..:: PCSX2 Forums ::..

(10-20-2009, 07:33 PM)AtiorNvidia Wrote: [ -> ]Is there tests PCSX2 under I5? (videos, etc. ...).

I've been unable to find any myself. I asked how it worked with PCSX2 myself a little while back- http://forums.pcsx2.net/thread-10938.html

According to people, Core i5's are almost identical to the Core i7's except that they don't have hyperthreading. Not 100% sure what benefits hyperthreading have any more though.

For PCSX2, HT is zero benefit.

Well, there is some benefit if you like running software GSdx, but only about 10% over non-HT I'm guessing (actual real benchmarks haven't been reported by anyone yet, so I might be wrong. But I'm usually right on these things. )

For other PC games HT is also zero benefit, and they don't even have software rrasterizers so don't expect them to ever see any benefit from the i7's HT.

For those times when you find yourself encoding 8 MP3s simultaneously, or rendering your own private Pixar-stile animated films with your own private copy of Maya, then yea HT has a reasonable benefit. I'm sure those two things apply to everyone here.

In general, what makes i5/7 better or faster than those c2d and c2q? Is it mostly because of the architecture, P3 for the c2d/q and P4 for the i5/7?, and does it also mean that back in the p3, p4 time, a p4 1.8ghz is faster than a p3 1.8 ( I had a p4 1.8, but I am not sure whether p3 1.8ghz existed)?

I do know that a core i5 or i7 CPU is clock for clock faster than a core 2 quad processor at the same speed even though both are quad cores. The actual architecture seems to have improved dramatically. It is indeed like the difference between two different generations of processors clocked at the same speed. There are a lot of little features besides basic speed that can make a huge difference.

The real differences between the C2Quad and i7 are actually pretty subtle. Both chips are considered to be the same "master" series of chip design. That is, the i7 is still just an upgrade on the Core2 design, much like the E8400 being an overall better chip than the T2300 (assuming you compare them clock for clock, the E8400 would be a bit faster). The inner workings of the i7 are nearly identical to the Core2, and what Intel did instead was bolster up the various sub-units that help push instructions and data through the core faster:

i7 Benefits:
* L3 cache (improves performance in multi-core applications)
* Instruction pre-decoder (it can increase the throughput of complex instructions)
* Faster context switch unit (which is used everytime a core changes to a different thread or process)
* DDR3, if you have it (marginal use, at best)

So in all what happens is that the i7 can:
* Shorten some memory access times by a cycle or two (L3 cache); with higher benefits coming into play when multiple threads are working on the same data stream (which doesn't really happen too often, honestly)
* Execute an extra parallel instruction in some cases where multiple complex instructions are issued together, and can't be reordered with other shorter instructions. (in the Core2's this results in a stall because there's only one complex instruction decoder, leaving the other three decoders idle for a cycle).
* Sligtly better performance in general for any multithreaded-ness (thread sync, sleeping, condition locks, etc), which these days is just about anything and everything.

That was very informative Air. And there was I thinking nehalem was a new architecture from ground up lulz. More like a tweaked or enhanced Core chip, with new and expensive technologies.

The 5770 has such good results in PCSX2?

The 128-bit memory bus is there a brake?

Apparently dual core frequency would be 3.2 GHZ, can someone confirm?.

What is the percentage difference between AMD and I5?.

Well i5/i7 had also some changes in architecture, RAM is connected directly to CPU not through Northbridge which makes faster access, also PCIexpress controller for GPU is built in CPU.
And turbo mode makes CPU faster without any OC knowledge, its much better at all

So the best choice is the i5 as it is dual core at 3.2 GHz for PCSX2?

But I understand that GSDX plugin using the quad core ... knowing that I want a reso 1650 * 1080 for my games (60 FPS constant, no fps drop during such KH2 1000 heartless, or land nabreus in FFXII (all the skull that attack at the same time ... )

The i5 would have 200 mhz less than the 965, yet it is more efficient? ...