Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
procesors
#1
If procesor with two cores works better than procesor with four cores-for pcsx2 then procesor with one core it is better than procesor with two and four cores.....?
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
(10-25-2009, 09:10 AM)stefano Wrote: If procesor with two cores works better than procesor with four cores-for pcsx2 then procesor with one core it is better than procesor with two and four cores.....?

1) Quad cores at same clocks as a dual are always better.
2) PCSX2 would cry if you gave it a single core.
3) The architectures used back when anyone made single cores sucked.
4) No one makes single core processors. For desktops and at usable clocks, anyway.
Reply
#3
If you compare a Phenom II x4 against a Phenom II x2 at same speed they would probably perform the same or even better in the quad as other apps including windows itself are free to use other threads so there's less load on the 2 threads used by PCSX2 (not to mention being able to use more cores for GSdx software mode which comes in handy).

If you use different chip architectures for comparing like Phenom II x2 vs Phenom I x4 it's very probable the Phenom II would win because it's a better performer anyway.

It's recommended to use a higher speed Dual Core because well they come cheaper anyway and they are usually easier to overclock if you want that, and not many people use quad core fully still (unless you actually would use the other cores for whatever else I guess Tongue), but slower using the same architecture and speed? dunno where you would get that Tongue
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
#4
(10-25-2009, 09:39 AM)Yaotzin Wrote:
(10-25-2009, 09:10 AM)stefano Wrote: If procesor with two cores works better than procesor with four cores-for pcsx2 then procesor with one core it is better than procesor with two and four cores.....?

1) Quad cores at same clocks as a dual are always better.
2) PCSX2 would cry if you gave it a single core.
3) The architectures used back when anyone made single cores sucked.
4) No one makes single core processors. For desktops and at usable clocks, anyway.

Wrong...
Wrong...
Wrong...
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
Reply
#5
Quad cores at the same speed are in fact always better than dual cores of the same clock speed, GIVEN the following conditions:

* The CPUs are using the same clock multiplier (this affects ram speed)
* The CPUs both have sufficiently large L2/L3 cache (4mb+ for dual, 6mb+ for quad is enough to equalize)
* There isn't some inherent design flaw in the CPU's core architecture that makes it suck something terrible when scaled to 4 cores (none that I know of right now anyway)

Given those conditions, matching clock speeds will favor the Quad, simply because modern operating systems have many threads and many background services. They use a very minute amount of resources, but they are able to be much more responsive and have little or no contention with the primary application on a quad core machine. Additionally, quads typically run much cooler than duals when handling the same 2-Core level of load, thanks to load balancing.

I almost hate to break from the trolling style of the previous post with REAL CONTENT and MORE THAN ONE WORD, but oh well. It's my style.
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#6
A C2D @ 2.6GHZ would outpeform a 2.6GHZ Phenom. So, yes, he was wrong.
It wasn't trolling, it was stating those 3 points he made were wrong.
AMD have an AM3 single core (Dual core with one disabled core)
It's on a modern architecture, thus doesn't suck.
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
Reply
#7
Quote:1) Quad cores at same clocks as a dual are always better.
On contrary, 4 cores at same clocks are always SLOWER on one task, that 2 cores. More cores means more time to cores syncing and all atomic op's and memory intercore transfer will be slow downs. One core with on 1 task system (run under DOS, for example) will be fastest.

Quote:more cores for GSdx software mode
It's a common mistake, GSdx does not use cores, it's use threads. Of cource, if there is 2 main thread load 2 cores (that's possible), than 3rd core will be useful, but if load is unbalanced, than there is no advantage even for 3 cores. For 4rd core the useful situations would be even more rarely occurred.

Usually, 4-cores win tests, because they get more cache memory that 2-cores, and this "win" are rarely exceed test error.
Reply
#8
(10-25-2009, 02:53 PM)Sythedragon Wrote: A C2D @ 2.6GHZ would outpeform a 2.6GHZ Phenom. So, yes, he was wrong.
It wasn't trolling, it was stating those 3 points he made were wrong.

Right or wrong, it's trolling if you don't give at least some explanation for a blanketing statement. It puts people on defensive and gives no rational justification for helping defuse the defensive stance. Additionally, his statement can be seen as accurate within the context of most posts, which is direct comparison of LIKE-BRANDED cpus. People comparing cross-brand who try to generalize core counts would be idiots, and would (again) need a lot more info than "wrong" to have any chance of comprehending how a computer works.
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#9
(10-25-2009, 03:58 PM)Zeydlitz Wrote:
Quote:1) Quad cores at same clocks as a dual are always better.
On contrary, 4 cores at same clocks are always SLOWER on one task, that 2 cores. More cores means more time to cores syncing and all atomic op's and memory intercore transfer will be slow downs. One core with on 1 task system (run under DOS, for example) will be fastest.

Right. Under DOS. In Windows, MacOS-X, and typical Linux installs this scenario will simply never occur, so it's irrelevant to almost everyone. Anyone for whom it's not irrelevant is presumably enough of an expert to already know, and is presumably unable to run PCSX2 since it doesn't work in DOS.

Also, at least on Intel chip designs, interlocking is extremely efficient. Most of the interlocking is performed at the cache level automatically, completely in parallel with the chip executing instructions. And any slight latencies that might sneak through that first layer of atomic security are usually hidden by the CPU's out-of-order instruction execution pipelines.
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
Reply
#10
Well, yes, 1-task only systems is in past (but not very far), but in situation (just regular) where we have 1 heavy thread, 4-cores will be bit worth, than 2-cores. And, "efficient" is not very good way, hang-up in kernel leads to massive slow-down, that could be noticed as milliseconds lag.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)