Which CPU for PCSX2 emulator?

450m is just a hair under the recommended specs so if you can go higher by all means do. dont get me wrong though if the laptop you want has the thermal capabilities to support full speed turbo boost you should be pretty good.

my personal opinion though would be to go higher only if you can afford it.

 

A user in the PCSX2 forums informed me that "pcsx2+turboboost=failure, so get the 'higher' cpu if possible"... His reasoning comes from the fact that PCSX2 utilizes 2-cores(threads). Can you confirm if there's a single-thread/core setting/possibility? I don't want to upgrade to an i7-620M if I can just get a 450M and 'endure' its lack of greatness.

Also, are you saying that the 450M's 2.4ghz is "just a hair short" of the recommended c2d 3.2ghz??? Are the i5's that damn good that their lower numbers translate to higher performance? Is it cuz of the generation shift/newer technology which makes it relatively faster/morepowerful?

Thanks!

 

Don't listen to that advice. The 450m is certainly not "just a hair short" for PCSX2 - unless you have a 4ghz CPU, you need all you can get. The reason being that there are many PS2 games that run at far less than 60fps on anything less. Besides, you can get a c2d CPU that will run PCSX2 at the same speeds as the 450m for half the price or less at this point.

After reading what has been posted within this forum and doing some extra research, I'm going to wait until the next generation CPUs are released in Q4 of this year. Unless you have other less CPU-intensive needs for the notebook, you might consider the same and save the money and time.

 

Well, I have a ps3 that plays ps2 games. I guess I've just been spoiled, and thought that 2010 technology (especially CPUs) would be able to handle anything I throw at it (excluding newer PC games). Maybe I should just forego PCSX2 on the ENVY, and just seek the best CPU for SC2 and Dolphin.

 

If a 4GHz Core 2 Duo is what you need to get 60 fps relatively consistenly with PCSX2, you'll only be getting around 40 fps on some games with an i5-450M.

Turbo Boost does work on two cores; most of the Core i5s and i7s have more turbo when more cores are active, but my i5-430M boosts by 267MHz, i.e. from 2.27GHz to 2.53GHz whether on one core or two, and I think the i5-450M would also boost by 267MHz, i.e. up to 2.67GHz. The higher laptop CPUs are different in that they have greater single-core boost, e.g. 533MHz in the i5-520M.

Basically, at 2.667GHz the i5-450M is equivalent to a 2.9-3.2GHz Core 2 Duo, depending on the task in question.

 

Man o Man. Still don't know which CPU to get, because of so many different answers. Most say the 450M is similarly good enough that it doesn't warrant getting the 520M.

But if what you say is true, then "turbo boost" speed would warrant the upgrade, since it's not only for a SINGLE core, right? Then why the heck are people telling me that "turbo boost" clocks only apply to single-core? I'm interpreting it as the turbo boost clock is the max speed single-core mode could reach, and that no such clock could ever be reached in dual-core mode, meaning that the "base" clock is dual-core's speed(and/or max speed for dual-core).

Please advise. I'm generally confused right now

 

plus you should consider the i5 and i7's are faster clock for clock than the core 2 duos...

all in all, pcsx2 needs more help in the software department than it does in the hardware store, in my opinion...

 

The deal is that the CPUs can have different Turbo Boost settings for different numbers of active cores.

For example, the i5-520M has a base clock speed of 2.4GHz, but boosts to 2.667GHz on two cores and 2.933GHz on one core, while the i5-450M has a base clock speed of 2.4GHz, with boost to 2.667GHz on both one and two cores.

 

So which of these is better for PCSX2 then? 520 or 450M? Seems like either would be a fine choice, right?

 

no actually i am talking about the i5 450m's maximum turbo boost speed that would be a hair short of the recommended specs stated by Refraction from the pcsx2 dev team not me.

im really throwing in alot of personal testing into this mix here im not talking outta my you know what. in my testing ive found that lots of the game i play run very well (being at least 50 fps) with my desktop e6600 overclocked to a cpu speed of 3.2ghz. I also found it peculiar that my laptop with its x9100 cpu at 3.06 ghz runs a bit better then my desktop why im not sure if its because of the faster ram or possibly better cpu stepping or cpu cache either way it runs better. ive tested a few of the i series cpus also all of which run at their max turbo boost speed. i have found that my x9100 is faster by believe it or not up to 30% better depending on game and i5 your talking about.

but like i said i would go with a faster cpu since i believe these laptop i series cpus are a joke. if you dont want to believe me then thats fine just dont go around telling people to ignore my advice that is really rude and condescending. i will no longer be posting here so this is my last bit of info i will contribute to this topic i wish you good luck with your choice.

 

I don't remember anyone telling you that Turbo Boost clocks only apply to single-core. Turbo Boost is at the highest clock rate when it is only using a single Core. The more Cores that are used, the lower the Turbo Boost Clock rate will be due to thermal / power constraints. For example, the mobile i7-620M can reach up to 3.33Ghz when using a single Core but when it is using 2 Cores, the maximum Turbo Boost possible is 3.06 Ghz.

 

Hmm, so it does "do" the boosting while in dual-core mode? I probably misinterpreted it, thinking that "Turbo Boost" advertised-clocks is the maximum clock and can only be utilized in single-core mode--meaning that Turbo Boost does not exist/is impossible in dual-core mode. If it really is possible though, then I'm down, since 3.06ghz sounds very good compared to 2.40ghz which I thought was the max for dual-core. But..... will PCSX2 even be able to use the Turbo Boost feature? Or is it Windows that determines the need for boosting?

Thanks!

 

PCSX2 will use the Turbo Boost feature and it has been confirmed that the mobile i7 620M stays at a constant 3.06 Ghz on both Cores Turbo Boosted throughout emulation. However, if you purchase a laptop that has poor cooling or a low quality build then you will probably never see your maximum Turbo Boost and it will be a waste of potential anyway.

My mobile i7 820qm Quad Core Turbo Boosts to 2.8 Ghz in Dual Core mode and sometimes 2.66 Ghz during PCSX2 emulation.

However, many suggest that you will only see a significant improvement of speed in PS2 emulation if you are using a CPU of 4.0 Ghz.

 

Yep, 40fps is exactly about what you'd get with the i5-450m. Keep in mind that's for SOME games. As I've said several times before, depending on how much the game challenges your processor, your mileage may vary. It breaks down to this:

* If you want a platform that plays ALL ps2 games at 60fps consistently through PCSX2, forget it (for now). You might wait until later in the year where at least you'll approach 50fps in some of the more challenging games.

* If there are a few games you'd like to play in PCSX2, then do some research online and see if your proc will play them at a playable framerate. On my c2d 2.66ghz I've noticed that some games (e.g. Kingdom Hearts, Devil May Cry) run at a smooth 60fps; others (e.g. Resident Evil 4, Tekken 4) run at 40-50fps; and some (e.g. NFS Underground, Outrun 2006) run at 30-40fps. The 450m will probably run just slightly (read: 2-5fps) faster than that, but will cost a TON more money than the current c2d.

 

Either one isn't a very wise choice for PCSX2 when factoring in cost.

Correct. Turbo boost is ONLY for single-core. Period. There's no turbo boosting in dual core, although if an app IS taking advantage of dual core, the i5/i7 architecture handles multi-core processing slightly better than c2d. That's about it.

 

I'd say it's a combination of both really. There's probably room for more optimization in the PCSX2 core, it could be ported to x64 platforms (currently only x86 is supported), and there are some other tricks that could be employed to get it to work faster here and there. However, there's no substitute for faster hardware. Unfortunately we just don't have that today with the latest offerings from Intel. The Arrandale platform was designed to be more battery-friendly by introducing switchable graphics and shrinking the die, but it's just barely faster than the c2d. If you want something worth upgrading to, wait until later this year when the 2.8ghz+ base clock CPUs become available. It's only a few months away anyway.

 

Neither. Total waste of money. Again, wait until later this year since the current offerings give you very little speed boost over 2-year-old platforms for double the money.

 

That's just flat-out wrong. Where are you getting your facts? In Arrandale's case, turbo boost only applies to single core, and the 620m base clock is 2.66ghz with a 3.33ghz in turbo boost.

 

As I said before, I have owned the mobile i7 620M and on 2 Cores during PS2 emulation the clock rates were 3.06 Ghz constantly, when using only one Core it was 3.33 Ghz. Other users on the PCSX2 forum have also confirmed the same as does the configuration form for my laptop on Kobalts website

PCSX2 forums

Just because Intels website only lists the maximum Turbo Boost, it does not mean that there are none in between. They often only mention the maximum Turbo Boost.

There is also discussion regarding the 3.06 Ghz here as well.

For the mobile i7 620M the facts are:


2.66GHz Base
3.06GHz Dual Core Turbo
3.33GHz Single Core Turbo

 

yeah to get all the turbo boost info you have to go look the chip up on wikipedia of all places.

List of Intel Core i7 microprocessors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I mean it doesn't tell you anything but turbo boost 3/5

but it means that with two cores it can boost up to the max + 3 * 133mhz.

with 1 core it can go to the max + 5 * 133mhz.

 

So 3.33ghz is max for single-core usage, and 3.06ghz is max for dual-core usage? Such "meh" numbers.

Guess I'm gonna wait, since I'm in no real need for a lappy atm anyhow

 

None of those sites you referenced are official, just user suppositions about the turbo frequency. I go by Intel's website, which says nothing about 3.06ghz turbo frequency on dual-core mode. Not that it should matter since this thread wasn't started on the 620m.

 

Sure you can get the systems used but I prefer to play Snes, GBA, GB, GBC, Nes, Gamecube, PS1, PS2, Mame and many others in full native resolution with save states capability, extra features and on one single system instead of using all of the different hardware. For example, I have a GBA, GBC and an NDS but I prefer to play all of these on my laptop. I suck at some of the games and save states can get rid of some of the frustration. Many forget how much better games can look on an emulator compared to the original as well. You have high resolution graphic textures and you can use all sorts of different methods including custom ones, for example cell shaded. The emulators also get rid of the loading times.

When I go away, it also saves a lot of space because I don't need to take my Snes, Gamecube, GBA, GBC, NDS and all of the CD's with me.

 

I agree with you on almost all points, excepting the need for high resolution with those old systems. I don't see the point - if you want hi-res textures, play a modern game.

 

Intel's site only mentions the minimum and maximum Turbo Boost frequency's for all of their CPU's. Take my mobile i7 820qm as another example, it says 1.73 GHz up to 3.06 Ghz with Turbo boost but it is a well known fact that it Turbo Boosts from 1.73 Ghz to 2.0 Ghz for 4 Cores and 2.8 Ghz for 2 Cores.

 

Gah!

Wait or no wait? I really like the ENVY, but is it going to be able to handle PCSX2?

 

Exactly my point. Nowhere has Intel claimed any other specs, yet you are willing to believe otherwise based on "well known fact"? That's exactly how misinformation spreads - one person posts their supposition about how things work, and all of a sudden you have hundreds of people quoting that person as if it were fact. Therefore it becomes fact, when in reality it's a falsehood.

To give you the benefit of the doubt I researched this online further and found several posts that referenced Turbo Boost running in dual-core mode on the 620m, but they were all quoting the same person and it was all posted in exactly the same way, word-for-word. Nowhere has anything official been posted on the issue.

Turbo Boost was designed to boost the clock speed *when not all cores are running*. It's that simple. Find me an official reference and I'll believe you.

 

So are you going to keep posting this question in different ways until you get the answer you want? You've already asked five or six times, and we've already told you we don't think it's a good idea. What more do you want?

 

I am not going to believe others based on well known fact, that is simply your assumption.

It has nothing to do with well known fact, I have owned the mobile i7 620m CPU and have tested it out with PS2 emulation in my laptop and seen this exact clock rate on both Cores constantly throughout. My pointing out the other posts simply show others who have also observed the same behavior and posted about it as well.

There is no supposition about it period. It is very clear when you are seeing 2 Cores being used in a Dual Core optimised application with multiple monitoring software and resource managers showing the multiplier rate and 3.06 Ghz.

 

And again I need to point out that this is your observation, not a textbook explanation of how the CPU operates. The fact it was running at 3ghz in dual core mode could have been based on other factors providing whatever tool you used with erroneous results. Do we have facts from Intel?

 

shoegazer.

intel states it in the datasheet.


http://www.intel.com/Assets/PDF/specupdate/322814.pdf

page 18.

 

Thank you! That's exactly what I was looking for. At this point we know as fact that PCSX2 can take advantage of Turbo Boost even in multi-threaded mode, which should most likely hold true for any Clarksfield or Arrandale processor.

It still doesn't change anything though - most of these processors are just too underclocked to run many PS2 games at fullspeed. Again it's best to just wait for the higher-clocked processors coming later in the year - or buy a c2d notebook (there are still many on the market, and real cheap).

 

Can you name C2D notebooks that compete with the Acer AS5740G (Core i5-430M + HD 5650) at ~$750 or the MSI GX640 (Core i5-450M + HD 5850) at ~$1100?

You might be able to find cheaper options if you only care about CPU performance, but Core i5 notebooks are quite competitive on price in my experience.

 

@Shoegazer,

All your explanations still don't explain which is better for PCSX2: 450M or 520M?

Waitin' is always a possibility, of course. But which of those in your opinion, would be better in terms of price, for PCSX2?

Thanks for your patience and helpfulness

 

I suppose you've got money to burn, eh? It sounds like money is no object to you, so go for the 520m since it gives you more turbo boost. That seems to be the only real difference to an emulation user anyway.

Having said that, I STILL strongly discourage getting either processor because both are just a HAIR better than the c2d's of two years ago, and were introduced for the mobile user (battery-saving features), not really for the power user (faster CPU). There is some pretty amazing stuff coming in the Fall for the power user, stuff like the 640m that's more geared to someone who needs all the juice you can get, like those of us writing here.

 

It's not that I've got mommy's money to burn. I've been saving since I started this new job, and have had technically enough for several months now. Should I just save and wait for the fall? Will those released in the fall be able to handle the emulators?

 

So yes, I would save and wait. As I said, the more CPU juice the better whne it comes to emulation - and by waiting you open yourself up to a wider range of games that will be playable to you.

 

Would a i7-940XM be enough?
So after all that work the OP decides to wait.....lol
But this post has educated me a lot never really looked into any emulators so this should be interesting.

 

I'm seriously debating whether or not to try out the 520M on the ENVY14 for the 21days, but thats super shady.

 

you could just wait for my envy14 to appear.

*grabbed the 520m*

it's supposed to ship...

uh..

any time now

 

Oh? Will you be a doll and test it for us? (Doll is interswitchable with pal, ) Could you test out Dolphin as well?

'Preciate it.

 

was planning on trying to make a few things work.

'course lord knows when HP will ship me the damn laptop.

 

Yah, but at least HP isnt like Activision and making us make real-name User ID's on SC2... (just found out today).

 

Yeah instead they just forgot to order enough of a part or two.

All envy 14s are delayed while they try to get some backordered part in.

hurray

 

I really appreciate you giving me updates on the E14 in this thread

Beats having to skim through 50 pages each day, only to see more and more new users/posters posting useless crap/questions that have been answered already.

 

heh. thread is a bit out of control.


Current status: "We forgot to buy some dvd drives or something so all your computers are delayed. Deal with it."

 

O god. You serious?

On the other hand, I was at staples today, feeling up some HP lappies. The Gseries, and the current dv-series, as well as that one Compaq they had, all have the same shape as the ENVY's. One of the G series, G-60something or another, had aluminum palmrest/lid. Pretty nice. I was squeezing it and mashing my hand into the palmrest, and hardly any bend. And I was kneading asdfjkl;spacebarwithboththumbs, and it didn't have much yield on the chiclet keyboard. Pretty nice actually. I'd imagine the E14 has the same quality, with just a different textured lid. The Compaq model prolly has the most similar lid design, since it also has the little dents in it ("engraved" bs).

 

Yeah I'm serious. They have one part backordered but whatever that part is they can't start building the computers without it.


So I've decided it's the dvd drive because of how it's assembled (you have to dissassemble almost everything to remove it/put it in so...yeah)

edit: whelp I was wrong. it's the hdds. They are out of hdds. They have sdds (160 gig) but no hdds for the 320 or 500 gigs.

someone with a sdd just had theirs ship

 

I think your best bet for good PS2 emulation performance is with a laptop that has a Desktop i7 CPU.

 

Are you serious? 430m, 450m, 520m, 540m, 620m can't handle it? Not like I'll be playing long games, I'd only be playing small games that are good for to-go sessions (e.g., Ibara, MvC2, XG3, Initial D, etc short games, no rpgs). Do you think those games will work out with <620m cpus?