Q9550 or 1090T for PCSX2?
Well, i can choose between these 2 CPUs (including a suitable mainboard of course):
Intel Core2Quad Q9550 or AMD Phenom II X6 1090T Black Edition. 
Both will run in combination with 8 GB RAM and a nVidia GTX 770 2GB VRAM. OS is Windows 10 Pro 64 Bit. Both mainboards are overclocking boards including a good tower cooler, so i am able to overclock both CPUs, in case they are too slow.

Unfortunately i can't test them and check which of them is faster, before buying... Both will cost the same.

So which CPU is faster/better for PCSX2? And will i be able to run most games on full speed in 1080p?

Sponsored links

Is there a reason why you're limited to these CPUs? Both CPUs only have a STR of about 1200, which isn't very good for demanding games.
Both those CPUs are quite out of date nowadays, and will bottleneck your GPU in other applicatons.

You'd be better off getting something newer, even an FX series or a modern Intel Pentium would do you better.
Well, everything has changed, now i'm getting an i5 2500 (non K) - for free^^

I guess it's better for PCSX2 then the Q9550 and the 1090T, right? I mean, i'm getting the CPU and the board for free, so i can't complain i guess...

Honestly, will the i5 2500 give good performance for PCSX2?

At the moment i have a Phenom II X6 1055T, which is well... mediocre... at least for PCSX2.

Btw., what does "STR" stand for?

Quote:Both CPUs only have a STR of about 1200, which isn't very good for demanding games.
Single threaded performance

This is the site most people here use to compare relative performance of different CPUs

Generally we recomend a score of 1,600 for most games and 2,000+ for demanding titles
the i5-2500 (non k) gets a 1,877 so you will probably have some speed issues on the more demanding titles, but the lighter titles should do pretty well.

The 1055T has a score of 1,111 which is why it is medicore at best for PCSX2. The 1090t is 1,220 and the q9550 is 1,199... so basically little to almost no improvement over your current setup, which is why no one was giving you a recommendation on which one to get since neither was a good choice.

Also keep in mind that overclockimg can help but it can not work miracles and will not make an older architecture perform like a newer one. Not to mention that emulator loads can be like a single core stress test to some CPUs and any instability from an overclock will show up as the processor gets pushed to it's limit (and beyond).
Thanks for that link, very helpful site.

Well, at least i should see a big improvement with that i5 2500, compared to my old 1055T, i guess.

And like i mentioned, i got that CPU for free, so i can't really complain.

Well, if there are really some games which my "new" CPU is too slow for, then in that case i still have my PS2^^

And regarding PC games: i was satified with the 1055T, so i should be even more satisfied with the i5 2500, i think.
Well if you can't oc the cpu, try with the ram. Might give you a slight boost as well.

Also the number in STR might be even higher if you benchmark it yourself.
1900 give or take.
Reguarding native PC games-- you should be fine with an i5-2500 for most games and it should generally not bottleneck the GTX 770 at 1080p, probably the general resolution sweet spot given the 2GB VRAM and it's gemeral performance on the demanding titles of it's day (2013). Basically it will perform pretty close to a GTX 1050 (non ti) and will get you medium to high on newer titles at 1080p and high to ultra on older games while mantaining around 60fps.

If you want to do high refresh gaming 144Hz or higher (on older games really since the gtx 770 won't do that on newer titles) then you might run into more of a cpu bottleneck on the 2500. Also any CPU heavy games might not fare so well either (but those are fewer since GPU still dominates native PC gaming).
that 2500 shouldnt be much behind my 3770 in str.. Passmark shows it just below 1900. There might be a few games you cannot conquer, but they should be few and far between.

I dont know what it is, but every single passmark rating I've looked up has been on the low side from my actual processors.
My 620m would score a little over 1300 (passmark has it about 50 lower)
My 3770 scores over 2100 (passmark has it about 100 lower than its actual score.. roughly)
My 7200u scores over 1800 when plugged in (pass mark has it about 70 lower.. which I have seen in 1 run of performance test.. rest were the 1800s, and I've ran about 10 passes so far)

Lightningterror may be very right about where you'll score if you run it yourself. I found a few things I hadn't expected seemed to actually help with my stp rating.
Dual channel vs. single channel ram.. yup, that made a small difference.. 30 stp or so
SSD - guess this only applies to my laptops, whose platter disks were DOG slow, so I guess the reads were bottlenecking the test.
Windows Game mode - adds a couple..
Tweaking my startup programs to prevent as many programs as I could from starting with my system.. because I hate things running at startup.

Yeah, that 2500 will struggle with some games like SoC, but for a lot of games, its an excellent processor. From the windows perspective.. like native games.. have fun. It's not gonna rock the newest games but those will mostly depend on your gpu, so getting a good gpu to match will work wonders.
amd tr 1950x                                                 amd ryzen 5 2500u
asrock x399 taichi                                         amd vega 8 
XFX Radeon rx570                                       16gb ddr 4 2400 ram
32gb gskill ddr4-3200                                   1tb nvme ssd
Debian Bullseye                                           480gb sata ssd
Custom loop water cooled                           HP envy x360
nzxt 340 case
OK, everything has changed. I've sold the i5 2500 non K and bought an i5 2500K, which now runs at 4.5 GHz. I also got 8 GB more of RAM, so now i have 16 GB in total.
What do you think, should this give me a big improvement?
I haven't tested any games yet...

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)