FFX & FF12 slow downs

[ChronicNL]

i see,
but if pcsx2 supported 4 then couldnt certain process's be split up into 4 instead of 2 threads therefor not requiring the current ammount of demand on each thread?

as stated in frequently asked questions:

Does the emulator support 4 cores?

No, currently only 2 cores are supported. To make Pcsx2 efficiently use 3 or more cores will require major code changes. So don't ask when quad-core support will be available, since it won't be anytime soon! However, pcsx2 will run fine on your quadcore cpu. It just won't benefit from the extra 2 cores.

[Shadow Lady]

Uhm, it's not so easy to split things like that and the benefit on it wouldnt be really that high as you think it would be as it was mentioned before, 4 cores usable against 2 wouldnt mean automatic 2x speedup, you just have to face the fact that your CPU is still quite slow for most things (not much stuff supports quad cores even nowadays and it's not exactly easy to code as in the case of pcsx2 it'd require a rewrite on things and sometimes it's not worth it as not everything could take advantage from it).

[Unreal]

well after doing alot of reading around I see pcsx2 dev team has had plans to make quad core support its just a matter of time.
Anyway, turns out I wasn't giving the emu enough of a chance and saying my pc was too slow was kind of silly. Ideally its not the pc that is slow at all and 4 @ 1.8 btw does = 7.2 if the program supports it, which this one day will. Sorry just tired of hearing the pc is too slow excuse when its not. Correct way of putting it would have been the individual cores are too slow but when quad core is supported and dual core support is enhanced it will run perfectly fine on this pc. roughly 10% id say for dual and 25-40ish% better once that is supported.

Couple of tweaks that turned this emu around for me was 2 basic ones.
Set affinity from 4 cores to only 2, jacking the priority on those 2 to real time.
Minor boost, running around 75%.
Updated gsdx and still around 75% but only in certain areas on the map, typically spots that a lot of npc's are displayed. Most of the time it jacks itself up to 100-102% which is awesome.
Originally had overall res at 800x600 and d3d res set to native.

I agree the current bottleneck is definetely the cpu because of no quad support atm, (after monitoring the 2nd core typically is only half used also) so I jacked up the overall res to 1440 x 900 and the d3d res to 2048 x 2048. Still running exactly the same with only slow downs with a good # of npcs around, gota love the 260 card hehe.

A shame its so hard to notice much difference in quality from 1024 up to 2048 but there is a few things. But then thats not even pcsx related haha.

[jesalvein]

and 4 @ 1.8 btw does = 7.2

Wrong.
It means that 4 seperate threads may be run at 1.8ghz each, if the soft handles this, of course.

[Unreal]

ugh, one program running all 4 cores at 1.8 runs it like a 7.2 thus the industry even considering quad cores an upgrade even with lesser core speeds.
Because something like a video editing program can handle multi tasks , rendering etc at 1.8 for example while something else running at the same time is also 1.8 etc etc. Little misconception with the term. Essentially if the program is written to run 4 youll make as much progress if tasks are split among them. You can compare it to cars if you like, saying 2 v4's wont beat one v8. But if you look at it in combining the 2 v4 cars progress together, then compare how far the v8 got in 10 seconds. the 2 v4's distance achieved would be greater even though both v4's are behind the v8 individually. same concept. get me ? lol.
----v4
---------v8
----v4
but both v4's working together on one task
--------v4's both distance combined
-------v8

The fact that the individual cores are slower seperately IS irrelevant if the programming takes advantage of all 4 together. Without that the v8 wins..
The v8 wins in pcsx2 only currently until devs work on quad, and enhance dual. Peoples computers are NOT too slow. Stop ***** telling people that.
Therefor, "IF" the program is created to constantly run tasks using all 4 cores, thus the effect of it "Seeming" like one 7.2, because that is exactly how fast a 7.2 would order up the information. With such a lack of quad core programming however, its easily misconceived.
Please people stop copying what someone read on a wiki without understanding it all.

and on that note if you plan on quoting someone again. quote the whole sentence not the half that would make someone look stupid unless the other half was stated as well. "1.8 btw does = 7.2 !!!!!! if the program supports it!!!!!!)

[jesalvein]

That could be a good way to analyze it, BUT
...it's not so simple. Some threads just can't be splitted and will require some intensive CPU resources. Most of the time, if you plan on coding your softso as it may handle quad cores, you don't split instructions one by one, you split your code in several modules.

Now, imagine 1 requires 1Ghz, another 1 2.2Ghz, and the last ones, let's say 2 ghz each.

With a 1.8 ghz quad , only one thread will work at full speed.
With a 7.2ghz single, all the threads will be able to work at full speed.

A quad 1.8ghz sin't necessarily slow, but as we are on pcsx2 forum, we consider it's slow for pcsx2.

I didn't take it from wikipedia, only from my own experience.

And byt he way :

and on that note if you plan on quoting someone again. quote the whole sentence not the half that would make someone look stupid unless the other half was stated as well.

I didn't want to make you look stupid. Now, if you felt it that way, I apologise. just in case ...

[Zeydlitz]

Such "quad-core programming" exist only if it would be possible to divide this threads in nearly equal parts. In real words one thread is eating 100% of his core, when others is simply underperformend. Even more, it's usual, when threads 2-3-4-5 at sum eating less than thread 1, and could be effectively handled by one core.

p.S. Task of dividing one process in symmetric and independent threads are WERY hard, almost impossible to solve at average.

[Yaotzin]

ugh, one program running all 4 cores at 1.8 runs it like a 7.2 thus the industry even considering quad cores an upgrade even with lesser core speeds.

It's "like" running at 7.2 if you're running something that's embarassingly parallel. Hint: the PS2 isn't. Not even close. Nor are most other tasks.

Because something like a video editing program can handle multi tasks , rendering etc at 1.8 for example while something else running at the same time is also 1.8 etc etc. Little misconception with the term. Essentially if the program is written to run 4 youll make as much progress if tasks are split among them.

Many tasks, including games, are not very parallelizable.

You can compare it to cars if you like, saying 2 v4's wont beat one v8. But if you look at it in combining the 2 v4 cars progress together, then compare how far the v8 got in 10 seconds. the 2 v4's distance achieved would be greater even though both v4's are behind the v8 individually. same concept. get me ? lol.
----v4
---------v8
----v4
but both v4's working together on one task
--------v4's both distance combined
-------v8

The fact that the individual cores are slower seperately IS irrelevant if the programming takes advantage of all 4 together. Without that the v8 wins..

Think of games as races run in stages, and the next stage can only begin once you finish the previous stage. In such a scenario, the v8 wins every time.

The v8 wins in pcsx2 only currently until devs work on quad, and enhance dual.

I'm sure they'll try, but don't expect much. There's not much point anyway, with the rate technology advances. By the time they finish a decent multithreaded solution, CPUs will be able to brute force PS2 games anyway.

Peoples computers are NOT too slow. Stop ***** telling people that.

Sorry if the truth hurts. That CPU is very slow for emulation, and pretty slow even for PC tasks.

Therefor, "IF" the program is created to constantly run tasks using all 4 cores, thus the effect of it "Seeming" like one 7.2, because that is exactly how fast a 7.2 would order up the information. With such a lack of quad core programming however, its easily misconceived.
Please people stop copying what someone read on a wiki without understanding it all.

You would do well to read a wiki on multicore programming.

[boogerthe2nd]

You could also see it as a large pizza. With 4 cores and software that can handle 4 separate threads, you could say that it cuts the pizza into 4 slices and allows 4 people (the cores) to eat each slice individually. However, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to split up the pizza evenly.

As a result, one person may finish their slice before the rest, and has to remain idle while waiting for the others to finish, before moving onto the next 'pizza'.

There are also probably some overhangs that inevitably factor into the synchronized operation of 4 separate cores as opposed to one core.

Thus, in theory, 4 cores at 1.8Ghz can attain UP TO the performance of a single 7.2Ghz core, but that is almost never the case. The best you can hope for is similar performance, but to suggest that a quad-core is EQUAL to a single-core with the same 'total processing power' is technically incorrect.