 604e/200 only managed three to four frames per second. In short, it was exceptionally choppy and hard to control.
To make matters worse, getting sound to work properly with Callus was an exercise in frustration. RealPC seemed to output sound reliably if SoundBlaster 16 emulation was activated, although regular SoundBlaster Pro emulation just produced static. Virtual PC, on the other hand, almost never worked with sound; under extensive testing, it managed to generate sound once or twice, but this could never be repeated reliably. However, all these oddities might just be a glitch in Callus; many PCs do not work with Callus' sound either (including my neighbor's Gateway, which needs to be rebooted after running Callus to regain normal sound in Windows 95).
Virtual PC also failed to run Callus at all through Windows 95. RealPC was able to manage Callus just fine in a DOS box, but Windows 95 always reports an application error immediately after loading Callus when using Virtual PC. Although this is a minor issue, it is somewhat disconcerting, especially considering that sound card incompatibilities can occasionally be cured by running a DOS-based program through Windows 95.
Since both Callus and Genecyst are emulating a system which uses a 68000 processor and Z80 coprocessor, it seems rather strange that Virtual PC's speed varies so widely between the two. I would hypothesize that Virtual PC's main problem with Callus is that Callus makes use of a technique known as self-modifying code extensively. Self-modifying code is a programming technique in which a program will dynamically change itself in order to execute faster; it is generally considered bad programming style, but if done well, self-modifying code can result in significant speedups. Virtual PC always dynamically recompiles program code every time it is modified. This means that whenever the code changes itself, even if the modification is very minor, Virtual PC is forced to recompile the entire block of code. RealPC avoids this by deferring recompilation until the code has been run, unchanged, over several passes; this avoids the recompilation lag, but is not quite as fast in many cases.
|
Performance: 6 |
Performance: 6 |
What good is a PC emulator if you can't connect to the outside world? The most interesting software nowadays isn't good because of a fancy AI routine or amazing new 3D rendering--the most compelling titles are the ones which let you compete against other live human beings.
The following test makes use of Acrophobia, an online game in which players compete to form acronyms from randomly chosen letters within 60 seconds. It's truly one of the most addicting games I've played in a long time.
My first impression of Acrophobia was on the 604e/200, and it wasn't very great on either emulator. Although it ran without quirks on either RealPC or Virtual PC, its sluggish performance was unacceptable considering the nature of the game--speed is essential to winning Acrophobia, and even text input was severely lagged under the 604e/200.
Although Acrophobia doesn't seem like the kind of game that would have high processor requirements, it truly benefitted from being run on the G3/266. The speed difference between the two processors was astonishing. This game is especially good at demonstrating, quite visibly, the G3 optimizations for Windows 95 present in Virtual PC 2.0.
It's a very close call, but overall, RealPC performed slightly better than Virtual PC with Acrophobia. This is unsurprising considering RealPC's track record of excellent Windows 95 emulation (covered more thoroughly in my previous review of RealPC). However, RealPC required some setup to run properly; Windows 95 Dial-Up Networking must be installed, and care must be taken to ensure that Insignia's custom Macintosh pass-through PPP solution does not activate. Acrophobia, like most PC titles, is not compatible with RealPC's method of handling Internet support with the Macintosh's Open Transport/PPP driver.
|
Performance: 8 |
Performance: 9 |
Overall:
|
Performance: 8.4 |
Performance: 7.4 |
(RealPC's score was affected quite adversely by its failure with Quake 2, so this was not included in the final scoring. If the scores for Quake 2 are averaged in, RealPC scores a 68%, and Virtual PC scores a 83%.)
The line between RealPC and Virtual PC seems to be drawn closer than ever. Although there are substantial differences between the two, they are both extremely capable programs. With the inclusion of 3Dfx support, these emulators really do have the potential to run fast-paced 3D action games on a mid-range 604e. And with their recent price cuts, you can purchase either emulator (sans Windows 95) for around $50. At current prices, you could even justify purchasing both.
The best bang for the buck is likely to be found in Connectix's Virtual PC 2.0. And if you have a G3, Virtual PC is definitely the emulator to own--special optimizations for the G3 have been included in version 2.0 which propel it to truly astounding speeds. Virtual PC 2.0 also seems to be more compatible with most DOS software than RealPC.
On the other hand, if you have a 604e or 603e, and plan on spending most of your time in Windows 95, you might want to consider RealPC. Insignia programmed a number of optimizations and tricks into RealPC which are meant specifically to accelerate Windows 95. Although a few of these sacrifice compatibility (such as the Windows PPP hack, which never seems to work right), they lead to an overall speedup in Windows 95 which can be quite noticable.
One final recommendation--both emulators perform much better when your computer has as much RAM as possible. Currently, 64MB DIMM chips are only slightly above $100; there is no excuse not to upgrade! If you're still hurting for speed, consider upgrading your L2 cache or even getting a processor card upgrade.
Overall, both emulators can provide quite good performance and either is an exceptional value. If you have a reasonably powerful system, you can expect good performance from either emulator. Neither of them are ready to challenge high-end PC workstations yet, but it's still an unbeatable value.
 |
Send feedback to emulation.net. |
 |
Back to the PC page. |
 |
Visit my home page. |