want to run pcsx2 at full speed

[jesalvein]

Why ?
Er... Dunno. Let's say : netiquette, politeness for the OP, you know, those kind of things...

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

The PCSX 2 emulator is requires strong hardware to run. Your system just is not up to snuff. You need a better CPU. AMD CPU's are weak and not really meant for gaming.

That information is a lot biased, Let's say the i5 3570 may beat a fx-8150 in many situations but my previous humble Fx-6100 was able to run Skyrim and almost any game I threw over it at ultra specs and keep 60FPS outside and above 40FPS inside bigger cities. That same Rig can play Metro 2033 at above 40FPS at high specs (limited more by GPU in this case), Crysis and a lot of other demanding games work just fine at the max quality...

Ah, PCSX2 specifically talking, the only game I play that I need to move the
VU cycle Stealing to get full 60FPS is the Valkyrie Profile... all the other do work just fine with no speedhack at all other than those enabled by default...

The new FX-8150 I'm using now is yet a tad quicker, so how AMD is not meant to gaming?

Edit: Forgot to say I play all those games at 1920x1080. That 60FS upper limit is only because the adaptive Vsync from Nvidia drivers and that 40FPS mean it is always above that value, most of times near that 60FPS.

PS: And now AMD is posing a real fight at the mobile segment with it's Axx line. Intel has nothing at graphics department to compete with the 7660D integrated in it. The processor part of these APUs are strong enough to face even some desktop upper mainstream CPUs.

In the end are us, users, who profit from that fight between the corporations. Let's hope they continue struggling to get better.

[ps2freak]

That information is a lot biased, Let's say the i5 3570 may beat a fx-8150 in many situations but my previous humble Fx-6100 was able to run Skyrim and almost any game I threw over it at ultra specs and keep 60FPS outside and above 40FPS inside bigger cities. That same Rig can play Metro 2033 at above 40FPS at high specs (limited more by GPU in this case), Crysis and a lot of other demanding games work just fine at the max quality...

Ah, PCSX2 specifically talking, the only game I play that I need to move the
VU cycle Stealing to get full 60FPS is the Valkyrie Profile... all the other do work just fine with no speedhack at all other than those enabled by default...

The new FX-8150 I'm using now is yet a tad quicker, so how AMD is not meant to gaming?

Edit: Forgot to say I play all those games at 1920x1080

I have to agree. My AMD is quite good at PCSX2 too.

[WarWeeny]

That information is a lot biased, Let's say the i5 3570 may beat a fx-8150 in many situations but my previous humble Fx-6100 was able to run Skyrim and almost any game I threw over it at ultra specs and keep 60FPS outside and above 40FPS inside bigger cities. That same Rig can play Metro 2033 at above 40FPS at high specs (limited more by GPU in this case), Crysis and a lot of other demanding games work just fine at the max quality...

Ah, PCSX2 specifically talking, the only game I play that I need to move the
VU cycle Stealing to get full 60FPS is the Valkyrie Profile... all the other do work just fine with no speedhack at all other than those enabled by default...

The new FX-8150 I'm using now is yet a tad quicker, so how AMD is not meant to gaming?

Edit: Forgot to say I play all those games at 1920x1080. That 60FS upper limit is only because the adaptive Vsync from Nvidia drivers and that 40FPS mean it is always above that value, most of times near that 60FPS.

people say that they can run game son 60 fps thanks to their processor are not the smartest people around -,-

it is mainly because of the graphics cards that a game runs smooth or not, most games dont rely that much on processor power anymore (mmo's still do but that aside the point) a decent duocore can still play battlefield 3, the witcher 2 and skyrim on 60 fps, if your graphics card can handle it.

ofcourse there is bottleneck involved between cpu and gpu but with the cpu's avaiable today (decent quadcore) let it be intel or amd can do the job fine.

amd faildozer is weak in architechture you can say what you want but it is the truth, its hexagon counterpart of the phenom II still beats almost all those faildozer processors with ease clock for clock wise, especially in pcsx2 because the phenoms generally perform faster then the faildozers in emulators.

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

people say that they can run game son 60 fps thanks to their processor are not the smartest people around -,-

it is mainly because of the graphics cards that a game runs smooth or not, most games dont rely that much on processor power anymore (mmo's still do but that aside the point) a decent duocore can still play battlefield 3, the witcher 2 and skyrim on 60 fps, if your graphics card can handle it.

ofcourse there is bottleneck involved between cpu and gpu but with the cpu's avaiable today (decent quadcore) let it be intel or amd can do the job fine.

amd faildozer is weak in architechture you can say what you want but it is the truth, its hexagon counterpart of the phenom II still beats almost all those faildozer processors with ease clock for clock wise, especially in pcsx2 because the phenoms generally perform faster then the faildozers in emulators.

Do you know Skyrim is strongly CPU limited? the reason I specifically mentioned it first, at the same time replacing the FX-6100 by the Fx-8150 helped nothing in Metro 2033 ... and would be the same thing if using the best i7 out there because the bottleneck in this case is the GPU.

Yes, Phenon II runs better in some situations... but from there to conclude Bulldozer fails to run games... man, I don't know what you are up really.

Whatever, I don't know if is because the AVX version of GSDX or the sheer clock the bulldozer can get for me in my actual rig... as stated above, PCSX2 is working just fine for me

But then, yourself just confirmed it saying the games will run if the GPU is up to the task in MOST games. The CPU just need not be a serious bottleneck, and then, AMD or Intel, they just do it.

PS: I mean, in the Skyrim case there, a stronger Intel CPU would indeed help alot inside the cities and in this case Intel is clear winning. Anyway, even not pinning at 60 HZ there, the game is still perfectly playable for me and does not stutter or lags.

[WarWeeny]

Do you know Skyrim is strongly CPU limited? the reason I specifically mentioned it first, at the same time replacing the FX-6100 by the Fx-8150 helped nothing in Metro 2033 ... and would be the same thing if using the best i7 out there because the bottleneck in this case is the GPU.

Yes, Phenon II runs better in some situations... but from there to conclude Bulldozer fails to run games... man, I don't know what you are up really.

Whatever, I don't know if is because the AVX version of GSDX or the sheer clock the bulldozer can get for me in my actual rig... as stated above, PCSX2 is working just fine for me

But then, yourself just confirmed it saying the games will run if the GPU is up to the task in MOST games. The CPU just need not be a serious bottleneck, and then, AMD or Intel, they just do it.

PS: I mean, in the Skyrim case there, a stronger Intel CPU would indeed help alot inside the cities and in this case Intel is clear winning. Anyway, even not pinning at 60 HZ there, the game is still perfectly playable for me and does not stutter or lags.

im not stating that faildozer cant run games decently i was just hooking in on your comment on how great that faildozers were in games while it really depents on the gpu most of the times. not trolling/hating on amd in particulair, if you felt offended then im sorry for that.

they are the worst amd has released processor based. i know skyrim likes it fair share of processing power but it wouldnt be bottlenecked by the faildozer because all of them have ridiculiously high clockspeeds to back-up the poor architechture perfomance.

just saying

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

let's not make it a personal fight, it's just than AMD CPUs may not compete with the best Intel CPUs of today but they work just fine to most but those extremely CPU limited games. I mean not even to defend Intel is not ahead in performance in the Desktop segment.

The only reason I stick to AMD is because it attends me at what I need and I took a petty peeve against Intel since they introduced the serial number in CPUs and once and again tries to put hardware driven DRM (TCG things) in their processors... someday they will succeed, people will become used and you can kiss bye bye to any hope of a machine being actually your's or that you have real control over it.

[WarWeeny]

1) I mean not even to defend Intel is not ahead in performance in the Desktop segment.

2) The only reason I stick to AMD is because it attends me at what I need

3) I took a petty peeve against Intel since they introduced the serial number in CPUs and once and again tries to put hardware driven DRM (TCG things) in their processors... someday they will succeed, people will become used and you can kiss bye bye to any hope of a machine being actually your's or that you have real control over it.

1 it kinda is, its not perfoming so good because its not driving the business foward you know.

2 thats good, the only reason a person needs for a choice in processors no?

3, where did you pull this one off? there will be no such things as intelbound because its bullcrap lol

[nosisab Ken Keleh]

About the Serial number in CPUs and attempts to introduce TC directly in the CPUs or dedicated chips? don't rely on my word, seek that information in the web.

Anyway, don't take sayings out of context, the second is tied to the third reason there, not the reason by itself alone.

[WarWeeny]

About the Serial number in CPUs and attempts to introduce TC directly in the CPUs or dedicated chips? don't rely on my word, seek that information in the web.

would be news to me, il google it when i have the time, its 1:16 am here so i need to sleep xD