will PCSX2 team reconsider about support quad core ?
#11
More threads = more speed Laugh
But we have to wait Smile and hope one day pcsx2 will support 4 cores, or more ( 8 cores Laugh )

Sponsored links

#12
yay im so glad i found this thread as i nearly started 1 myself Blush . im running a phenom 9650 so at the moment pcsx2 is only using x2 2.3ghz and the recommended is x2 3.2ghz so im hoping when pcsx becomes quad core optimized games will be finally playable, am i right in saying that this would be the out come as i dont wish to waste my time with this emu if this is not the case, i really appreciate all the work and support thats gone into this emu just a shame i currently have the wrong processor to harness its potential

also running:9800 gt 1gb+ with 2gb ram and win7
#13
(01-22-2010, 03:12 PM)fuse01 Wrote: yay im so glad i found this thread as i nearly started 1 myself Blush . im running a phenom 9650 so at the moment pcsx2 is only using x2 2.3ghz and the recommended is x2 3.2ghz so im hoping when pcsx becomes quad core optimized games will be finally playable, am i right in saying that this would be the out come as i dont wish to waste my time with this emu if this is not the case, i really appreciate all the work and support thats gone into this emu just a shame i currently have the wrong processor to harness its potential

also running:9800 gt 1gb+ with 2gb ram and win7

A 3.2GHZ core 2 DUO would still run rings around your quadcore even IF they ever do implement Quad core support.
It's been said before that the increase won't be that much, as there isn't much that can be changed to quad core.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only Quadcore that WOULD be effective would be the upcoming Bulldozer by AMD, I'm not sure what Intel have, so that's not fanboyism, more ignorance towards Intel on my part.
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
#14
First im no coder and i have little to no idea how that whole stuff works Smile But with the prospect of having more and more cores like 8 or even 16 in the future (and i think the trend from Intel/AMD goes in that direction) i think it would make sense if there would be a way to make the Operating System adapt to the number of cores and use them automatically...

I guess if coding for 4 cores is that much more difficult than coding for 2, 8 would be crazy? Cant be that we have to rewrite every damn programm when intel decides to raise the core count Laugh
#15
Bulldozer hopes to resolve a few of these issues.
Plus cores are going to 6, not 8.
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
#16
But that's how it is. Intel and AMD do the cores race now, and miss what the developers really need.
#17
(01-22-2010, 04:44 PM)rama Wrote: But that's how it is. Intel and AMD do the cores race now, and miss what the developers really need.

IIRC Bulldozer's a quad core and launching 2011?.
It uses an aggressive method to multithreading, at least, the hype says that.
AMD Phenom II 940 @ 3.6GHZ, 4GB PC8500 @ 1100MHZ, 4870x2 @ Stock.
#18
All it can possibly do is force the silliest stuff onto different cores, which won't be a speedup anyway.
(But it allows them to boast that more cores are used >< )
#19
Bulldozer just has it's own version of Hyperthreading: it executes 2 threads per core. That's it's "aggressive method to multithreading." If the application is single-threaded, or for that matter uses fewer threads then your cpu has cores, then that 'awesome' feature is neigh worthless for real-world performance.

(01-22-2010, 04:18 PM)Clouds Wrote: First im no coder and i have little to no idea how that whole stuff works Smile But with the prospect of having more and more cores like 8 or even 16 in the future (and i think the trend from Intel/AMD goes in that direction) i think it would make sense if there would be a way to make the Operating System adapt to the number of cores and use them automatically...

Multithreaded programmig is often very difficult and quite limited in the cases where it's usable. The reason you see multi-core designs is because the CPU manuf. have to a large extent exhausted their ability to do what you ask: which is execute many instructions from a single thread in parallel (or out of order). Both Core2/i7 and Phenom chip designs execute up to 4 or 6 instructions in parallel on each core already.

The reason that they don't up parallel execution to 8, 12, or 16 instructions in parallel is that most tasks a computer does are linear in nature. The next instruction depends on obtaining the result of the previous instruction. Executing instructions in parallel is only possible when that is not the case, and since it so often is the case, even the current 4/6 instruction pipelines end up being empty half the time. Allowing for 16 parallel instruction pipelines would just result in 3/4ths of the pipelines being empty, instead of half. That'd be a lot of transistors and die bloat for a lot of parallel execution power being unutilized 90% of the time.

Multi-core designs can and never will be a 1:1 replacement for pure ghz. Certain things will be able to utlize them, others not.
Jake Stine (Air) - Programmer - PCSX2 Dev Team
#20
i rather prefer that the team optimize all they can in dual core,rather than supporting more cores..
[Image: 2ymccqu.jpg]
[Image: 17715.png]




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)