can someone recommend a good cpu ?

I'm building a new rig

here's what I have in mind
GPU: GTX 750 Ti 2gb
RAM: 7GB

I'm currently running an i3-2120 @ 3.3Ghz, I doubt it can handle the gpu or this game but I have no idea what processor to get as I have very little idea on what specs I'm looking for nor what said specs honestly mean
I'm' looking for one thats low cost

If you really want a PS2 PC, then your emphasis should be on CPU speed.

i3, i5, i7, Xeon or Pentium processor, doesn't really make a difference(Mostly, the i3 may see lower performance then the i5 due to low-level Multi-threading in PS2, but nothing overly major). The main point is for your Processors Clock Speed to be as fast as possible.

Anything in the 4.00GH'z speed should be sufficient to run PS2 on almost any setting.


I'd recommend getting a cheaper CPU with a really good quality 3rd Party Cooling system, personally I use the Coolmaster 212 Hyper EVO, 30$ for one of the best air fans on the market.

Then, after making sure your CPU is a "K" series or that it can be overclocked, use the improved fan to OC that sucker up to PS2 specs.

umm how much GHz do i need to get decent fps ?
how do i tell if it can be overclocked ? and is it necessary that it can be overclocked ?
I'm not after a high end rig to play on high ultra, I just want a decent one for mid settings....... I once tried very high during days after release and the graphics just ended up making it confusing with all the particle effects and stuff flying all over the place

An i3 6100 is minimum sufficient but I'd recommend an i5.

Second this. I heard good things about i3 6100, and it seems to be on par with other components the OP mentioned.

slightly bothered that your GB RAM is an odd number

pls get one more

I5 3570K + Scythe Ninja 3 Rev B (or a 120mm watercooler from CM)

I have an i7 2.93ghz with an R7-360. All low settings except medium for textures, no problems. I had to open the case and put a floor fan to keep the GPU temp below 180F but otherwise all is cool. No need for ultra high graphics.

are there any other i3's that I should look into ?

and what are my i5 options ?

does it being an odd number have any real effect on performance ?

I have an i5-3570 (no overclock) and a GTX 960.

Notice that the CPU "K" versions are for overclocking (as an example i5-3570 K). No need to spend more money on a "K" if you don't plan to overclock.

I lowered some of the graph settings, but kept any of them on High-Ultra. Not because i was CPU bound but for my own visual confort.

The game looks great, i didn't notice any hudge framerate drop off. Positive KD with full close range game sessions (which means no computer rendering issue).

A friend of mine got the same CPU and same Graph card, and find it great. Even with your own 750Ti, i think that a not overclocked i5-3570 would worth it. You may see a "CPU bound" during game sessions, but PS2 is always bound anywhere by anything, so...

You will find very mixed answers asking on gaming forums like that. Gamer =/= tech expert.

I recommend you go to Tom's Hardware: http://www.tomshardware.com/

It's a huge site with lots of useful and constantly updating information, lots of articles on new hardware. For example, there's an article on best CPUs from april: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html

Well, you are supposed to have 6 or 8 GBs. You are supposed to have a number equal to a multiple of 2. 7 is "odd".
Maybe you're loosing the benefit of 1 GB,i don't know.

As long as you have the RAM correctly plugged in your motherboard, and that you're sure that the Dual Channel is enabled, it's ok.
You're supposed to be able to look at it in your CM Bios.
Check in your Nvidia Geforce Experience how many GBs are really detected and used.

It's just really odd (prime, too!), and means you have different capacity RAM. If you were to instead have RAM with like capacities, your motherboard could access them in chunks of 64n bits where n is the number of channels your CPU and motherboard setup support (ex 64x4 for quad channel in some of the flashy new CPUs, 64x2 for dual channel, 64x1 for single channel). That's why if you're building a gaming PC it's generally recommended that you use identical sticks of RAM so that your memory access has more bandwidth. If you have different sized RAM, you're going to be forced into single channel access mode regardless of what your CPU can handle.

I don't think I've ever messed around with figuring the exact difference going from single channel to dual channel or quad channel. I remember some old articles about benchmarking from single to dual and it wasn't a huge performance gain, like 10% or something, but then again that was a long time ago and parallel computing has come a long way. Still, it's probably a lower priority.

Apart from that, it's just a strange number. Most setups nowadays have 2^n GB of RAM, so like 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32. Having 7 means you have at least one 1 GB stick of RAM in there, which I didn't even know they made anymore for non-tablet consumer PCs. I've only ever seen 1GB sticks of RAM from back in the days of DDR1 and DDR2 (back when 1 GB in a little stick like that was amazing, and then within a few years it was nothing).

What'd be more a problem is if that 1 GB stick of RAM is something super old and cheap. Your CPU has to access all your RAM at the same speed, which means that it will downgrade the speed of your fastest RAM to match the speed of your slowest RAM. So if you've just jammed a bunch of different RAM into your motherboard thinking more is better you could actually be hurting your performance quite a bit if one of them is some old thing from the 90's or something.

EDIT: Before someone corrects me I'll correct myself. Technically you can have different capacity RAM and run in a multi-channel setup. Like, if you have 2 4GB sticks and 2 2GB sticks, and 4 slots with slot 0 and slot 2 in one channel and slot 1 and slot 3 in the second channel. Put your 4 GB sticks in slot 0 and slot 2 and your 2 GB sticks in slot 1 and slot 3 and your CPU will be able to access them in two concurrent channels. So you can have different capacities and still get a multi-channel setup so long as the capacities are identical within each channel. But that's a moot point because 7 is a prime number so there's no way you're working in a multi-channel configuration.

i3 6300, i3 6320.

I play PS2 on an i3 6100, perfectly suitable but 6320 is a sound CPU for gaming however the cost of an i3 6320 (at least in Canada) is far too close to the price of an i5 6500 (non-K) that the choice is pretty obvious.

Let me play devils advocate here.
I recommend you to look into (used) processors for your motherboard. (If the additional RAM and GPU fit in the motherboard).
Whilst Im at it, look for a good deal on a Gtx 950, way better card, same price.

well the price in India for a 6320 is only 2,000 rupees higher than a 6100 which isn't a whole lot, k series isn't much of an option since prices are usually 60% higher even if you find a really good discount offer

GHz is not everything. With this logic my CPU for example won't work very well because it runs at 3.4GHZ. However my PC runs PS2 on ultra with 100+fps. Probably 120+fps, but I don't pay attention to that very much.

I do agree a good cooler is a must.

As I said, 3.4GH'z should suffice to run the game in most settings.


I'd also guess that you have Shadows turned off, which is a significant factor in CPU-based performance.




Really, CPU Frequency is the primary factor in processing power. You can, as I said, have Multi-threading, but most games don't utilize that due to technical limitations of binary code. Some games have minor utilization of multi-threading, but most of the time it can only provide a small benefit compared to a flat higher frequency.


There is really only one other factor that determines CPU speed, and that is Cache size. But it's similar to RAM(In spirit and law) in that once you have a large enough cache, increasing it shouldn't really be giving you more speed unless the rest of your PC is powerful enough to keep up with it.