I know that Pcsx2 Doesnt fully support quadcore computers. what i mean is the emulator does run on quadcore but the computer is not using all its cores (or its full potential)to make games on pcsx2 run faster or smoother. Is there anyway to make my quadcore computer emulate or act like a dual core 2?
Specs:
Hp Pavilion dv6 notebook
Intel Core i7 Q720 @1.6ghz, 1.60ghz
4gb of ram (can go up to 8)
64bit win7 operating system
It already does, it uses 2/4 cores of your processor.
(05-18-2010, 12:16 PM)Bositman Wrote: [ -> ]It already does, it uses 2/4 cores of your processor.
ok then it doesnt make sense that way. since mine is the new i7 it has (8 logical cores) (thats what pcsx2 is reading on the command Prompt window behind the pcsx2 main window.) ok now if i run pcsx2. how many cores will it be using on my pc?
The i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual from hyperthreading. PCSX2 as I said above, will use 2 cores.
You need to overclock your cpu to get decent speed. It's no use to have even 24 cores on your cpu because pcsx2 only uses 2 cores and if you want pcsx2 to read all of your cores and use them properly, there will be a big and major code changes in the program.
(05-18-2010, 12:49 PM)Bositman Wrote: [ -> ]The i7 has 4 physical cores and 4 virtual from hyperthreading. PCSX2 as I said above, will use 2 cores.
thx
i got this from youtube,apparently you can change how many cores the computer is using from task manager. (Right click Pcsx2 on task manager and Press Set Affinity). on mine it says from 0 cpu to 7 cpu. there are all checked. i unchecked cpu 7 6 5 4 and run a game on pcsx2 and it was faster then before.
bboywreck:
Undo all that. Windows automatically uses as many cores as good as it can.
Your CPU will always have 2 free cores for PCSX2 so you do not need to do anything.
The speedup you saw was a fluke.
Asuming that he selected the physical cores, not the HT virtuals, then i do not see how it could be worse, and why he should undo it. Sheduler would still switch processes from one core to another for no apparent reason, and would waste some time on the context switches and cache writes. I do see why it is better to leave it for the OS (i do not tamper with it) but I also do not see why it would be worse if he selected the cores manually.
(Rama, please explain your view to me if you feel differently, I am just guessing, and I would like someones arguments if I'm wrong)
It wouldn't run worse, correct.
It is just my experience that messing with these things is not for the roockies, they'll usually make some mistake and all hell breaks loose
Good
I thought I missed something somewhere.