(04-12-2011, 09:43 AM)Koji Wrote: [ -> ]MGS3 no, GT4 no, DMC3 probably not, Dragon Quest 8 mostly okay, FFX perfect, x-2 okay, XII okay.
You picked almost exclusively from the hard to emulate category there.
(04-12-2011, 08:34 PM)Rezard Wrote: [ -> ]IMO - Koji has understated the potential a little bit in general, but he's definitely catagorized your selection correctly. MGS3 and GT4 are surely two of the "most demanding" games, DMC3 and DQ8 can be rather heavy, and the FF games are a fair bit heavy at times (FFX aside). The CPU being a 3.1Ghz 2nd gen Core i, it's actually quite comparible to a good Core 2 processor @ 3.5Ghz or greater. The GPU should handle native resolution at the very least, but should be able to pull some higher resolutions with many games.
@ HiroKiryuStrife:
Awesome, the full sized version of what I got. I almost got it, but the case I was going with stated it could only fit up to an 11" board. When it came, I found out there's a full 12" of space available. 
Oh well. At least I can still kick PCSX2's arse (when possible. LOL) Enjoy your cool new processor. 
oh, so what kind of requirement for MGS3 and GT4 ? read during some search it need to have a 4 cores running at 4Ghz on it . Is it true ?
How to put this...
Requirements for the best experience, rarely (if ever) dropping from 60fps, with little or no need for Speedhacks? You've basically got the right idea, except the quad core being somewhat unnecessary (not a bad idea in general, though). To be more precise would need the mention of the CPU type/architecture, anyway.
Requirements for a considerably playable experience, sometimes coming short of full speed, yet able to achieve full and/or favorable speeds most times, with Speedhacks being a must? The full 4Ghz could be viewed as a bit of a overstatement, especially with the right architecture, a solid enough clock (relatively), the right amount of tweaking and a little more modest expectations.
That's not to mention a GPU that won't be slowin' you down.
The thing about dualcore is that sometimes pcsx2 can use over 100% cpu usage on a dualcore, so you won't be harnessing pcsx2 to its true potential. This is very apparent if you have a quadcore with 4 cores 4 threads . If you're also running fraps for video recording in the background, then it will significantly reduce the speed of pcsx2.
The dualcore will crawl on its kneel because frap eats up additional cpu resource, which leaves pcsx2 with insufficient resource to run at full speed . With a quadcore you can have more flexibility without worrying if pcsx2 have enough cpu resources for it to run at it peak performance. Occasionally, pcsx2 can go over 50% in CPU usage and up to 57% on a quadcore.
(04-13-2011, 02:39 AM)Rezard Wrote: [ -> ]How to put this...
Requirements for the best experience, rarely (if ever) dropping from 60fps, with little or no need for Speedhacks? You've basically got the right idea, except the quad core being somewhat unnecessary (not a bad idea in general, though). To be more precise would need the mention of the CPU type/architecture, anyway.
Requirements for a considerably playable experience, sometimes coming short of full speed, yet able to achieve full and/or favorable speeds most times, with Speedhacks being a must? The full 4Ghz could be viewed as a bit of a overstatement, especially with the right architecture, a solid enough clock (relatively), the right amount of tweaking and a little more modest expectations.
That's not to mention a GPU that won't be slowin' you down.
Looks like it's quite hard to run GT4 at the moment with the current specification.
On your requirement view with right setting for speedhack , which processor and graphic card are required for GT4/MGS3 running with decent avg of 55-60 fps ?
With stock speed ?
(04-13-2011, 04:13 AM)tuanming Wrote: [ -> ]The thing about dualcore is that sometimes pcsx2 can use over 100% cpu usage on a dualcore, so you won't be harnessing pcsx2 to its true potential. This is very apparent if you have a quadcore with 4 cores 4 threads . If you're also running fraps for video recording in the background, then it will significantly reduce the speed of pcsx2.
The dualcore will crawl on its kneel because frap eats up additional cpu resource, which leaves pcsx2 with insufficient resource to run at full speed . With a quadcore you can have more flexibility without worrying if pcsx2 have enough cpu resources for it to run at it peak performance. Occasionally, pcsx2 can go over 50% in CPU usage and up to 57% on a quadcore.
Not using fraps for recording , as I know PCSX2 wouldn't use up 3 cores , so I assume it mets the dual core requirement ? or it'd run on 4 cores depending on certain games ?
The concept of having beyond 2 cores is basically that of background and OS load. You can benefit a few FPS by not having 2 cores for PCSX2 to have to share. In the end, a higher clock rate makes a bigger difference. But this is just about standard PCSX2 use.
On those games, if going by a stock CPU, I'd wanna say a 3.3Ghz 2500K is the best bet for a 55-60fps average. Actually, your 3.1Ghz SB dual might come surprisingly close, but let's not forget that various situations in games can present more slow-down than others. I.E. In GT4, if their are no cars in front of you (on-screen), 60fps may be easier than you think. With MGS3, you can see 60fps when you take control of Snake in the first area, but as soon as you enter the next area, the FPS takes a serious hit. I guess what I'm trying to say is that being precise (especially when averaging) is actually rather difficult, ya know? When all's said and done, a SB somewhere just over 3.0Ghz is about the best you can do at this time (as far as stock). Seriously, a SB running @ over 3Ghz is like a C2D pushing 4Ghz.
With the GPU, it' really a matter of resolution. If it's 1080p with a more demanding game, than a modern GeForce GTX (or Radeon equivalent) would be the way to go. Likewise, if you're OK with having to settle for as low as native, or a modest 2x scaling, something in the range of a (good) GT 220 to a GTS 450 will usually suffice. The simplest way I can put it is that a good GPU with a
128-bit memory bus is really all you
need most times. Almost any modern card with a
256-bit memory bus is just the "bee's knees".
It used to be my rule of thumb that a high dual core suits pcsx2 better than any 4 core. But i'm starting to doubt that.
In the past i used an E8500 @ 3.8Ghz, a Q9550 @ 3.6GHz, and right now a 2600k @ 4GHz.
Even at stock (3.4) the 2600k outperforms my old E8500 OC'd. And where i had to adjust voltage and keep a close look on temps to OC the E8500 to 3.8GHz, the 2600k goes to 4GHz without any adjustment and keeps cooler with simple air cooling. Not to mention it gives you more bang/GHz.
Quad core support for pcsx2 would be nice but even without the dual cores are fading out of the picture imho.
Hatman: That's comparing a dual core from 2-4 years ago compared to a quad core made 2-4 months ago... Of course a more modern processor will be more efficient. That said, a theoretical 2 core based on the same architecture clocked higher would give better results and may be cheaper (intel generally releases high end first, then low end after a few months). Of course if you can get a tri, quad, or hex core of the same architecture at the same or greater speed, you should just because of general PC performance.
thanx Bositman, the post is pretty helpful solving doubts about compability problems
Hatman, I'm with you on this one. I used to have a Core 2 Duo E6300 w/ 2mb cache @1.86GHz OC'ed to 3.73Ghz, but I brought a Q9400S w/ 6mb cache @2.66GHz OC'ed to 3.73GHz, and now I have the Q9550 w/ 12MB Cache @ 2.83GHz OC'ed 3.73GHz. With each CPU step up, I've gained more performance over the previous one, and I have benchmark data to prove it. Even though both CPUs are quadcore and at the same clock speed, the Q9550 simply produces more fps compared to the E6300 and Q9400s on those benchmark tests.
Also, I like to note that even with my quadcore Q9400s (Yorkfield), I was able to achieve higher fps score compared to the dualcore counterpart (Wolfdale) which both CPUs has the same 1333MHz FSB and 6MB of cache, but I beat them. The same story with my Q9550, which its beat my old Q9400s fps score ^^ at the same clock speed. And yes, my Q9550 outperformed other quadcore Yorkfield and Wolfdale CPUs when running at the same clock speed.
So, moral of the story is that Quadcore CPUs are better than Dualcore CPUs, end of story. Period. This should have been obvious if you know your stuff
Heck, even pcsx2 agreed with me here. I saw pcsx2 used up to 59% CPU usage in the task manger, and this is from only the Pcsx2.exe, not the overall or total CPU usage
Is a Core i3 a good processor for PCSX2? How much better is it from the Core 2 Duo (if better)? Thanks guys.