i plan on buying an AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+ clocked at 3.1GHz as well as 2GB of DDR2 ram. the new motherboard i'm getting also has built in graphics with 256MB ram (it's a GeForce 8300). if that doesn't do it, i have my current graphics card that i can use (EVGA 8600GT). i only want pcsx2 so i can play budokai 1 and 2, so will that hardware combination run them well enough so they can be played?
new computer hardware coming soon. will it run pcsx2 well?
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
you're delusional.
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
damn kids... learn to google.
the A64 architecture is faster then P4, thats true.. most things are faster then netburst.
However placing a 6000+ against an equally clocked C2D will see the C2D perform from 1.5-2x faster.
The K8/9 architecture is just not fast enough to cut it for PCSX2.
the A64 architecture is faster then P4, thats true.. most things are faster then netburst.
However placing a 6000+ against an equally clocked C2D will see the C2D perform from 1.5-2x faster.
The K8/9 architecture is just not fast enough to cut it for PCSX2.
Joined
·
811 Posts
:lol::lol::lol: Squall never changes, C2D= Core 2 Duo processor as in Intel's line of Dual Core processor. K8/9 is just the architecture used in the AMD X2 line of processors which is what u plan on buying, the processor is good but not as good as the Intel C2D.
If pcsx2 is a big priority to u, then punishing ur wallet a bit and getting a Core 2 Duo processor is ur best option otherwise stick to the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and try to use as many speed hacks as possible, it might get u near full speed.
If pcsx2 is a big priority to u, then punishing ur wallet a bit and getting a Core 2 Duo processor is ur best option otherwise stick to the Athlon 64 X2 6000+ and try to use as many speed hacks as possible, it might get u near full speed.
thank you. all i was looking for was some explanation. as far as punishing my wallet goes, i don't think i can push it any further, but i'll see what i can find. there's probably some good deals out there. what speed would be good for a C2D?
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Those two statements contradict one another. If you have no idea how it works, or even much about CPUs (your follow up to Squall-Leonhart is proof), how can you come to that conclusion? There's alot more to CPU speed than MHz/GHz. That's only half of it (the other half is IPC), and even then there's more to it with this multi-threaded/multi-core world we're headed into.
As I told you in the other thread, the AMD Athlon 64/X2, while good CPUs still, are very old CPUs now, and while the faster ones cut it in PC games when paired with a good GPU, PCSX2 is different.
If you can't push your wallet that bad, you can still grab even an E5x00 and a decent cheap motherboard, and overclock it to ~3.5GHz.
Here. This was easy. It's not too much more expensive (it's actually cheaper without the CPU cooler).
CPU:
Newegg.com - Intel Pentium E5200 Wolfdale 2.5GHz 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops
Motherboard: (don't gawk at the low price and think it's cheap, as I used to have an earlier revision version of this board, and easily took a E2160 from 1.8GHz to 3.0GHz on stock cooling, though it ran warm. Just make sure to pair it with 667MHz RAM due to no control over ratios, so lower speed default RAM is better with this board)
Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-G31M-ES2L LGA 775 Intel G31 Micro ATX Intel Motherboard - Intel Motherboards
CPU Cooler (I'm glad to see this back under $30 after shipping, as it's overpriced any higher):
Newegg.com - ARCTIC COOLING Freezer 7 Pro 92mm CPU Cooler - CPU Fans & Heatsinks
For a hair less than $150 Before shipping (but the CPU and cooler are free shipping), that's quite impressive. 3.5GHz isn't a given, but a good chance.
And for good measure, this RAM appears to be a good candidate to make that possible. It's got a lower default speed, but can overclock decently.
Newegg.com - G.SKILL 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 667 (PC2 5400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-5400PHU2-2GBLA - Desktop Memory
that CPU definitely caught my attention. the only thing is that i have no idea how to overclock and i've heard horror stories about people who have tried, which makes me unsure about whether i'd want to try or not. also, does that motherboard have an IDE port? my hard drive(s) and cd drive plug in through that. as far as overclocking goes (for both the CPU and memory), would i be able to find utilities or tutorials for it? i'm skeptical even at the thought of overclocking, but if i do decide to go that way, i don't want to fry my system.
also, one somewhat off topic question. when installing a CPU fan, do you need thermal paste to attach it like glue? my friend who recently built a gaming rig used some, but he said only for heat dissipation and not for adhesive.
also, one somewhat off topic question. when installing a CPU fan, do you need thermal paste to attach it like glue? my friend who recently built a gaming rig used some, but he said only for heat dissipation and not for adhesive.
Joined
·
17 Posts
PCSX2 has god awful compatibility with AMD. Its not that AMD is a bad processor (mine runs spore, sims 3, WoW, AoC, etc just fine), but PCSX2 was apparently not programmed well enough to support more than 1 processor. I get 40-50 fps (which is only approximately 80% of what u should get), which makes the emulator awful to play on. So if you reeeaaalllly want/need this emulator to work, you're better off getting a intel. A 2.4 ghz intel (dual core) should do well enough according to my friend (PCSX2 does not want to run my 2.6 ghz amd dual core to full potential).
Often I'll be getting low FPS and my amd processor won't even be using more than 50% of its power. Also any questions related to PCSX2 getting stronger support for AMD are apparently falling on deaf ears (most likely because the programmers don't know how to solve the problem).
So, bottom line, AMD processors are great, and it SHOULD be able to run this emulator fine, but PCSX2 is a unique situation since somewhere along the years its been developed it started to only run well on intel computers (no clue how, and the developers don't seem to have a real reason either). And don't get an AMD with the hope they'll lend support to it anytime soon.
Solution: Go with the more expensive intel chip if you want to use PCSX2, because trust me its not playable with an AMD.
Also, ignore the technical jargon the mean nerds were posting above. In my 10+ years of working in the IT industry I have never come across such abstract cross-processor compatibility issues as this emulator seems to hold (when using the same operating system).
Often I'll be getting low FPS and my amd processor won't even be using more than 50% of its power. Also any questions related to PCSX2 getting stronger support for AMD are apparently falling on deaf ears (most likely because the programmers don't know how to solve the problem).
So, bottom line, AMD processors are great, and it SHOULD be able to run this emulator fine, but PCSX2 is a unique situation since somewhere along the years its been developed it started to only run well on intel computers (no clue how, and the developers don't seem to have a real reason either). And don't get an AMD with the hope they'll lend support to it anytime soon.
Solution: Go with the more expensive intel chip if you want to use PCSX2, because trust me its not playable with an AMD.
Also, ignore the technical jargon the mean nerds were posting above. In my 10+ years of working in the IT industry I have never come across such abstract cross-processor compatibility issues as this emulator seems to hold (when using the same operating system).
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
You're talking crap, for lack of better terms.
1. PCSX2 supports dual core CPUs just fine. It may not be perfect 100% utlization, but that's unattainable.
2. When the emulator was first being developed, it was the Pentium 4 and AMD Althlon XP/64 that were around. Most of the users then had AMDs. DOn't talk crap about how it was intentionally made for AMD CPUs. After the Athlon X2 came around, dual core support was added, and then the Pentium D came about. AMD CPUs were faster. Since the Core 2 came out, things have reversed.
3. The devlopers know full why it works better on Intel, and the as a hint, the reason has nothing to do with the prgram. Search the code (it's open source) if you don't believe it. Go ahead and find those tricks that make it faster on Intels and/or slower on AMDs. The developers know why it's slower, as does anyone with any decent knowledge of such things. Thr reason is...
4. The Intel CPUs are just that much faster for such a thing. The AMD Athlon CPUs (minus the new K10 based ones that are really Phenom IIs with half the cores) are old and getting slow. They are not as fast as a Core 2, especially one that's heavily overclocked. You get away with it in PC games and think that because the framerate isn't much different that it means an Athlon X2 is close to a Core 2. Not so. This is a totally different animal.
Joined
·
17 Posts
As you can see in my post, I stated that while getting low FPS, often my processor is not even being used to its full potential (commonly around 50% usage). If it was not the program, then the processor would be constantly at 90-100% and struggling with the FPS.
While I can understand there are more calculations being crunched than normal with emulation (since the basic concept is translating the drivers for the PS2 into a form the PCs can use), there is absolutely no excuse why a 3.0+ghz amd can not run it anywhere close to as well as a 2.4 ghz intel (especially when that amd processor is not being used to its full potential, as stated previously). That would mean that the intels run 30% (or much higher) more efficiently than the AMDs (at equal processing speeds), which I've never seen on any benchmark comparison (and that's not considering how it doesn't use the CPU to its full potential).
While I can understand there are more calculations being crunched than normal with emulation (since the basic concept is translating the drivers for the PS2 into a form the PCs can use), there is absolutely no excuse why a 3.0+ghz amd can not run it anywhere close to as well as a 2.4 ghz intel (especially when that amd processor is not being used to its full potential, as stated previously). That would mean that the intels run 30% (or much higher) more efficiently than the AMDs (at equal processing speeds), which I've never seen on any benchmark comparison (and that's not considering how it doesn't use the CPU to its full potential).
I must apologize, emulatordude86, that we couldn't make any more use of the ****ty amd instruction sets than we already do.
As you pointed out, we don't have a clue how this optimizing thing works.
We can't even emulate the ps2 on a 6 year old cpu design at fullspeed...
Btw, you need to read up on multithread programming. The emulator not using 100% of your cpu is NOT a bug.
As you pointed out, we don't have a clue how this optimizing thing works.
We can't even emulate the ps2 on a 6 year old cpu design at fullspeed...
Btw, you need to read up on multithread programming. The emulator not using 100% of your cpu is NOT a bug.
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
oh noes, now rama is weighing into the topic....
it was nice knowing ya newbies. D:
it was nice knowing ya newbies. D:
Joined
·
202 Posts
With PCSX2 on a CPU with 2 cores from what I understand is the emulator itself uses the first core and that first core will always try to run as fast as possible. The second core is used by Gsdx and the CPU usage on that core can vary depending on the game and graphics card.
With CPU's depending on the architecture a lot of times what speed they are clocked at is not as important as some other things, such as bus speed.
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
