How much would it cost to build a PC to run PCSX2?
#31
You do realize that i5 6xx are 2 core processors vs i5 7xx which are 4 core processors?
Reply

Sponsored links

#32
You should be aware, that E8600 is still fastest CPU on market for several tasks (you could find some test on Devil May Cry 4 with this), even faster than i9-975XE -- because lot cores required additional power to handle. For pcsx2 gaming E8600 seems to be one of the best choices for $300. If you look for newer CPU for pcsx2 and does not plan to overclock it, chose i7-870 (it will quicker E8600 a bit). i5-750, and i7-920 is useless now -- i5-660 overcome this on pcsx2. i7-940 and 950 are overcome by 960 (and intell sold them on same price).

So chose from:
LGA-1156
i5-660 $196 3.33/3.57GHz 4Mb/2133
i5-670 $284 3.43/3.70GHz 4Mb/2133
i7-860 $284 2.80/3.33GHz 8Mb/2400
i7-870 $562 2.93/3.43GHz 8Mb/2400
LGA-1336
i7-960 $562 3.20/3.43GHz 8Mb/2133
i7-965XE $999 3.20/3.43GHz 8Mb/2677
i7-975XE $999 3.33/3.57GHz 8Mb/2677

So in category under $500 better choice is i5-670.

Quote:You do realize that i5 6xx are 2 core processors vs i5 7xx which are 4 core processors?
Remember -- unused core is bad, it slow down programs and eat power. 2-cores CPUs are better than 4-cores in may tasks, as I said before, E8600 is still No1, when it could use it's fast L2 cache. So if you don't run http-server on regular basis or does not use you computer for all-day-long videoencoding each day, you does not need 4-cores.
Reply
#33
I know I should have used the edit button, but this must be as a separate post

We are comparing oranges and bananas here. The new core i5 650, 660 and 661 are DUAL CORES with hyperthreading, like 2 cores 4 threads. The core i5 750 is a Quad Core with 4 cores, and no hyperthreading. I saw some tests, and of course in PC games they perform the same because of the clock speeds of the new processors, but fail a lot in other quad core enabled tasks, such as 7zip and WinRar and such.

So there is no comparison here, I say to go for the quad core as it has the same price, and overall is much better for all tasks in general. In the future more games and aplications will use more than two cores, and seeing how the near future will bring hexa and octa-cores, I don't see a reason to still buy a dual core (even with hyperthreading which is very far away from two more physical cores).

One more thing, for pcsx2 the 3,2 or 3,33 ghz dual core might be a lot better in the present, and it will go to 4 ghz overclock easily (I saw 4,6 ghz on techspot with a high 1,425 voltage which is not so safe for 32 nm), but even pcsx2 might become Quad Core friendly in maybe 1-2-3 years when it will reach completion, and at that time a quad core will suit anyone much better than a dual core.
i5 2500K @ 4.8 Ghz - 1.31 V
Asrock Z68 Extreme 3 Gen 3
4 GB Mushkin Radioactive 1600 mhz @ 1866 (8-10-8-27 1T)
ASUS DCU2 HD 6870 (1050/1196) @ 1.3V
Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 32bit
Reply
#34
Zeydlitz:
Read up on the new i5 CPUs a bit more. They are quite a bit faster than the core2 clock per clock.
Reply
#35
Quote:quad core enabled tasks, such as 7zip and WinRar and such.
this is not 4-cores task, it's normal 2-cores with hign cache impact. E8600 shows great results on them.

Quote:Read up on the new i5 CPUs a bit more. They are quite a bit faster than the core2 clock per clock.
Well, only if cache does not made big difference. E8600 is 20% quicker than i5-660 on 7zip, and have the same speed with this test as i7-870.

Quote:In the future more games and aplications will use more than two cores, and seeing how the near future will bring hexa and octa-cores, I don't see a reason to still buy a dual core
It's a marketing junk. You could made multithreaded only few things, and linear programm could not be threaded -- if you need to know previous result to calculate next you obligate to do this calculations one by one. In games, for example, additional threads spammed with AI routines, graphic's effects, physics. But gameflow is needed to be linear. 1-core to 2-cores step was good idea, because on computer there is always 1 base thread, so you'v got an increase just by design. But 8 cores will be SLOWER, that 2-cores on reqular program, just because more cores to handle, more trouble to expect.
Reply
#36
I was just saying if you want to do multithreading is a better idea to get a quad core, and by seeing how well the i5 750 performs in any task (even better or the same as the 999$ QX9775), than it is even a bigger reason to get this particular cpu.

Let's say you want to browse, encode a 720p movie, watch a movie, listen to music, and play pcsx2 (or a PC game), you could do that and expect little hiccup aswell, while a dual core will not be so succesfull.

And yes Quad cores are BY FAR not fully utilized yet, and I to am very sceptical about hexa and octa cores, as there is absolutely no point in those processors with so many cores at this time.
i5 2500K @ 4.8 Ghz - 1.31 V
Asrock Z68 Extreme 3 Gen 3
4 GB Mushkin Radioactive 1600 mhz @ 1866 (8-10-8-27 1T)
ASUS DCU2 HD 6870 (1050/1196) @ 1.3V
Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 32bit
Reply
#37
I agree. Six cores like i9 is coming soon. In synthetic tests its very powerfull.. but looking that is not utilized even in half it makes it worthless nowadays in reality.
Intel Dual Core E5200 @ 3,5ghz /gigabyte GF9500GT/2 GB RAM / ASRock P45XE/ Corsair CMPSU-400CXEU
Reply
#38
(01-06-2010, 05:11 PM)cyber Wrote: Let's say you want to browse, encode a 720p movie, watch a movie, listen to music, and play pcsx2 (or a PC game), you could do that and expect little hiccup aswell, while a dual core will not be so succesfull.

I agree, but how often does this ever happen? I'm having a hard time thinking of a real-life workflow to max a quad-core that doesn't devolve into "run a few CPU-intensive programs to kill CPU time".

I think there's a disconnect between how much people use their multicores vs. what the theoretical uses are, and it's not helping the situation. Browsers may soak up memory like a sponge, but they use next to no CPU if they aren't executing flash or a javascript-heavy page; so even while it may be technically true that a quad core would offer some theoretical advantage, in practice it's just not seen.

I think quad-core proponents should stick with what it's unquestionably good at: running multi-core aware programs. Any benefit that arises from used a quad-core processor for mundane desktop tasks will be lost on the user, and right now for your average person a dual-core with a higher clockis a better buy.
"This thread should be closed immediately, it causes parallel imagination and multiprocess hallucination" --ardhi
Reply
#39
(01-06-2010, 07:13 PM)echosierra Wrote: ..and right now for your average person a dual-core with a higher clockis a better buy...

As it has been the last 3 years now. So yeah Tongue2
Reply
#40
Not just 3 year, but last 30 years the best workstation choice was 2-processors one (and workstations was very advanced all of the time). 4 and more was reserved for servers.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)