How much would it cost to build a PC to run PCSX2?

[cyber]

well I just have one more thing to say, the new dual cores sell for the same price as the i5 750 quad core, so for me the logical thing is buy the quad, overclock it (because it overclocks easy enough) and there you have it, and that is my opinion. If the duals where cheaper let's say 160 $ and not 200, then yes, it would likely be a better buy especially for pcsx2.

What I do like very much about the new processors is the integrated graphics, because you have a back-up in case your primary GPU is failing and needs to be repaired (and it could take ages for the card to return to you functional again, I had a bad experience once when a 6600 GT broke and I had no spare pci-e card and it took 3 WEEKS to get it back !), like my 5770 which is showing some signs of breaking down, as it was flawed from the factory (my results are very consistent in terms of performance but from time to time I get a BSOD and it is not a thing anyone could be happy with), but right now I cannot afford to take to be repaired because I need my computer for college projects and such.

But hey, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect you guys very much especially because you have experience and know what you are talking about, it just depends on what you feel like at the moment of buying.

[Schizo]

Dual core is fine if you update your PC hardware on regular basis, every 2 year perhaps, but if you plan to stick for 5 years with same hardware then 4 cores would be more reasonable in my opinion. Before I got mine Phenom II 550 (now unlocked with 4 cores) I had Athlon 1700+ @ 2.4 GHz for 7-8 years. So I don't regret buying 4 core processor for 120$

[mackoyski]

Those newly-released dual-cores are expensive since they carry the architectural improvements of Westmere (one of the highest IPCs on the market) and most of the releases are past the 3ghz barrier, making them highly sought-after. While the E8600 (3.33ghz) was available for something between 250$-300$, its core clock equivalent (core i5-660) can be had for 200$ and would most likely be more faster due to the architecture.

Quad-core vs Dual-core is an acquired taste and is also dependent on necessity . Some people NEED the quad cores for heavy, non-game related tasks...moreso for business applications that takes DAYS to complete. For most tasks however, the extra cores are doing very little to nil and ends up just being a waste.

[BlueSamurai]

Programs are becoming more Multi-Core Dependent now, look at the Rendering times using Vegas/Photoshop/Maya/3DsMax comparing C2D, C2Q, i5 and i7.

i7 works hardest, paired with some nice 1600MHz memory, very nice, 99% of the time no hiccups, although I see i7 as pretty unnecessary, i5 is what Mainstream users should buy, and i7/Xeons should be used for servers.

[Air]

All of the programs you mentioned:

a. have always been designed for multi-core and multi-cpu machines, and perform tasks that scale to multi-core hardware with considerable ease.

b. extremely expensive.

c. of little or no real use to 99% of the world's population, with the notable exception of Photoshop (which I'll argue most of it's filters execute so fast on modern single cores that it hardly matters, and are often more limited by the amount of system memory than the number of cores; especially since working artists typically use very large images with potentially dozens of layers, usually compounding memory constraints far above and beyond that of typical multi-core filter benchmarks posted to websites).

[IglooBob]

woah a hardware argument, neat

So it was always my intent to go for a quad core, though this discussion has been interesting to read. My suspicion going in was that something like PCSX2 or the Dolphin emulator would max out the processor on certain games. So if I wanted to be running stuff in the background, like 7zip doing something, iTunes, or anything the system is doing in the background, that any of that takes processing time away from pcsx2 and makes it run slower, if only a little. Is that correct? So my assumption was that it certainly couldn't hurt to go quad core, that 2 cores could be running PCSX2 and the other two could be handling "the rest." Am I off on any of that?

[Air]

Well it only "hurts" to go quad-core in that you still tend to lose ghz compared to the Core2 Duo, unless you go for the high-end i7 (egad the price) or that new 32nm stuff.

I have a Q9400 and I'm plenty fine happy with it though. It is quite effective at doing things in the background with zero effect on game speed. And it's not just "one" or "two" tasks either: I routinely start a Visual Studio full rebuild of PCSX2 in the background, and jump into a game while it builds. At worst I notice a blip or two caused by my disk cache getting totally clobbered (only 2gb of ram -- 4gb would make that non-existent). With 4 cores to make use of, Windows is quite good about making sure that a foreground Direct3D app gets pretty much all the cpu time it wants, even with 5 threads of Microsoft C++ Compilers running in the background.

But yea, it applies to everything just about, that I've found -- multiple 7Zip archives running in the background? No problem. FPS dips maybe an fps or two here or there, that's about it. Closing programs to maximize speed is long since a thing of the past. I don't get any changes in PCSX2 benchmarks even when huge flash ad animations are running in the background (those used to bring my P4 to its knees).

But Vegas/Photoshop/Maya/3DsMax aren't on my list of reasons to get a quad -- and a lot of people here would also point out that A. unless you're a programmer, Visual Studio isn't much of a motive for getting a quad either, and B. running 7zip archives in the background is typically the exception, not the norm. But in the long run I suspect the Quads will pay off. More and more developers are using them, and you're going to see a serious dip in the efficiency of up-and-comming end-user applications soon, as most developers simply won't notice their latest versions of chat clients, web browsers, etc. are eating 2/3rds of a core doing nothing at all. This is typically how things go. Good hardware begets bad software. sigh.