will PCSX2 team reconsider about support quad core ?

[fuse01]

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.
[/quote]

thnx for the reply but could you elaborate for me as im a bit of a noob when it comes to the workings of a pc and i dont fully understand how a processor with a over all out put of 6.4 runs rings around one that is obviously higher in that respect is this because a certain task/processes would only use 1 core at a time and cant not split there resource source. if this is the case then i guess i best start saving for some uber kick ass cooling system.

[Bositman]

You got it totally wrong. A 3,2 Ghz dual core is NOT like a 6,4 Ghz 'single core' system, same for quads. It's individual processors clocked at 3,2 Ghz (or whatever frequency). Multithreading does NOT yield linear speed increase, so going from supporting 1 core to 2 was not a 100% speed increase, more like a 40%. Same thing with going from 2 cores to 4, but with even LESS speed increase since the more threads you produce, the more overhead there is to keep them in sync. So if it would ever be made, it would not be an amazing speed increase, but still considerable.

[ChickenLiver]

fuse01: With multiple cores, each core has to work on a completely independent task. If the tasks affect the same data, then they cannot be done at the same time.

Try installing a game from a DVD at the same time someone else takes it out of its packaging... Doesn't work. Have to take it out of its packaging, and then put it in the drive and install it, so having someone else help you with the process makes almost no speed difference. Having hundreds of people help you also won't speed up the process noticeably.

[Zeydlitz]

It's not true -- each core could simultaneously run several threads, assuming that sum of loading of this core does not exceed 100%. In unbalanced situation (when only one core is high load to 100%) second core would handle all other threads, and if their load is not more than 100% -- no real need of 3rd core is exists. For pcsx2 unbalanced situation is normal (GS core does not have full load), but rarely (about 5% of times), GS and EE cores start to pick simultaneous, at this case 3rd core could help And speed increase would be nice.

But 3rd thread support will be beneficial even for 2-cores CPUs, it will keep to maintain more balanced load, that's will lead to speed increase.

[247wkman]

i aint rich- so my next pc is kinda banking on quad support for max longevity/evolve. i have a hp dv5 110em laptop with:
2.1 ghz turion x2 and 256 ati radeon card and 3gig ram. (each core =1.05ghz i figure then?)
pcsx just barely runs on this- will never try to play on it (grim grimoire ok if you got patience..)

anyway looking for a next pc i initially think i must get the fastest dual core i can find/afford!
i see an asus cm6431-uk0010 with a pentium g640 (2.7/8 ghz dual core) so figure thats 1.35ghz per core, and pcsx will use both cores. its £300 bucks- with intent to add graphics card and extras later.

Still brousing a chat room points to http://www.cclonline.com/page/customise/CCL-EL-HWK2/
i figure a quad core (will be worse to use 6 core) with 4.2ghz and i'm back to each core running at 1.05ghz.
but it would be no problem to go into task manager and put processor priority to max- then you would have two dedicated cores at least, leaving the others to run the os etc. the ram is faster (ddr3) and better graphics card.

if i was strictly looking for a pcsx2 machine, what would be the better approach?

[Ice Queen Zero]

Make your own thread.