Number of Cores vs. GHz
#31
@Air
So, if you got to decide between a dual core and a quad core you would definitily take the dual core?
Reply

Sponsored links

#32
Quote:I'd be willing to bet that my i7 would crush an E8600 in any benchmark,
Don't be so sure. I have a very big benchmarking, from where it could be seen than i7 920 is falling between E8200 and E8300 on many popular windows application tests. Even more, i7 920 is slightly slower than E8200 Excl on Devil May Cry 4. And don't forget, that on almost all compression/decompression tasks (zip or rar) E8600 with his HUGE cache would prevail even for i7 940 and i7 860. i7 975 will be no anyway 1, but it's 3.3GHz one, and have a price, bigger than aircraft carrier have.

Quote:With PCSX2 using dual core support, plus gsdx being able to use a core to itself, it's getting to be a case of quad core being preferrable these days.
Erroneous calculation: pcsx2 use two cores, one for EE recompilation (mainly) and second for graphical plugin (gsdx). 1+1 = 2, not 3.
Reply
#33
(09-16-2009, 10:05 PM)Zeydlitz Wrote: Don't be so sure. I have a very big benchmarking, from where it could be seen than i7 920 is falling between E8200 and E8300 on many popular windows application tests. Even more, i7 920 is slightly slower than E8200 Excl on Devil May Cry 4. And don't forget, that on almost all compression/decompression tasks (zip or rar) E8600 with his HUGE cache would prevail even for i7 940 and i7 860. i7 975 will be no anyway 1, but it's 3.3GHz one, and have a price, bigger than aircraft carrier have.
E8600 has 6 MB L2 cache, while my 920 has 8 MB L3, so cache size isn't really a factor here. Also, with the 920 clocked to 3.4 (only slightly higher than the E8600's stock), clock for clock, I'd still bet it would crush it.

(09-16-2009, 10:05 PM)Zeydlitz Wrote: Erroneous calculation: pcsx2 use two cores, one for EE recompilation (mainly) and second for graphical plugin (gsdx). 1+1 = 2, not 3.
I thought that as well, but when I was putting this new rig together, ref stopped by and made a comment about how gsdx would be able to use a core to itself now that I have more than 2 available cores. I'll have to check with him to clarify this.
Intel Core i7 920 @ 3.4 Ghz | 6 GB DDR3 RAM in Triple Channel | GeForce GTX 285
2.5 TB Hard Drive Space | Windows 7 Ultimate x64

Official betatester of PCSX2
Reply
#34
Quote:E8600 has 6 MB L2 cache, while my 920 has 8 MB L3, so cache size isn't really a factor here. Also, with the 920 clocked to 3.4 (only slightly higher than the E8600's stock), clock for clock, I'd still bet it would crush it.
In reallity, 4-cores/8 thread CPU could not use 8 Mb L3 cache + 4*256Kb in such effective way, than 2-cores, 6 MB L2 cache (plus DDR3 memory suxx). And, 920 does not throttled to 3.4 -- only to 2.93 (3.43 cap -- is i7 860, not 920). Try do testing by yourself, it could be a nice experience. Really, i7 920 is slow on comparison with E8600 at many task, that users usually use.
Reply
#35
Someone already did a wide range of PCSX2 benchmarks on an E8600 and i7 940 (iirc), posted somewhere on this very forum. The i7 beat out the E8600 on clock-for-clock performance in most games tested, by about 4-8% depending on game, but the two were neck-and-neck for a couple other (slower) games, possibly because those were primarily GS-limited or something. The benchmarker didn't say if he was running with HT enabled, however. From what I've read, the i7's HT will cause some slowdown (from 2-5%) on apps which use 4 or fewer cores.

On threading in PCSX2: Still 2 cores. The MTGS option is being fixed to perma-on in newer versions because we cleverly rigged it so that it's not a slowdown on single core CPUs. But it's still just 2 cores primarily. The new wxWidgets gui renovations do have more hreading in general at the GUI level, which is mildly beneficial for multi-core CPUs -- bot only in terms of "smoothness in practical use" cases, and not so much for benchmarks or what-not.

For example, savestates will zip to disk on a separate thread, which should allow you to hit F1 and only skip a frame or something. Wink
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#36
(09-16-2009, 06:16 PM)Xellon Wrote: Just to be sure, the QX9300 (quad) with GTX 260M (laptop) should be able to play most of the games on the emulator right? It only has 2.53ghz and will only be able to use 2 cores. But I think the video card should help out.

any thoughts?

The cpu would have to be overclocked a little to play most games at fullspeed.
Any core2 design at around 3Ghz will be mostly fine.
The GPU cannot "help out". It either is fast enough to not slow down your games, or it isn't Wink
Reply
#37
(09-16-2009, 02:30 PM)saya1314520 Wrote: In software render mode
4core better than 2 core
i using Q9450@ 3.7Ghz , it is 100% full load when i using software render

Have you checked how that speed actually increases with the extra cores? is like 7-10% speed increase per extra core, so it's not really that impressive anyway :P

Quote:Even more, i7 920 is slightly slower than E8200 (!) on Devil May Cry 4.

I bet it's because of the HT, seems people actually turn off HT for gaming.
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
#38
(09-17-2009, 01:04 AM)Shadow Lady Wrote:
(09-16-2009, 02:30 PM)saya1314520 Wrote: In software render mode
4core better than 2 core
i using Q9450@ 3.7Ghz , it is 100% full load when i using software render

Have you checked how that speed actually increases with the extra cores? is like 7-10% speed increase per extra core, so it's not really that impressive anyway Tongue

Quote:Even more, i7 920 is slightly slower than E8200 Excl on Devil May Cry 4.

I bet it's because of the HT, seems people actually turn off HT for gaming.

so for rendering, quads don't help out very much? If so, then I shouldn't waste my money on a quad.

Although, I have a feeling that some time in the future, some apps, games, etc will harness the quads potential.
Windows 7 - Asus G73jh-a1 - 17-720qm @ 1.6 GHz (2.8 GHz)(2.4ghz)(1.73ghz) - ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 @ 700/1000 (sometimes oc to 800/1100) - 8 gig ram
Reply
#39
@Xellon: as of now there's one (game) for sure which harnesses both 64bit and quad cores. it will take some time, but they'll get to it sooner or later on the rest
Reply
#40
(09-17-2009, 01:15 AM)Saiki Wrote: @Xellon: as of now there's one (game) for sure which harnesses both 64bit and quad cores. it will take some time, but they'll get to it sooner or later on the rest

yea, I figured as much. But what about for rendering? Is a quad much more effective or only a little? From what Shadow lady said, it seems like a little.
Windows 7 - Asus G73jh-a1 - 17-720qm @ 1.6 GHz (2.8 GHz)(2.4ghz)(1.73ghz) - ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 @ 700/1000 (sometimes oc to 800/1100) - 8 gig ram
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)