This article was nominated for deletion on 1 September 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks: Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks view watch edit history shell vg talk alerts purge AfDs ZeroZone (4 participants) Pixelopus (2 participants) Konami Corp. v. Roxor Games Inc. (5 participants) Three Rings Design (3 participants) Sean Carton (5 participants) Duke Nukem Forever: Restoration Project (6 participants) Wario (series) (0 participants) Code Mystics (4 participants; relisted) Team Soho (6 participants; relisted) Fear & Hunger 2: Termina (7 participants; relisted) Merge discussions The Scale of the Universe (discussion) EB Games Australia (discussion) Hollow Knight (franchise) (discussion) Star Wars: Fate of the Old Republic (discussion) List of Crash Bandicoot characters (discussion) Characters of Fire Emblem Fates (discussion) Niantic Spatial (discussion) Other discussions No major discussions Featured content candidates Donkey Kong (character) (nom) Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (GBA video game) (nom) List of Crash Bandicoot video games (nom) Rain World (nom) Mario Party: Star Rush (nom) Good article nominations Call of Duty: Black Ops 6 (nom) Zhongli (Genshin Impact) (nom) Megaton (Fallout 3) (nom) Halo 5: Guardians (nom) Eric Tolt (start) Smeargle (start) Genshin Impact (start) Kersploosh! (start) Road 96 (nom) Sokoban (start) Xiao (Genshin Impact) (nom) Koyori (start) X-It (start) Anno 117 (start) Angry Birds Star Wars (start) Super Kirby Clash (start) Trauma Center (video game series) (start) Crash Bandicoot (start) Floating Runner: Quest for the 7 Crystals (start) Easy Delivery Co. (start) When the Past Was Around (nom) DYK nominations Rhythm Heaven Groove Arataki Itto Alhaitham (Genshin Impact) Easy Delivery Co. Yun Jin Kururin Squash! Horses (video game) Wanderer (Genshin Impact) Lamarr Wilson Reviews and reassessments Devil May Cry (video game) (nom) Sokoban (rev) Rock Band (video game) (nom) Dorfromantik (board game) (rev) Light-gun shooter (nom) Super Mario 64 DS (nom) List of Genshin Impact characters (rev) Articles that need... assessment (20) (34) reassessment (0) cleanup (13) infoboxes (9) cover art (351) screenshots (9,580) photos (80) translation from japan (176) creation merging

Just merge this article to Pcsx2 .. this one is much smaller than the Pcsx2 one.

PCSX2 is NOT the only PS2 emulator that can play commercial games. There's Play!, which can run several commercial games, and there are others that can as well: hpsx64, NeutrinoSX2, PS2EMU, etc. Might want to re-consider such a statement, as PCSX2 is the only HIGHLY POPULAR PS2 emulator that can run commercial games, but others are catching up. Basically, that statement is simply unverifiable and the contrary is provable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.187.36 (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Play! is also the only PS2 emulator that can work on the ARM architecture with GL ES and Android, along with x86-64 Windows/OS X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.187.36 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing the argument below between pcsx2 developer Refraction and Oni Lukos, it is also important to clarify that not only is a fast CPU important but also which videocards in a particular series (generation) are optimal. Since every series (eg Geforce 6 series) has cards running the gamut from weak integrated lowend to immensely more powerful highend we should clarify the cutoff point for which cards in a particular series are ideal for the emulator.

As it stands now these would include for Nvidia: (this is a general rule. A few games will require more and some games less)

Geforce 6 series: 6800gs and above

Geforce 7 series: 7600gt and above

Geforce 8 series: 8600 and above

Geforce 9 series: 9500gt and above

Geforce 200 series: As of now only highend cards for this series have been release, so pcsx2 is child's play for these monsters

For ATI:

Radeon X1000 series: X1600 and above

Radeon HD 2000 series: 2600 and above

Radeon HD 3000 series: 3650 and above

Radeon HD 4000 series: As of now, only highend cards for this series have been release, so pcsx2 is child's play for these monsters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.168.24 (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, after the argument, I realized that my card wasn't as high-end as I thought. It was, after all, a portable version of a mid/low-end GeForce 7 series, so it probably would not satisfy the requirements very well. I have a GeForce 8600GT M now, so I can try again, but that's still not as good as desktop GeForce 8600GT. Λύκος 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is much more information in the Pcsx2 definition.

The two articles are pretty much equivalent now. One of them should be changed to a redirect. Meneth 18:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the first version released? 86.132.143.245 22:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a newer version of PCSX2(0.9.2) that has been released. I'm not sure what the differences are yet between this version and the older one.--Apocalypse FP 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are some dramatic improvements but you still need a high end PC to run PCSX2.

PCSX2 features online play now.

Even more shocking, it could connect to an *official* monster rancher server, and interaction with people using real PS2's was confirmed.

This link showcases that. Someone please add this to current article, http://www.pcsx2.net/?p=1#2090 --81.192.40.172 03:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Omegasaid[reply]

is it? it doesn't seem to work —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMV943 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were some "DNS issues" with the network it was hosted on. The site was still working, but to visit it, a HOSTS file fix was needed. Currently, there are no issues Hard Core Rikki 09:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the time of posting this says that "Most 2D games and menus can reach 60-120 FPS, and with the latest version, in-game 3D performance on a relatively new desktop computer can reach speeds greater than the native PS2 frame rate of 60 FPS (NTSC) and 50 FPS (PAL)". I popped in my Disgaea disc and tried this emulator. I never even broke 40 FPS, even with dual core support enabled. I have relatively modern hardware (2 years old), so if Disgaea's MENUS run like crap...I shudder to think about the speed of FFX, which is full 3D. I can try this out at a future date, but for now, I'm going to leave the accuracy template up. Might I add that the about page says "...you will still need the latest and most powerfull [sic] machine you can get your hands on to even break the 30 FPS mark." --Oni Lukos _ct 07:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decided to try FFX now instead of waiting. Fairly consistent 30 FPS during the opening menu, even with both cores maxed out. Certainly not the 60 FPS mentioned in this article. --Oni Lukos _ct 07:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some research, and apparently on very high end modern hardware, it will run at full speed. However, the article implies that it works on hardware from two years ago (it doesn't mention high end at all) at full speed, and seeing as I do have hardware that is above the minimum as stated in the article, I'm leaving the accuracy tag there until I can gather more information. --Oni Lukos _ct 19:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of the main developers of PCSX2, i have ammended the system requirements slightly to reflect a more accurate spec required to run Final Fantasy X at the stated speed. It was correct minus the clock speed. Generally machines around the 3Ghz mark don't have much problem running FFX at full speed (i personally have a C2Q @ 3.4, but had a C2D at 3Ghz before and it ran full speed constantly) --Refraction

Fair enough. That is a faster CPU than I have. I'm leaving the disputed tag there for a little while until I can gather information about what's needed for 2D games, as I can't really run those either. Oni Lukos _ct 19:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well with 2D games its a bit of a mixed bag. Some games (Nippon Ichi ones) tend to run full speed on 2Ghz and over, providing your processor is a dual core. Single cores tend to lag quite a bit. Others like Marvel Vs Capcom tend to run a bit slower due to problems in the emu, we have a "fastmemory" patch for this game, although it just makes it as quick as the TLB build (normal being referred to the VM build). If you want to gauge some fps to spec examples, check out the screenshots thread on the official forums, many users ranging many different specs give an idea of what is required. --Refraction

Odd. The 2D-ish game I tested with was Disgaea, and I was not getting a great framerate (never more than 45FPS) on my 2GHz dual core computer with a GeForce 7 series card, even during the menus. I built this version myself, however, being on Linux, but things like SSE2 seemed to be enabled. My processor doesn't have SSE3 however, so maybe that's making a difference. I tried rebuilding it without --enable-devbuild to see if that made a speed difference, but I didn't observe a difference. Disabling sound didn't seem to make a much of a dent, either. Enabling one hack gave me another 10FPS, though, which is nice. But I digress. This article gives the impression that games generally run at full speed on modern hardware, especially if you have a 2D game, which either isn't the case on Linux, or isn't the case in general. I'm getting the feeling that it's the former, though. Oni Lukos _ct 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh linux! that might explain it. Yes the OpenGL plugin isnt the quickest. The most popular plugin for the Nippon games is GSDX which even on my old AMD Opteron 165 rig ran at well over 60-80fps. Alas although we support linux, its not very optimized for it :( --Refraction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.81.45 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I booted into Windows and used the GSDX plugin, and it was only a little faster. Either I'm doing something not reproducible, or your results are not out-of-the-box. (I'm beginning to think that, at this point, this is leaving the bounds of an accuracy dispute and entering the realm of tech support, so if I want to pursue this further, I should probably just go to the forums...) Oni Lukos _ct 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please. Or contact me via email (refraction -at- gmail dot com) I would be happy to run through setting it up for optimal performance. Just make sure you tell me all your system specs and what cpu config you have, plugins you are currently using, including version numbers. --Refraction (talk) 15:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this is an old conversation but I had a Dell Inspiron 6400 laptop (yes, a LAPTOP) back in 2008, if you check you'll see my specs as a mere C2D T2400 @ 1.83GHz with a 256 MB ATI Mobility Radeon X1400... and Disgaea ran at near-60 fps. I played it around the same time Oni Lukos did, circa 2008 because I purchased that laptop as a middle-of-the-road solution (mostly office work, a little light gaming on the side). Yes, it's totally arse for any other game (God Hand's fmv showed single-digit fps), but for Disgaea I played an entirely new game from scratch, then into New Game+, and tested several endings, so I know the specs required for the emu should be ok for what Oni Lukos had. I don't know how the hell he was getting such low performance. Possibly his drivers were crap and not configured properly. But his pc clearly outperforms mine and yet mine played Disgaea well. - 175.144.216.177 (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With an Nvidia 8600GT 256MB DDR3, PCSX2 0.9.7, GSDX 846 0.1.9 SSE2, SPU2-X 1.4.0 and Lilypad. Framerates without speedhacks are 33-50+ FPS, framerates with EE cyclerate 3 and VU cycle stealing maximum as well as wait loop hack are 60-90+ FPS (in speed) thus making Final Fantasy X playable on low spec dual cores and overclocked Pentium 4s. The framerate does begin to drop as the polygon count rises, but during most of the game the framerate is very consistent and smooth.

For proof (which I know you will demand) search Youtube for "Final Fantasy X Pentium 4" and check the video I posted. I used SPU null in that video [because it's 8% faster] and I'm posting another one soon with sound that is as quick as the SPU null version because I changed the clockspeed from 4 to 4.25 ghz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangerousd777 (talk • contribs) 10:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to notice, that PCSX2 does not work on 64 bit Linux systems! It works with 32 bit emulation only!(I had it running on Gentoo amd64 bit from under chroot of i686) 32 bit emulation libraries help, but it didn't happen in my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.102.114.174 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the system requirements section. Basically you want Win7 over XP because of DX11 hardware support (and 7 over Vista because of driver availability). This is the "recommended spec" we're talking about anyway, not the minimum (it'll still run on XP and Vista). - Truce (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this section both off-topic, speculative, and in some cases, overtly detailed in side-tracking areas? Discussing AMD vs. Intel is in and of itself a faux-pa in an article not specifically geared for that subject (unless what was referred would be some other publications objective test of performance on specific bits of hardware, of course). It does not have any in-line citations, and it speculatively discusses hardware performance between platforms/pieces of hardware - something which this article is not about. Discussing how the emulator can use threads etcetera is all fine, but going on about certain CPU's versus others is not. I won't edit the article for now, hjowever, someone should sreiously dig into it (the simplest way of doing a "quick and dirty" fix would be to just remove the second half of the "Hardware Requirements" section (i.e. everything but the sentence "Hardware requirements are largely game-dependant although the performance bottleneck of this emulator in most cases is the CPU rather than than the GPU: in short, having a computer with a faster CPU should net you better PCSX2 performance. Some games however may run slower due to unoptimized GFX code or weak GPU cards.")).

81.227.4.20 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be even longer and more detailed, but I pruned it down to what it is now. It's still a bit overly detailed, but I don't have a big problem with it. Intel CPUs are generally faster than AMD CPUs, and it's not controversial to state this in the article. It could be streamlined into one or two sentences, though. For example: CPU frequency by itself is not a good predictor of performance, as certain CPUs are more efficient than others. PCSX2 makes extensive use of floating point calculations and limited use of multiple cores, so the Intel Core series will perform better than similar AMD chips. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm not so sure. Intel CPU being faster than AMD CPUs is time-dependent, and not an eternal fact; e.g. with the current (early 2014) line up of Intels "Ivy Bridge"/"Haswell" CPUs and AMDs "Vishera"/"Cabini" CPUs, Intel outperforms AMD to almost ridiculous levels (and have been doing that for over a year now), however, back in the Northwood vs K8 days the tables were turned - Intel were struggling like mad with their NetBurst architecture, but just never got around to outperfoming AMD during those times. For that reason, saying that "Intel cpus are generally faster than AMD cpus" doesn't seem to accurate. Further, it is biased to mention brand-names where it is not necessary,. as e.g. here; your sentence "CPU frequency by itself is not a good predictor of performance, as certain CPUs are more efficient than others. PCSX2 makes extensive use of floating point calculations and limited use of multiple cores, so the Intel Core series will perform better than similar AMD chips" seems heavily biased, as there is no reason top specifically mention neither Intel nor AMD, making the information unnecessary, and it could just as well be written as ""CPU frequency by itself is not a good predictor of performance, as certain CPUs are more efficient than others. Due to it's programming, PCSX2 makes extensive use of floating point calculations and limited use of multiple cores" without loosing any relevant information. For that reason, mentioning brand-names seems unnecessary and fanboyish (to me). 81.227.4.20 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried to make the changes, but I was reverted. Does anyone else have any feelings on the matter? Personally, I've come to agree with the IP editor above. This is not the place for advocacy or long, in-depth explanations of CPU trivia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is between this and this revision, then I agree with the topic creator. The way that was worded is veering off course. Even with the current wording, it is still not completely sourced. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The entire section should be removed since it is WP:OR as synthesis. Unless you can find a reliable source which discusses PCSX2's performance on AMD and Intel platforms, then a discussion comparing the two has no place on this article. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just tried searching Wikipedia for information on the PS2emu emulator and found it redirects to this article. Seeing as this is a rival emulator, I wonder if this is some vandalism (or some abuse of marketing). Before I break the redirect, does anyone know why it would redirect (no Talk page on that article)? Was PCSX2 once known as PS2 Emu? Maybe a fork from the project? It isn't mentioned in this page, which is why I'm suspicious... QuickHare (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on PCSX2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151125071706/http://www.micromart.co.uk/gaming/group-test-retro-console-emulators/1026/retro-console-emulators-group-test-pcsx2-100-review to http://www.micromart.co.uk/gaming/group-test-retro-console-emulators/1026/retro-console-emulators-group-test-pcsx2-100-review

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PCSX2 1.6.0 Windows 10.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PCSX2 1.6.0 Windows 10.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saw a funny debate over the revision notes, looked around and it got me wondering: is PCSX2 actually "available" on Mac/XBox or not? It looks like MacOS only has a nightly/beta version and no actual full, proper release like Windows or Linux which is curious since it has been around for a while. XBox is also a funny case because its version is a universal Windows application so basically a PC app running on a console, seems to be PCSX2 but put over to console, bu is not named PCSX2 and is a separate fork. Pretty weird. GallantUndertaker769 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see TheTechnician27 has removed the info about the final version of PCSX2 to run on DirectX 10 cards, and the final 32-bit build. Why though?

Many Wikipedia articles for software will note what the final version is for 32-bit systems, and for various Operating Systems (e.g. final version for XP/Vista; for 7/8 or for 9x/Me/2000). For example WinRAR, VMware Workstation, Microsoft Office, LibreOffice, DirectX, iTunes and more.

Given these two items are notable changes, I fail to see how it breaks Wikipedia rules to have them in the article (especially given neither the PCSX2 official-website, nor GitHub, offers info on these being the final respective builds, so Wikipedia is at-least once place user's on older hardware might actually get to find such info). 2A02:C7C:9249:3B00:294B:B128:8B85:D24E (talk) 20:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Why though?" is clearly stated in the edit summary (this time in descending order of importance):

1) Wikipedia is not a guide. This is unambiguous stated policy. Your edit was heavily focused on tutorializing checking this etc.

2) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate software log. This is again stated policy, and you're not going to find reliable third-party sources talking about what you wanted to talk about because it's exceedingly unimportant in the grand scheme of holistic encyclopedic coverage of this emulator.

3) "Other articles do it" is whataboutism, not an argument for why it's a good idea and within policy.

4) You're also just straight-up wrong about the articles that list these versions. iTunes, for example, has nothing about 32-bit or about which versions still work on old versions of Windows. LibreOffice, likewise, has a single small footnote about 32-bit (and that's because the discontinuation is upcoming) and nothing about old OS compat. I'm just making sure: you did recently check these before you listed them off here, right?

5) Even if something is within the bounds of policy or guidelines, that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

6) "Given" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in "Given these two items are notable changes". If they're notable, then you should be able to produce some coverage in reliable, independent sources.

7) Wikipedia is not responsible for making up for what other websites fail to provide. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for the information that not even the members of the project considered covering in their docs.

8) As you can see in my bio, I have a conflict of interest statement disclaiming myself as a member of the PCSX2 project. I think you're right that we don't have information about "last version supporting X", and so I'd like to compile it and catalogue it in our docs. It is indeed useful for users on older hardware. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so fair-enough on the "Wikipedia is not a guide". But rather-than remove the information entirely, maybe just re-word them into factual-statements (e.g. "1.7.4832 was the final-version for computers with a DirectX 10 era card" and "1.7.2482 was the final-version which offered a build for 32-bit operating-systems")? Surely then it would be acceptable, as they are just statements?

I never said every example of the other-software I cited proves both examples, but it is common on Wikipedia to find software articles which will note when a particular app dropped-support for particular OSes, and to a lesser-degree, 32-bit systems (very-common in Linux distro histories). So I felt neither of the things I mentioned appeared to against existing conventions seen elsewhere.

In the removal you took issue with what was cited -- but on sites for the project itself, it's never been noted in any sort-of public-facing "news" or "change log" or "requirements" section when these supports dropped... they just did. How are people supposed to cite evidence on Wikipedia... that doesn't exist? So the GitHub commit remarks, and linking to each build (where it is obvious, for example, that v1.7.2482 does have a 32-bit download, but then v1.7.2483 and none-after do) I thought would be enough (given they are direct from the projet itself)?

As for "are those points really notable", well, depends on the reader and what hardware they have. How can we really gague on Wikipedia how important most articles really are? Some random cassette-walkman model from the 80s? A discontinued food-product, or former restaurant-chain? Some obsure album or movie few have ever encountered? Wikipedia has loads of articles that could easily be classed as not very notable. But where is the line-drawn? Articles should only exist for as long as lots of people are still regularly talking about that topic? In which case, most articles on any product or service that has been discontinued for around a decade or more could be deleted now.

If you feel it would be best to mention it on an official site, then sure. But my experience with "free" software projects like PCSX2 is the answer is usually "no": Project64 and DuckStation being two examples. I really don't see why so-many projects seem to have such an issue with simply offering, as a curtosey, the final builds that will work for particular systems, providing it's clear they are not-supported (which I did explicitly note)? And if they don't want to offer that info directly, I don't see why it can't be mentioned on Wikipedia, given this is a neutral place for information and is not an official extension of such projects for info to be gatekept by. 2A02:C7C:9249:3B00:59FB:B385:A71D:238E (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely then it would be acceptable, as they are just statements?" Actually, it would not, and it's because – in addition to it being completely WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTCHANGELOG – one of them isn't even factual, a consequence of digging through old GitHub PRs as research. You'll notice in PCSX2's requirements doc that the min GPU has Direct3D 11 Feature Level 10.0 support. The PR you linked bumping to Feature Level 11.0 was undone not long after due to internal pushback, and it remains at 10.0 today. I'm currently working on this versions page for our docs, but as stated previously, regardless of if it could exist in official PCSX2 documentation, Wikipedia is not a dumping grounds for whatever documentation a project doesn't want. If you're interested in creating your own software documentation, I highly suggest Wikibooks instead. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:02, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did come-across the article you linked to (https://pcsx2.net/docs/setup/requirements) myself, and did see the "Version deprecation notes" at the bottom too, but there are two issues there:

(1) "Direct3D 11 (Feature Level 10.0) support" is NOT the same as what I mentioned -- I said that v1.7.4832 was the last to support DirectX 10 cards, which I guess would be "Direct3D 10 (Feature Level 10.0)". If I select DirectX 11 as the option on my oldest system, I'll get an error worded something like "Failed to create render device". The last version to work is 1.7.4832 (or for DuckStation, v0.1.5636). "Software" render mode in either app cannot be used also: they still give the same error, even though I thought the "software" option is supposed to mean "render using the CPU only and ignore any GPU"?

(2) While in the "Version deprecation notes" it does give some guidance, it doesn't mention when Direct3D 10 support ended, and it only references the final, stable, major-releases. But I'd still suggest linking to the actual final versions would be better, as they obviously contain fixes and improvements made since 1.6.0 was released on 6 May 2020. I'd suggest the following final-versions are useful for users on older hardware:

- v1.7.4832 (2023-July-29) - final Direct3D 10 supporting release

- v1.7.3771 (2022-December-24) - final wxWidgets release, so may be the final for Windows 7 and 8 (given the Qt releases started on Qt6, which has never supported below Windows 10). Some forums suggest however that build actually doesn't work on Win7 or 8, so be good to note what the final "wx" build is that does

- v1.7.2482 (2022-March-19) - final 32-bit release 2A02:C7C:9249:3B00:556C:93FB:367D:8E91 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]