can someone recommend a good cpu ?

Id recomend an i5 K minimum for PS2.
The new I3 cpus are excellent and im planning a second built with one, but if said build was to play PS2 id be throwing an i5 K in it.

But It depends on what frame rate you want, graphic detail and monitor refresh.
No point having a 150fps cpu mated to max detail settings and a slow gpu or a 60hz monitor.
I found a 2500k @ 4.7ghz could manage a bio lab pad kick off at about 30fps. a 6700k at the same speed can hold 100+fps.
Due to core usage an i3 would of been much lower than 30fps. When i get a chance ill test a 6320

Gundem, yes i agree the cpu speed is going to be relevent - for cpu performance we will be talking Intel and apart from say a 2nd gen to 6th gen clock speeds across the chips in a generation are relevent to a chips single or dual core performance. which makes it relevent for most games.

However, i think chevyowner has a 6 core So he will get high frame rates. Ive not used a hex core, but im guessing ps2 uses all those cores.
i know its not exact, but it wont be far off: 3.4x6 = 20.4 a 4790k at 4.4ghz = 17.6
A 6320 = 7.8.....
(assuming the cores are all maxed or used equally, which ive noticed it isnt quite)

There will be a difference between the i3 and the i5 for sure, but none between the i5 and i7 so long as they have the same frequency. PS2 simply does not use that many threads.


I also find it hard to believe that your 2500k would get that low FPS at that high of a frequency. I'd bet money that there is an underlying factor as to why your FPS was so low. Either settings changed, game was optimized, drivers were outdated or your GPU wasn't up to par either. Any CPU, even a Pentium should have been able to crush PS2 at nearly 5GH'z.


EDIT: Here is a review of the FPS PS2 gets under different hardware


Reaching the CPU area, it clearly shows that the i7 has a marginal increase of FPS over the i5, but the i3 does perform noticeably lower then the i5.


If I recall, PS2 is primarily a single-core game, but it can use multiple cores to render effects and take a slight burden off the main core. But, it's still mainly a single-core game.

Hum...That's my own opinion, but i wouldn't buy any used CPU, GPU or anything...You never know what the seller did with those parts. Maybe the seller is a trustworthy one. Good deal.
Or maybe he performed overclock, opened the parts and stuff ...which may reduce those hardware parts' lifetime. And the warranty is gone in those cases.
No warranty, no product support, money gone, and you're f....
Better wait and spare your money. In order to buy your new hardware parts (in sealed packages from the different official manufacturers) from a trustworthy shop.

Based on the GPU you are going for I guess we are looking for a budget build. I'm only going to say this when it comes to PC builds for the future:

It used to be so that an i5 would give the same performance in most pc-titles as an i7 (sandy bridge i5 2500k vs i7 2600k for instance). This would hold true for single player games and multiplayer games with fairly large scale (BF3 and BF4). However for MMOS and Planetside 2 it's a little bit different as they are more CPU-heavy. However in the near future the i5=i7 for PC gaming will fall through. This is due to how DX12 is designed, there will be SIGNIFICANT performance gains from having i7 processors.

I'm not going into the details - just be aware of it and google it if you want to understand why.

I realize this isn't all that relevant for PS2 - and for your build in particular but PC gamers often play a multitude of games and not everyone is aware of this change coming with DX12.

I know my next build will be a multicore/thread processor. Effectively some kind of i7 based off this.

Well, thats why forums exist with reputation for single sellers. And especially with CPUs its almost impossible to damage those through a overclock. GPUs life span will be decreased, but not enough to justify basing your choice on it (youll be using it for like 3 years only on average).
However damaged parts etc are a serious issue, thats right.

I agree that an I7 would be the best all around choice, but I don't think you need the K version.

Yes it's a 6-core I7. I would need to look at how all 12 threads are used.

To the person that said shadows are probably off here are my settings.
http://pastebin.com/7EWbugJs

Because I can't edit my last post.....

In the 48-96 vs 48-96 or larger battles it is about %50 CPU Usage, and can drop to about 50-60fps.

No no noooooo - this isn't accurate at all. Clock speed alone means nothing. It's like the RPM on an engine; you also need to know the torque output before you can calculate horsepower.
An i5 or i7 is like a beefy V8; even at low speeds, it has lots more raw power than, say, a cheap 4-cylinder.
Buying a cheap Pentium and OC'ing it to 4.0ghz, on the other hand, is like revving your lawn mower engine to 7000rpm and saying, "It's just like that Ferrari over there because it's running at the same RPM!"
Similarly, an i5-4670 running at 1ghz will crush a Pentium 4 running at 5+ ghz. (That's an extreme example, but you get the point.)
The idea that clock speed is directly correlated with performance when comparing different processors is well-known as the "Megahertz Myth."

Long story short, look at the single-threaded benchmarks here:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
This takes into account both architecture speed and clock speed.
The CPUs with the highest single-thread rating will generally be best for gaming.

Personally, I'd recommend an i5-4670. The fastest per-thread CPU on the market is the i7-4790k, which is identical to the i7-4770k. And the i5-4670 is just an i7-4770k without hyperthreading, which is really not important in games.
Anything with more than 4 cores (6, 8, etc.) is not only a waste of money, but will actually hinder your performance, because the game will not use those 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th cores, but their presence will necessitate that all the cores perform slower to accommodate the thermals/power of having 2-4 additional cores under the hood.

Would you please:
1. Not give wrong advice? A 4 GHz Intel Core processor of some of the recent generations is a really good advice. And yes clock speed does heavily affect performance when comparing the core lineup.
2. Use information that is somehow relevant? The 4790k is outdated. We got the 6700k now.
3. Not use your estimations (about heat of Hyperthreading) without any facts to back them up to give bad advice once again.
Thanks you. Yes I do sound aggressive because I hate it when people give wrong advice and other people spend a lot of money because of that.

In the large battle I was in when I looked PS2 was using all 6 cores at about 50% CPU usage. According to Windows 10 Task Manager all cores were used fairly evenly.

I can't prove this, but from what I have seen PS2 has gotten much better with multiple core and threads starting about when the PS4 beta started.

Can confirm. All 8 Threads are used.

- Lol, "Not give wrong advice"? Oh really? Everything I said is 100% accurate. However, if you'd like to challenge one of my statements, be my guest.
- 4790k is 'outdated', but is still the best option for single-thread performance and is a far better deal than the 6000 series. That "We got the 6700k now" has no bearing on this fact. And the title of the thread is "Can someone recommend a good CPU", not "Can someone recommend the newest CPU".
- "Heat of hyperthreading?" WTF are you talking about? Do you even know what Hyperthreading is?
- Estimations? There are no estimations in my post. Are you sure you're replying to the right thread?
I also hate it when people give wrong advice (which is why I replied to this thread in the first place). And you seem to be overflowing with it. "A 4 GHz Intel Core processor of some of the recent generations is a really good advice" - I can personally guarantee that a brand new, current-gen Celeron or Pentium running at 4ghz will not run Planetside well. Even an i3 at 4ghz will seriously struggle. So if you really do care about the OP receiving bad advice, I'd ask you to actually do your research before you make angry posts.

What I meant is that the workload on the secondary cores is never going to be enough to warrant having 5 or 7 extra cores over just 3; the limiting factor will always be the capacity of whichever core is running the primary thread. As you saw, the extra cores only had a 50% workload. This could easily be handled by 3 cores instead of 5, and the OP would be saving a lot of money. (Plus Windows 10 amalgamates all the individual workloads into one number, which isn't very helpful if you're trying to see which cores are doing what)
Only when you get into the dual-core range (Celeron, Pentium, i3, and certain mobile variants of the i5 and i7), which would only have 1 'extra' core, does the workload start to overwhelm said secondary cores.

So I quoted this one because its easier, hope you dont mind.
Anyway.
You clearly said that the fastest single core score can be achieved with an i7 4790k. That is wrong.
The statement with Hyperthreading could be a misunderstanding as you were talking about it first and then started to explain how the heat of additional "cores" (I assume you mean real cores like in the expensive pro-sumer CPUs) will influence the thermals.
Thats true.
However if you're talking about the "cores" Hyperthreading simulates its wrong as this produces as much as no heat. Thats why I said estimations.

And still Im going to say that the reccomendation of an Intel Core processor running at 4GHz is a good advice. (So an i3, i5, or an i7)
Neither a Pentium nor a Celeron are Intel Core processors and they werent suggested here.
An i3 should be fine. We would have to test it to be sure though.

This game's client is much better optimized now, before the game used to heavily hog 1 core while others laid idle below 10%, but now it uses all threads almost evenly. Too bad crappy console ports like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed doesn't properly scale threads yet.

Thats a really wierd thing actually, as consoles only have 8 really weak cores.

i5-4690k with evo 212s coller and overclock to 4.4ghz. U will no regret i promise u.

The i5 6600k performs better and is the same cost. Additionally it has access to newer generation mainboards with stuff like DDR4

There's some other issue/difference between the systems for that sort of disparity, especially as that seems exceedingly low for an i5 2500k @ 4.7, as in the right system is it capable of performing much, much better than that in PS2.

Is it though?
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Yes, addition of cores often means a reduction of the capacity of each individual core, which is likely the reason we see the quad-core Haswell chips still topping the charts for single-thread performance.

I never said hyperthreading produces heat, but I can see how you might have misinterpreted me.

I still disagree, because an i3 or lower running at 4ghz will not play Planetside well, and an i5 or i7 running at less than 4ghz will run the game well. So essentially, the '4ghz' criterion is useless.

Pentium and Celeron processors definitely fit that category.

No, it won't be. I have a top-of-the-line Haswell i3, paired with a Radeon Fury Nano. It's a great processor, don't get me wrong. The rig can run the Witcher 3 at 4k with no sweat. But it cannot run Planetside. Any fight larger than 12-24 is literally a slideshow. I suspect it's simply due to the fact that the i3 is a dual core, like the Celeron and Pentiums, and all of the secondary processes (physics, actor positioning, hit detection, etc) that are relegated to the 'additional' cores (the ones not running the game's primary thread) are too much for that single extra core to handle. Whereas in an i5 or i7, there are 3 extra cores to handle these things.
And the small performance gains of Skylake over Haswell will not make up the ground needed for one of these i3s to run Planetside well.