My CPU will not overclock past 3.9GH'z!

i beleive him.

but can you belive this.

ps2 is so good but so bad.

ps dont bother with phase change, it's way too much trouble.

The socket 2011 CPUs are good if you're planning to do SLI/CFX as you get more PCI-E lanes. Other than that, they're more suited for HPC/Encoding/Rendering/VM's etc. There are small improvements in heavily CPU bound games like Civ but nothing that will make or break your gaming experience.

I agree this is a solid general theory. Fully understanding that PS2 doesn't have a "benchmark mode" I'd still love to see somebody with an i7-6800 do some tests in the middle of a large fight. Mainly what % of CPU cycles can be used in any of the below configurations.

1. 6 cores + hyperthreading
2. 6 cores no HT
3. 4 cores + HT
4. 4 cores no HT

If we disabled HT on a 6 core CPU and PS2 can indeed utilize 5 cores (as someone mentioned earlier) we would see 66+ to 83% CPU usage should we not? I've read lots and lots of reddit/forum posts that say PS2 doesn't use more than 4 cores but no real proof or testing is to be found to validate that claim.

meh. i played games on the torque engine that 10 years ago did beter that what we have today. stop **** showing. you got nothing there.

wtf next youll be telling me ut engine was a good idea?

Who the Higby are you bantering with? Try using the "reply" button and quoting the posts you're responding to because at the moment you look mental.

I've shown screenshots before in other threads. You can go look for them. I'm not the only one in these forums with a similar setup. So you can sit here and try to prove what my nefarious agenda is to lie about something stupid. And the OP and I will point and laugh at you.

The only screenshot I've seen from you was sitting at an empty warpgate doing nothing getting 150 fps or so..that proves nothing that I asked.

I think I've heard you say that you run the game on ultra settings, which TBH, I don't think a PC on the planet could get over 120 FPS in a large fight on ultra. But this is more than just about FPS, the game has had a very long standing memory management problem. Why do you think most of the MLG try-hards reboot after about an hour? Because the way the game "feels" degrades after a certain amount of time regardless of what FPS you're seeing. Talk to any player who enjoys Parkour in the game. Prior to the last few patches I could climb trees pretty damn quick in 48vs48 fights so long as I did so before the session uptime was under an hour. Now it's really hit or miss. Sometimes it works as expected, other times in small fights after a fresh restart it just feels "junky" right from the get-go. Take for what it is. If you haven't noticed the performance degradation it's unlikely because you're running some "magical" hardware setup immune to it and more likely you're not sensitive enough to the lag to perceive it (which is actually a blessing).

For CPU's of same generation with stock clocks, I'd say between 4C to 6C12T, there's probably 5% difference when not being GPU limited and the difference is probably in the higher fps range (100+). The only way to test it would be to have 4 players with identical video cards (inc. clocks), ram (inc. timings/speeds) in a 192+ battle running alongside each other looking at the exact same view to get some rough data.

That sounds like a pretty accurate benchmark to answer which configuration performs better. What I am really looking to understand is where PS2 stops scaling in regards to CPU cores. If it cannot use more than 4 threads, then a 6 core machine should never see PS2 use 100% of the cpu time right? If it can use more than 4 threads, how many? I do understand that even if PS2 can utilize 6 cores the performance may still be bottlenecked by a "primary" thread hitting 100% capacity on a core. Gaining performance from that point then becomes more about a CPU's single thread performance (clock speed and/or more efficient architectures with more instructions per cycle) and less about additional cores.

I think "use" is an amorphous term in the context of PS2.

Is PS2 efficient at multi-threading? Clearly the answer is no; if it were guys with 6 and 8 core cpu's would be boasting about (and getting) much better performance. As it stands, all of us (intel owners) are really all in the same boat. And that's true whether we're running Sandy Bridge, Haswell, or Skylake, give or take a few fps. For any Intel user who's optimized his rig and/or not done something stupid, we pretty much all have the same fps in large battles, and that large battle fps fluctuates dependent on how good the last patch was.

The problem remains one that soe/dgb has always had: the primary game thread is huge and they cannot break it up without breaking the game. For all intents and purposes, PS2 uses 1 thread. Of course there's a bunch of stuff it does on other threads, which is why you see an 8 thread cpu "using" 8 threads, and this is why we see 8 core cpu's "using" 8 cores, but really, there's still only one thread that matters: the primary game thread. It's this thread that handles player position and collisions. That's why, no matter what cpu you have, in the large 96+ battles everyone has generally the same performance. It's why amd guys still have terrible performance relative to intel.

This game is all about single-threaded performance. Guys with higher single-threaded performance do (slightly) better.

I'm sorry to tell you, but if your CPU isn't stable at 4ghz, especially when juicing the crap out of it, you simply don't have a chip capable of these clocks. Motherboard, FSB, RAM constraints might prevent you from reaching a certain clock speed to begin with, but your problem isn't that you can't reach the clocks, but rather that your CPU is not stable after reaching these clocks.
The 4670K's standard max frequency is 3.4ghz for a reason; the higher-binned units go to make the 4770K and 4790K (which have a standard max frequency of 3.5ghz and 4.0ghz, respectively).
So a 4670K that can reliably handle 600mhz over the standard max clock sounds pretty run-of-the-mill to me. My own 4770K can only hit about 4.3ghz, or 800mhz over the standard max clock. So TBH, your situation doesn't sound too out of the ordinary to me.

I love you guys... Yes I have a I7 6 core (old) processor and I can see PS2 running all 5 cores of the 6 cores on PS2. About 33% use of the 5 cores. I run ~60 FPS at 3.3 Ghz on the 5 used cores. Current PS2 is based off the PS4 version and it uses more cores (AMD) because of play station.
Yes - I have 12 hyper threads. I have a GTX470 & GTX970 SLI strapped with the GTX470 as the GPU what a difference... in speed this made....! Just magic in speed....!

Cores 1 & 2 take a little more load than cores 3,4,5 maybe 2 or 3 % more, but not that much more.

When the game chokes it does it on core 1 (always). So over clock is always better on core 1 and 2.

The problem is when you have 5 cores software running on a 4 core CPU some other core has to pick up the load.... 90% of the time that is core 1... ! (AKA) choke hold....!

This is just a heads up ...! For our future players

Be for warned X99 CPUs do not work the same way the old I7 do... you need the 40 bus CPU for 2x graphics cards. 28 bus CPU only really support 1x 16 graphics cards... I learned this the hard way... ! I also have an EVGA X99 WTF-K board... think water cooled for EVGA X99 boards...! Forget air cooling on an X99 mother board not going to happen for 6 or 8 cores.

Anything beyond 4 cores is a waste when it comes to Planetside 2. There is a "primary" (sequential) workload and a "secondary" (parallel) workload. The primary workload will be executed on a single thread, and the secondary workload will be distributed across the remaining available cores. Because the secondary workload only comprises about 60% of the total workload, the limiting factor in a quad-core will always be the speed of execution of the primary thread (i.e. dependent on how fast an individual core is). The three remaining cores (75% of the CPU's capacity) will have no trouble running the secondary workload. Now, adding more cores will simply spread this secondary workload out across even more cores. The primary workload will run no faster, and thus the game will run no faster. You could have a quad-core and a 64-core CPU based on the same architecture, and they would run PS2 at the same exact speed.

How to make magic in PS2... after experimenting with CPU's speed and heat-sinks...! Fast Ram...!
The biggest boost was the SLI... a GTX470 is not as good as a GTX750 processor wise... so a GXT970 and any other GTX card will push you over the top... speed wise. Bit the bullet and get a GTX970 or 980ti and some other old card you have and your speed is maxed out. Remember the power supply needs updated to for 2x GTX cards but it is well worth it.

I am not going to say you are wrong... but all PS2 software is based on PS4 design now -- > that is 7 cores the DEV are allowed to use for future PS2 development... the DEV have said the PC version is BETA for the PS4 meaning you have to keep up with there technology. Meaning 4 cores is obsolete...!

You can't expect a 4 core processor to run what a 6 or 7 core processors does. ( this is coming down the road )