Read first: Will PCSX2 run fast on my computer?
^_^; good at picking hard to emulate PS2 games aren't you? Xenosaga is another system beater... While mostly playable on a moderate rig the cut scenes will run slow on just about any machine and it doesn't like speed hacks much to boot.
Reply

Sponsored links

Seems like I managed to get Jak working at a variable 48-60 framerate, so this one is alright, and if 0.9.8 fixes the graphix bugs, it will be perfect.

); Seems like I won't be able to finish any of the games I couldn't finish before.
I am kinda legendary among my friends for having consoles that always break down on me. PS2 broke after 2-3 years of usage, got it fixed like 3-4 times but always broke after 2-3 months.
My PS3 played PS2 games(one of the first 60 gig models), but it managed to overheat and mess up the video chip, so now I have some purple-greenish blobs moving around in the place of the main menu.
Gave up on buying another PS3, even though the slim models are said to be pretty sturdy.
Reply
yikes on ur console luck sir! now as for your mention of 0.9.8 SHHH!! lol
but Quite possibly I would only recommend gaming PCs for everyone, no matter what
they use their PC for, like even if they say "oh I dont do much" , forget it, ALWAYS
get a gaming Rig! because that way the PC is as fast as you need it to be. oh and
for those who love Emulators always BUILD your PC, never just buy it, example?
Alienware..enough said.
(OS:Win7_64bit ULTIMATE) (M4a88TD-M asus mobo)
[Processor:AMD AthlonII x4 645 3.720ghz(OC)Quadcore]
VideoCard-[ATIradeon5750(OC) 850mhz 2GB
RAM-[DDR3-4GB Matched RAM w/ Heat Spreaders]HYperX BLU
cpu-cooler- H60 closed loop water cooling.
Reply
(04-20-2011, 07:16 AM)Rezard Wrote: With a 5450, it can depend on the specs. If it's cheaper, it probably has a 64-bit memory bus (or as little as 32-bit. OUCH!). That's not gonna work too well. There are some 5450 cards made with a 128-bit bus. This isn't too bad, and could work for some games. The biggest problem with those 128-bit 5450s is that the come in a price range where much better cards are available. You should be going with something around a 5600 by that point.

As for your CPU: It's an AMD. You should be able to easily find the basic drawbacks with the use of an AMD with PCSX2 (vs Intel) if ya look around for a minute here, so I'll just leave that at that. In the end, an AMD can still be decent if clocked highly, so be sure and have a good motherboard. Smile
I got the card for like 40 bucks on newegg, Also Im going to turn it into a quadcore and Oc it. I know i can oc the dualcore to around 4 GHZ
Reply
i shop at newegg newegg is nice
(OS:Win7_64bit ULTIMATE) (M4a88TD-M asus mobo)
[Processor:AMD AthlonII x4 645 3.720ghz(OC)Quadcore]
VideoCard-[ATIradeon5750(OC) 850mhz 2GB
RAM-[DDR3-4GB Matched RAM w/ Heat Spreaders]HYperX BLU
cpu-cooler- H60 closed loop water cooling.
Reply
(04-27-2011, 08:31 AM)Dropinbodys24-7 Wrote: I got the card for like 40 bucks on newegg, Also Im going to turn it into a quadcore and Oc it. I know i can oc the dualcore to around 4 GHZ

Just remember, a 4GHz dual is better than a 3.5GHz quad in PCSX2 (assuming same arch). Scaling in PCSX2 is fairly linear as long as you're not bottlenecked by the GPU (a risk with very low-end cards such as the HD 5450) so 3.5 is 12.5% slower than 4. In terms of FPS, if you get 60 FPS with 4GHz, you can expect to get around 52.5 FPS with 3.5GHz.
Reply
(04-27-2011, 04:22 PM)ilovejedd Wrote: Just remember, a 4GHz dual is better than a 3.5GHz quad in PCSX2 (assuming same arch). Scaling in PCSX2 is fairly linear as long as you're not bottlenecked by the GPU (a risk with very low-end cards such as the HD 5450) so 3.5 is 12.5% slower than 4. In terms of FPS, if you get 60 FPS with 4GHz, you can expect to get around 52.5 FPS with 3.5GHz.

That's funny I've beaten Shadow Lady's fps score and her cpu was 500MHz more than mine.
Reply
(04-27-2011, 05:56 PM)tuanming Wrote: That's funny I've beaten Shadow Lady's fps score and her cpu was 500MHz more than mine.

That's why I mentioned same architecture. Cache size, FSB, memory, etc, all play a part. Tongue2
Reply
(04-27-2011, 05:56 PM)tuanming Wrote: That's funny I've beaten Shadow Lady's fps score and her cpu was 500MHz more than mine.

Yeah, also you have much better ram (which I think it's been proven enough by now to be a factor Tongue2) and your CPU costs 200bucks over my low core2 wannabe and the Q9xxx were pretty much the hax architecture of the core 2 quads even over the Q8xxx, there better be a difference somewhere Tongue2

As ilovejedd mentioned it's assuming same architecture, whereas Core2 Q8xxx and E7xxx/8xxx for example are more similar than a Pentium Exxxx against a Core2 Q9xxx.
Core i5 3570k -- Geforce GTX 670  --  Windows 7 x64
Reply
The Q9xxx series were the best of the Core 2 architecture. You could say it's a heavily tweaked Core 2. Put this on a DDR3 capable motherboard with high speed DDR3 ram and you get yourself a free first generation Core i7 performance-like CPU ^^. At least in theory, my fps did come close to those Core i7 920 , some i5, beats the i3 CPUs.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)