(04-26-2010, 09:51 AM)Bositman Wrote: [ -> ]No, that means base speed, doesn't take into consideration turbo boost
(04-26-2010, 11:14 AM)Rezard Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, your I7-720QM is only @ 2.398Ghz when on 2 cores. Like when using PCSX2.
Mmm maybe I can try to safe overclock my laptop.. just for fun and try to get higher speeds..
mmm Today I've learnt that PCSX2 uses two cores.
(04-26-2010, 11:41 AM)algeroth Wrote: [ -> ]Mmm maybe I can try to safe overclock my laptop.. just for fun and try to get higher speeds..
Be carefull when overclocking because (just for fun) you might fry it...
(04-26-2010, 12:38 AM)Bositman Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Damn dood, where have u found that i5/i6/i7 2.66GHz runs pcsx2 fullspeed? Maybe some 2D games or I don't know what but as far as I know none of them can run intensive 3D games fullspeed even on 4GHz. To be honest it doesn't make a big difference intel or amd, with clock around 3.5GHz results are very similar but it's still never fullspeed in some games.
What are you talking about? I can run full speed all my compatible games with a Core 2 Duo @ 3,6 Ghz, except 2 or 3 so about 80 games. The core i series are faster clock to clock than my processor so even a ~3,4 i5/i7 should do about the same with mine. Cache makes 0-1% difference with PCSX2 so it should not be taken into account.
Quote:Core 2 Duo/Quad were bit different and incredibly bit better for purposes like pcsx2 than i3/5/6/7-series
100% wrong. The exactly opposite is true actually.
Sorry for not making everything clear right away. I meant Core 2 Duo can be faster than 4-core i5/i6/i7, true is that i3 or 2-core i5 will be faster. That is exactly what I've said - cache makes no difference for pcsx2 so all intel "i" series cpus are basically the same for pcsx2 purpose, that's why I was wondering why i3/i5 have to be 3.2GHz and i7 can be 2.66GHz because obviously i3/i5 of theese two will be much faster. I tried Gran Turismo 4 on pcsx2 yesterday and there are few tracks far from fullspeed. There are places where fps drops to around 40 so it's really big slowdown and that means it will take long time to get solid fullspeed in such games.
(04-26-2010, 01:50 PM)midlothian Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry for not making everything clear right away. I meant Core 2 Duo can be faster than 4-core i5/i6/i7, true is that i3 or 2-core i5 will be faster. That is exactly what I've said - cache makes no difference for pcsx2 so all intel "i" series cpus are basically the same for pcsx2 purpose, that's why I was wondering why i3/i5 have to be 3.2GHz and i7 can be 2.66GHz because obviously i3/i5 of theese two will be much faster.
Thats not true either, i did a comparison clock for clock an i7 vs a core 2 8400, have a guess what one came out on top. You guessed it.. the i7, which had about a 200-400mhz lead in clockspeed (meaning an i7 at 3.2 or 3.4ghz will perform the same as an 8400 at 3.6Ghz, its been a while so i cant remember exactly which it was)
If you have hard proof that shows otherwise, please dont make wild statements.
however in the case of the i3/i5, they may prove similar in performance to the i7 at the same clocks, or slightly higher. Cache does tend to make a bit of a difference.
(04-26-2010, 02:59 PM)refraction Wrote: [ -> ]Thats not true either, i did a comparison clock for clock an i7 vs a core 2 8400, have a guess what one came out on top. You guessed it.. the i7, which had about a 200-400mhz lead in clockspeed (meaning an i7 at 3.2 or 3.4ghz will perform the same as an 8400 at 3.6Ghz, its been a while so i cant remember exactly which it was)
If you have hard proof that shows otherwise, please dont make wild statements.
however in the case of the i3/i5, they may prove similar in performance to the i7 at the same clocks, or slightly higher. Cache does tend to make a bit of a difference.
Cache makes difference only when it is or not or when it's 512kB compared with 6MB, but you won't probably notice almost any difference between for example 6 and 12 MB in pcsx2 I'm affraid. I was going to buy an i5 cpu some time ago and made comparison as well, it came clear that 2-core i5 is bit faster than Coe 2 Duo but Core 2 Duo was still bit faster than 4-core i5 and i7 with same clock. I used 1333MHz DDR3 RAM for the test, for all cpus the same. You probably made i7 on ddr3 and core 2 duo on ddr2. Ram makes little difference in this case.
This is simple. Clock to clock, a Core i is better than a Core 2 Duo, as one should expect when comparing new to old. The difference the recommendations shows is likely quite accurate when considering what refraction said. A Core i with the base of 2.66Ghz that is Turbo Boosting as 2 cores at what, 2.93 or 3.06Ghz, would be "about" the equilvalent of a Core 2 Duo at 3.2Ghz. Most Core i5 or i7's have the same preformance with PCSX2 as a (good) Core 2 Duo at 200-300Mhz higher clock speed.
The only thing to watch out for is that some Core i5 or i7'S, although considerably better in most other application, will cost you more than a Core 2 Duo that will out preform it with PCSX2. That is, until the day PCSX2 utilizes more than 2 cores (or threads). That is merely speculation, though.
As for Cache, I'm sure Bositman knows what he's saying. If Cache had any amount of "requirement" anyway, it would probably be met when meeting all the other requirements of a processor. Right?
(04-26-2010, 11:14 PM)Rezard Wrote: [ -> ]This is simple. Clock to clock, a Core i is better than a Core 2 Duo, as one should expect when comparing new to old. The difference the recommendations shows is likely quite accurate when considering what refraction said. A Core i with the base of 2.66Ghz that is Turbo Boosting as 2 cores at what, 2.93 or 3.06Ghz, would be "about" the equilvalent of a Core 2 Duo at 3.2Ghz. Most Core i5 or i7's have the same preformance with PCSX2 as a (good) Core 2 Duo at 200-300Mhz higher clock speed.
The only thing to watch out for is that some Core i5 or i7'S, although considerably better in most other application, will cost you more than a Core 2 Duo that will out preform it with PCSX2. That is, until the day PCSX2 utilizes more than 2 cores (or threads). That is merely speculation, though.
As for Cache, I'm sure Bositman knows what he's saying. If Cache had any amount of "requirement" anyway, it would probably be met when meeting all the other requirements of a processor. Right?
Completely agreed. Here's a proof: My I7 720QM laptop boosts to 2.4 when using two cores. Insufficient (30 - 40 fps on NTSC games, 20 - 30 fps on PAL games)but really faster than my desktop (E6600 CORE 2 DUO 2.4GHz without overclock).
(04-27-2010, 04:27 PM)algeroth Wrote: [ -> ]Completely agreed. Here's a proof: My I7 720QM laptop boosts to 2.4 when using two cores. Insufficient (30 - 40 fps on NTSC games, 20 - 30 fps on PAL games)but really faster than my desktop (E6600 CORE 2 DUO 2.4GHz without overclock).
I don't know much about calculators and all I know about boost in intel cpus is that it works only for short time and causes overheating of the cores - means it turns off itself after short period of time so how u can use it with pcsx2 that needs all cpu power all the time? Anyway I really wish u all be right. Cheers
Check out the CPU benchmark thread. It's by no means conclusive and may not apply to all games/scenes but so far, the trend seems to be clock for clock, Core i-series is faster than Core 2.
FFX-2 Opening FMV (dome)
i7-900 ~1.8fps/100MHz
i3-500 ~1.7fps/100MHz
E8000 ~1.5-1.6fps/100MHz
I've got a hunch cache isn't as unimportant as earlier mentioned, but I think there are diminishing returns once you've reached a certain amount.
(04-27-2010, 10:32 PM)midlothian Wrote: [ -> ] (04-27-2010, 04:27 PM)algeroth Wrote: [ -> ]Completely agreed. Here's a proof: My I7 720QM laptop boosts to 2.4 when using two cores. Insufficient (30 - 40 fps on NTSC games, 20 - 30 fps on PAL games)but really faster than my desktop (E6600 CORE 2 DUO 2.4GHz without overclock).
I don't know much about calculators and all I know about boost in intel cpus is that it works only for short time and causes overheating of the cores - means it turns off itself after short period of time so how u can use it with pcsx2 that needs all cpu power all the time? Anyway I really wish u all be right. Cheers
Heheh I just said PCSX2 is faster in my I7 laptop than running in my C2D desktop with the same clock speed when using 2 cores, but it's still not playable because it reaches only 2.4 GHz
. The real "problem" here is the 2 cores that remains idle in I7 Processors.
Turbo boost doesnt overheat it. It's more dangerous the GPU temp than the processor temp. I checked that when turbo boost is disabled my cores are fresh with fan speed lowered
Yesterday I noticed that Crysis dinamicaly divides all processes to the cores and Hyperthreading threads so my CPU were executing 8 Processes at the same time at 900 MHZ all the time. In my opinion that's the path to follow. Less clocks speeds (or more if possible) but more cores/threads executing processes at the same time. If PCSX2 (or other emus that don't use more than 2 cores and require it like Dolphin) won't support multicore technology, It'll be obsolete in no much time.
People playing fullspeed with high end + OC I7 (3.5Ghz+) have a computer that can last for years