The list of most CPU intensive games...

[Rekrul]

While browsing the forum, I stumbled across the list of the most CPU intensive PS2 games. I noticed that four of the Burnout games are on the list, which seems strange to me, since these games actually run fairly well on my older system.

Yes, they run a little slower than they should and there's an occasional, brief slowdown, but in general the framerate is pretty consistent and the games don't really feel slow when you're playing them. They aren't choppy and they move fast enough that if you showed them to someone who had never seen the games before, they probably wouldn't think there was anything wrong with them.

The Jak and Daxter games also run fairly well for me, considering that the levels are pretty large and open. I haven't played all the way through the games, but what I did play, they didn't really feel slow or sluggish to me. Jak X - Combat Racing was kind of laggy though. I could play it, but it didn't feel right.

Soul Calibur 3 is another game from the list that seems fast and smooth to me. The characters respond well and the action never seems like it's slower than normal.

That's not to say that all games run great on my system. The Incredibles sometimes seems like it's in slo-mo. Gran Turismo 3 was like watching a slideshow and Ben Hur was so slow when you tried to start the game, it sounded like the audio was doing a Friday the 13th impression; Ch-ch-ch-hu-hu-hu-ka-ka-ka...

My system is a 2.4Ghz Core-2-Duo with 4GB RAM, a GT430 graphics card and XP Pro, SP3, which I would have thought would be considered completely underpowered for running PCSX2, but yet it runs many games at what I consider playable speeds. Of course I only have the resolution set to 2x and the speedhacks turned up to 4.

It just makes me wonder when people with 4Ghz i7 processors, 8-16GB of RAM and $200+ graphics cards complain that the games are running too slowly. Are people just upset that the games don't run at 60FPS and 4K resolutions? Are more advanced systems actually worse at running PCSX2?

[TkSilver]

Usually speaking racing\flying games will suffer from lower cpu performance more often then other genres. Other games will differ depending on what techniques were used when making the game.

You didn't mention which version of the emulator you are using or which plugins. But basically speed hacks sacrifice accuracy for speed (sometimes enough accuracy that the game crashes). So if you don't mind more issues that can pop up or just the game not being quite like the ps2 would play it then they will offer you performance gains. Some effects will just not exist with certain speed hacks enabled or when played on earlier versions of PCSX2 and if those effects are performance intensive then it will be easier, if less accurate, to play then with out the hacks and on the dev builds.

So yes some people don't understand that emulation is not the same as nativi PC gaming and have new expensive systems with parts thst really don't help them try to run settings that are overkill and will not perform well. Though, sometimes they are just playing a more accurate version that demands more performance. Also there are a lot of settings that if you don't know what they do will just tank performance without much (if any) actual benefit, but are very useful in very specific situations.

[Rekrul]

Usually speaking racing\flying games will suffer from lower cpu performance more often then other genres.

That's what I figured, which is why I was pleasantly surprised that all the Burnout games ran as well as they did. I also had pretty good results with Crazy Taxi and Star Wars: Racer Revenge. I get an occasional stutter with those games, but otherwise they seem like they're running at full speed.

You didn't mention which version of the emulator you are using or which plugins.

1.4.0 with all the default plugins that work under XP. I can't run any of the newer versions because apparently they've dropped support for XP. When I try to run them, I immediately get "Error executing program (5)" which usually indicates that it was built with a compiler that no longer makes XP compatible binaries. I think the only plugin that isn't default is the Nuvee USB plugin, which I used to get mouse support. Also, I should mention that I always use hardware rendering. Software is too slow.

But basically speed hacks sacrifice accuracy for speed (sometimes enough accuracy that the game crashes). So if you don't mind more issues that can pop up or just the game not being quite like the ps2 would play it then they will offer you performance gains. Some effects will just not exist with certain speed hacks enabled or when played on earlier versions of PCSX2 and if those effects are performance intensive then it will be easier, if less accurate, to play then with out the hacks and on the dev builds.

So far I've played through a good portion of Burnout 3, almost finished Burnout 2 (it seems like there's a bug in the last pursuit race that makes it impossible to beat unless you get REALLY lucky, but since I see a lot of people online complaining about this, it seems that it's a problem with the game, not the emulator), and almost finished Half-Life. I got to the final boss fight, took a break and never got around to finishing it.

So yes some people don't understand that emulation is not the same as nativi PC gaming and have new expensive systems with parts thst really don't help them try to run settings that are overkill and will not perform well. Though, sometimes they are just playing a more accurate version that demands more performance. Also there are a lot of settings that if you don't know what they do will just tank performance without much (if any) actual benefit, but are very useful in very specific situations.

I don't know what most of the settings do, which is why I used the preset slider. I know it's a risk to the accuracy of the emulation, but many of the games that are playable with it set to 4 are too slow to be enjoyable at lower settings.

I want to get a more updated system so that I can take advantage of the newer emulators that are coming out. I know I could get actual classic consoles for less money, but I like the convenience of save states and being able to configure the controls any way that I want. For example, I suck at playing flight games with a thumbstick, but with an emulator I can configure an actual joystick.

Considering that I don't really push the graphics that much (2x resolution, 2x filtering), what kind of a system would I need to run most games at a decent, playable speed? And is the CPU or GPU the most important component?

[TkSilver]

For the most part a stronger CPU is more important then the GPU.

For a CPU you want single threaded performance even for emulators that are starting to emulate multi core systems a strong single threaded performance is needed to translate the native console code to whatever the emulator is using. For current 6th gen emulators (and wii) a Haswell based CPU (or newer at 3.0+GHz or faster [Ryzen falls in this performance range, but not really any other AMD CPUs]) is generally recomended for 7th gen+ currently As fast as possible is recomended, but really ot's a place holder until an actual recomended CPU is made. This will vary from emulator to emulator.

GPU performance is different. Raw performance is nice to have and allows for more resolution options and more enhancements, but what tends to really matter and help more then VRAM, Clock Speeds,stream processors is how well it supports various APIs. Drivers can make a big difference as can operating system support for directx on some emulators. Basically if ypu don't want or need high resolutions or shaders or other enhancements it still is generally better to get a newer GPU for better overall support of various APIs used by different emulators.

TL;DR (just name some parts darn it)

A good system can be made with a pentium g4560 and a gtx 1030/1050 (depends on how good a deal you can get) with case MB RAM storage ect to match your specific other needs. This would require linux or windows 10 due to the kaby lake chip, but windows 10 with direct x 12 and better 11 support is useful anyways even if 10 itself is not a perfered operating system to some.
This should handle PCSX2 and Dolphin well with most games running mostly at full speed with fewer games needing speed hacks. Depending on pricing where you live and the other componets I have seen this build around the $500 range and lower sometimes.

[Rekrul]

A good system can be made with a pentium g4560 and a gtx 1030/1050 (depends on how good a deal you can get) with case MB RAM storage ect to match your specific other needs. This would require linux or windows 10 due to the kaby lake chip, but windows 10 with direct x 12 and better 11 support is useful anyways even if 10 itself is not a perfered operating system to some.
This should handle PCSX2 and Dolphin well with most games running mostly at full speed with fewer games needing speed hacks. Depending on pricing where you live and the other componets I have seen this build around the $500 range and lower sometimes.

Thanks for the reply. To be honest, I haven't read much about newer CPUs and don't really know much about them. It used to be simple, the higher the processor number and megahertz, the better. Now the chips have all sorts of names and a lower number chip can have better performance than higher one. Graphics cards seem to be the same way. It's hard to tell what's better because nobody uses one standard method of numbering them. I don't mean between ATI and Nvidia, I mean within the same company. GT, GTX, X, etc. Just pick one damn system so people know that a card with a higher number is better than one with a lower number!

As for Windows 10, I really wish I could avoid it. I really hate how MS has crammed all their spyware down people's throats and how they've made updates mandatory. Call me paranoid, but I see this as a stepping stone to eventually forcing people to pay subscription fees if they want to keep using Windows. If they decided to push an update tomorrow that required you to pay a recurring fee to keep using Windows, what could people do? Turn off all updates?

I'd rather have Windows 7, but MS, in collusion with the hardware manufacturers, is working hard to make sure that's not an option.

It's really hard to see how they're not getting slapped with monopoly and anti-trust charges over the crap they're pulling.

[pandubz]

To be honest, I haven't read much about newer CPUs and don't really know much about them. It used to be simple, the higher the processor number and megahertz, the better. Now the chips have all sorts of names and a lower number chip can have better performance than higher one. Graphics cards seem to be the same way. It's hard to tell what's better because nobody uses one standard method of numbering them. I don't mean between ATI and Nvidia, I mean within the same company. GT, GTX, X, etc. Just pick one damn system so people know that a card with a higher number is better than one with a lower number!

As for Windows 10, I really wish I could avoid it. I really hate how MS has crammed all their spyware down people's throats and how they've made updates mandatory. Call me paranoid, but I see this as a stepping stone to eventually forcing people to pay subscription fees if they want to keep using Windows. If they decided to push an update tomorrow that required you to pay a recurring fee to keep using Windows, what could people do? Turn off all updates?

I'd rather have Windows 7, but MS, in collusion with the hardware manufacturers, is working hard to make sure that's not an option.

It's really hard to see how they're not getting slapped with monopoly and anti-trust charges over the crap they're pulling.

These are consistent internally, though. Intel's Core series is broken into i3, i5, i7 and now there's the i9 way up there. Within these you have the four digit numbers. The first digit indicates generation, and the ones after give you a relative sense of how it stands to other models of that generation. The newer ones, K means it's going to be a higher end desktop CPU, U means it's a mobile CPU. Older ones, ok fair it may take some sleuthing to figure out mine is a mobile CPU from "HQ" of all things. Nvidia is the same. The GT series is old as dirt iirc. Then in GTX you have the generation (10xx, 9xx, 8xx) and model (xx60, xx70, xx80). AMD? You may have a valid case, I've always avoided their everything because it's never been quite as clear cut as Intel and Nvidia.

I'll spare the Windows 10 soap box (I have a very opposite stance) and just say it's easy to disable the telemetry and updates are non invasive unlike what everyone likes to say.