I often read bsnes is better, but we don't mention SNES9x
Yet, in most of my tests (and my demo), I have always had a similar result between hardware and SNES9x, but with slight differences from other emulators.
Of course, for a little exotic use, may be that SNES9x does not respect the hardware, but it is not what interests me in general
Here are the results I got for my SuperDan demo :
(for the significance of the VBlank number, multiply by 7 to know the number of available cycles)
So from my different test, I advise SNES9x, if you want to know how many CPU cycles and DMA transfer takes
Yet, in most of my tests (and my demo), I have always had a similar result between hardware and SNES9x, but with slight differences from other emulators.
Of course, for a little exotic use, may be that SNES9x does not respect the hardware, but it is not what interests me in general
Here are the results I got for my SuperDan demo :
Code:
CPU:
-65% : SNES9x , mednafen , SNES hardware , NO$SNS
-68% : ZSNES (it can vary enormously, on another demo it puts -10%)
-71% : bsnes , mesen-s
Cycles VBlank :
-277/278 : SNES9x , mednafen , SNES hardware , bsnes , mesen-s
-281 : NO$SNS
-431 : ZSNES
-65% : SNES9x , mednafen , SNES hardware , NO$SNS
-68% : ZSNES (it can vary enormously, on another demo it puts -10%)
-71% : bsnes , mesen-s
Cycles VBlank :
-277/278 : SNES9x , mednafen , SNES hardware , bsnes , mesen-s
-281 : NO$SNS
-431 : ZSNES
(for the significance of the VBlank number, multiply by 7 to know the number of available cycles)
So from my different test, I advise SNES9x, if you want to know how many CPU cycles and DMA transfer takes