Not even sure how to describe this exactly because I'm not sure exactly what affects what and how, but the relationship between the render resolution, aspect ratio options, and the resolution that is ultimately reported to RetroArch is confusing as hell (compare this with the two beetle cores that work as expected).
What I've managed to work out is that the uncorrected option is bugged with higher internal render resolutions, as it then directly scales the resolution reported to RetroArch for some reason. This coupled with some of RetroArch's weird behaviors (such as core provided integer scaling resulting in the image stretching to fill the screen instead if the resolution is too big) makes it completely unusable.
Why the different aspect ratio options not only report different resolutions confined to the same scale, but rather vastly different resolutions at entirely different scales is beyond me, but as stated in the title, this is very unintuitive behavior.
Not even sure how to describe this exactly because I'm not sure exactly what affects what and how, but the relationship between the render resolution, aspect ratio options, and the resolution that is ultimately reported to RetroArch is confusing as hell (compare this with the two beetle cores that work as expected).
What I've managed to work out is that the uncorrected option is bugged with higher internal render resolutions, as it then directly scales the resolution reported to RetroArch for some reason. This coupled with some of RetroArch's weird behaviors (such as core provided integer scaling resulting in the image stretching to fill the screen instead if the resolution is too big) makes it completely unusable.
Why the different aspect ratio options not only report different resolutions confined to the same scale, but rather vastly different resolutions at entirely different scales is beyond me, but as stated in the title, this is very unintuitive behavior.