Does PCSX2 utlize multi-cores well?

[haxor]

Clarkdale? Lynnflash? Whatever?... -.-

A 4G clocked Dual is still better than a 2.5G clocked Quad when it comes to PCSX2. Quads tend to loose performance when the OS internal task scheduler tries too hard to do it better. It's good for rendering GSDX a lil faster or in software.mode in general cause it's optimized. But not for the core.

The hardcode of PCSX2 is running the EE + SPU + IPU + VUs kinda on the same thread/hardcore to keep it more or less sync. The GS is probabaly the only emulation that is on the 2nd hardwired thread/hardcore.

There's ya limit.

[ilovejedd]

Yes, assuming they're the same architecture, a 4GHz dual beats a 2.5GHz quad. However, in the specific example of i5-661 vs i5-760, what we have is a 3.46GHz dual (i5-661 Turbo-2c) vs a 3.33GHz dual (i5-760 Turbo-2c) assuming no overclocking. For lightly threaded tasks, the i5-760 will run like a higher clocked dual core mostly eliminating the i5-661's advantage while it beats it easily in heavily multi-threaded tasks.

[rama]

There's really no need to buy a dual core CPU anymore these days.
Quads are only slightly more expensive, yet offer more cores to other programs than PCSX2.

[StriFe]

And why would u go for an intel, while the AMD CPU's are way cheaper and are quite close to the budget cpu's of Intel. Here in the netherlands the AMD PhenomII X4 970 Black Edition costs about 160-170 euro's while the same Intel (Quad & 3.5 Ghz each core costs atleast double or three times more)

[haxor]

Buy a 'cheap' Quad. Get a 'monstrous' Cooler and overclock the CPU to a stable MAX and you'll be fine with it.
Works for everything.

Say more ??????

[ilovejedd]

And why would u go for an intel, while the AMD CPU's are way cheaper and are quite close to the budget cpu's of Intel. Here in the netherlands the AMD PhenomII X4 970 Black Edition costs about 160-170 euro's while the same Intel (Quad & 3.5 Ghz each core costs atleast double or three times more)

Because a 4GHz Lynnfield/Bloomfield is still faster than a 4GHz Deneb in PCSX2. It's a non-issue if you're already getting full fps but there are several games that still require speedhacks to play fullspeed.

[vdgamer]

Intel cpus clock for clock are better than amd, because of their architecture and special features, but thats why amd is cheaper

[StriFe]

Sorry, but I don't really think it has to do with the architecture that AMD is cheaper, They play into the market with their cpu's mainly due to the fact that the Intel CPU's are idiotic expensive, I mean come on who the hell is gonna buy a cpu that costs above 1k USD Ok it may be fast, but oh well I think it's just the nature of people that they always want the best of the best

[Burnstien]

amd phenom II can compete with some of the i3/5/7s in benchmarking overall. Phenom II X6 1090t was comparable to an i7 930 if not better when done in benchmarking tests. So which costs more? I7 930, so somethings are better for cheaper and sometimes they ain't.

[ilovejedd]

amd phenom II can compete with some of the i3/5/7s in benchmarking overall. Phenom II X6 1090t was comparable to an i7 930 if not better when done in benchmarking tests. So which costs more? I7 930, so somethings are better for cheaper and sometimes they ain't.

Again, it all depends on what you use the CPU for. The Phenom II X6 benchmarks nice but that's mostly because a lot of the programs tested tend to be well threaded (3D rendering, video encoding, synthetic tests, etc). More cores is all well and good but if the application you're using it for can't take advantage (as is the case with PCSX2), you're better off going with less cores but better per core performance. Don't get me wrong, stock performance, I think the Phenom II X4's offer excellent value and are easily a great alternative to the i5-7x0 Lynnfields. However, for your typical gaming PC, Phenom II X6 isn't as good of a value unless you overclock.

Another thing, AMD pretty much prices their CPU relative to Intel's CPU pricing and performance. Back when the cheapest Nehalem, the i7-920 was going for $300, the top Deneb went for ~$250. When Intel released Lynnfield, particularly the i5-750, AMD dropped pricing on their Phenom II X4 models to match.

Besides, it's not like AMD didn't have their share of $1,000 (consumer) CPU's. Back when AMD had the performance crown, the Athlon 64 FX's went for $1,000. Probably the only reason they don't currently have a $1,000 CPU is because they don't have something that can beat Gulftown.

Graphics is where AMD bests Intel handily and I believe if Llano doesn't get delayed any more than it already has, it stands a very good chance of beating Intel's mainstream Sandy Bridge offerings (even if it Llano had slightly lower CPU performance). Getting HD 5670-level performance from integrated graphics would make it a no-brainer for ultra-budget gamers, the HTPC crowd, etc.