Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
upgrade compatibility question
#1
Not sure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes; My old CPU is a Intel dual core E6300 2.8 GHz Wolfdale processor. I'm about to upgrade (as soon as newegg gets it to my house) to the new AMD 3.6 GHz 8 core Zambezi processor.

My question is this; Is PCSX2 compatible with the new 8 core processors, and if so, do any of you know roughly how much of a speed boost it will give? And yes, I realize that this is probably about the same tier of upgrade as from... a bow and arrow to a bunker buster bomb. Mainly, I want to know if it's going to use most or every core, or not. that kind of thing
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
it is "compatible" with any CPU that has at least SSE2 feature

you will get a speedboost since you will be able to use MTVU hack, and since 3.6 is better than 2.8Ghz.
about the drawbacks : latest AMD architectures have been proved to perform badly when it come to gaming, including pcsx2...
CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply
#3
Seriously? I hadn't heard that. That kinda sucks, since the only use I actually have for my machine is gaming :/
Reply
#4
(04-02-2012, 06:16 PM)jesalvein Wrote: it is "compatible" with any CPU that has at least SSE2 feature

you will get a speedboost since you will be able to use MTVU hack, and since 3.6 is better than 2.8Ghz.
about the drawbacks : latest AMD architectures have been proved to perform badly when it come to gaming, including pcsx2...

it is true that amd cpu's are lagging behind intel's when it comes to gaming at least, and thats because clock for clock amd cpu's are significantly slower than intel, and what you need for gaming is maximum 4 cores(pcsx2 only 2 cores) but you want fast architecture and high clocks and intel is way ahead in that department, 2500k is excellent choice for gaming it a quad core but games dont require any more cores it overclocks to nearly 5Ghz and smokes 8 core zambezi when it comes to gaming, to make it simple its like this 8 cores is useless unless application uses all of them, fast architecture and high clocks are always used because any application is able to use that thats not true about number of cores
Mobo: EVGA X58 SLI LE
CPU: Intel i7 920 C0 @ 4.2 Ghz 1.36v Cogage Arrow
Ram: 3x2GB OCZ Gold 1690 9-9-8-24 1.65v
GPU: MSI GTX580 Lightning @ 970/2200 1.09v+MSI GTX460 Hawk PhysX
HDD: Corsair Force GT 120, 2x F4 320GB Raid 0,F4 2TB, WD-G 1TB
PSU: Corsair HX850 80 PLUS SILVER Modular
Case: Antec 1200 EVGA Mod
Reply
#5
Ok, thanks for the advice. I'll consider that when I'm making future purchases. I just wish that intel cpu's didn't cost so much >_<
Reply
#6
And again here we go again. To say that AMD sucks for gaming is quite nonsense. We all know that AMD sux for PCSX2 (Even if I don't have any major problems with it). Also most games are being made now are built for the technologies of AMD instead that of Intel/Nvidia Smile
Reply
#7
sure.
but it has been proved that recent AMD CPUs are crap for gaming.
old architectures (such as phenom) were good, but new ones (Bulldozer) showed pitiful results in gaming benchmarks.

I'm not an Intel nor an AMD fanboy, but since MAD is cheaper than intel, I was expecting much more from their latest CPUs :sad:
CPU : I7 2600K Oc'ed @ 4.2Ghz
Mobo : Intel P67 southbridge
GPU : NVIDIA Geforce GTX 750 Ti
RAM : 6 Go
Reply
#8
who knows Jesalvein, the new APU Piledriver comes next year and AMD promised that it's gonna be one of their better APUs Smile But so far and perhaps cause I have a Phenom II, I can play all games on the PC just normally on 1920*1080, only thing that I can't get everything to work at the full 100% is PCSX2, but then again I never expected it to work 100% (No offense) Smile
Reply
#9
(04-03-2012, 03:00 PM)StriFe79 Wrote: And again here we go again. To say that AMD sucks for gaming is quite nonsense. We all know that AMD sux for PCSX2 (Even if I don't have any major problems with it). Also most games are being made now are built for the technologies of AMD instead that of Intel/Nvidia Smile

amd sucks for gaming

[Image: CPU.png]

[Image: GTA4_CPUs_Core_i7_1280.PNG]

[Image: DragonAge-CPUs-1680.png]

[Image: CPU%20Clock.png]

[Image: CPU_2.png]
Reply
#10
Yeah DX9 Tongue but DX9 is slow compared to DX11 Wink don't forget that those benchmarks are probably without the high res texture patch Smile eitherway for me it's fast enough and it doesn't suck for me. No matter what others say.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)