PCSX2 is pretty CPU-dependant, I'm afraid, as is Dolphin. GPUs do factor in somewhat, but not as much as for "normal" games. With PCSX2 in particular, some games (particularly games using the Jak and Daxter engine, like Ratchet and Clank or Sly Cooper) won't render properly unless you run it with software rendering, which accurately emulates the PS2's graphics architecture by doing all the work on the CPU. Using the hardware renderer results in mipmapping glitches with these games, since the PS2 uses a method of mipmapping not implemented by any PC video cards. Of course, trying to get these games to work on PCSX2 with a Core 2 rig is kind of pointless, since you're either going to be stuck with glitches in the hardware renderer, or you're going to need an i7 if you want to use the software renderer at a decent speed.

Thanks for the information... I can't remember the last time I tried emulating PS2. ePSXe worked pretty well even on a P3.

How come PCSX2 hasn't progressed as far as it should have?

PS1 emulation is not hard. I've actually run ePSXe on a Pentium II system before, though it was a little slow. It ran just peachy on my friend's Pentium III 800MHz laptop though, with a 640x480 software-rendered window. 😀 That said, ePSXe isn't anywhere near being a "cycle accurate" emulator. XEBRA and Mednafen are pretty close though, and they require beefier hardware as a result, though oddly I believe their system requirements are lower than the ones for Higan, a cycle-accurate SNES emulator.

The PS2 has an extremely complicated system architecture. The Emotion Engine chip alone contains 8 different components, then there's the GPU, the I/O processor, the sound processors... It's a a tough system to emulate, and ironically the Gamecube is easier to emulate despite being more powerful, merely because it has a much simpler and better-understood architecture. I have noticed a few odd things about Dolphin though, like how Super Smash Bros. Melee is harder to emulate than Brawl, despite Brawl being a Wii game released 7 years later. I guess it must just be because Melee is a faster-paced game overall; I've always noticed that it "felt" better than Brawl, and had more responsive controls.

Going back to Higan, the main reason why I'm trying to overclock my system is so that I can get the BSNES accuracy core on Retroarch running smoothly again under Linux. I used to be able to run it just fine with my previous specs, but that's because it was easier for me to overclock my Pentium Dual Core out the wazoo. It could also be because I was running a different Linux distro at the time, with a better video driver. I'd run Retroarch under Windows, except that it really doesn't like XP 64-bit, and it's rather prone to crashing. It would certainly take care of my performance issues though, as I couldn't run it full speed under Linux until I compiled a custom kernel. 😉

Hehe, the joys of overclocking. With a good motherboard and cooler you can really push things. I lucked out and bought an MSI P45D3 Platinum for peanuts and have been using it with my old C2D 6550 (2.33GHz) for about a year now. Last June, I lucked out again and got a CoolerMaster Hyper 212 very cheaply (seller thought it was a Hyper TX3 variant 🤣 ) and I've managed to push the CPU to 3.5GHz. That's using a 500MHz FSB 😲 , which I thought was pretty insane when I first hit it. It's really funny seeing Intel Speedstep doing 500MHz jumps for each state 🤣 .

I've been kinda thinking of getting a Xeon E5450, some guy around here sells them for 65 euros, already modded and ready. This is basically a Q9650 but with an 80W TDP, so I reckon I should be able to hit 4GHz. Thing is, I have very little use for it, apart from having fun overclocking. Remember, this is not my primary PC, it's just a PC I like to fiddle around with or keep as a LAN PC for playing games with my buds.

Well, I just discovered that I can run the BSNES Accuracy core just fine under Linux, and I don't really need to take my overclocking further. 🤣 In fact, right now my machine's actually clocked a little bit lower than it was when I reached my last stable clock. I think the reason why is because I changed over to a different version of FGLRX. The numbers may not seem as impressive, but it works well. I remember my benchmark results were crazy high compared to what they were back when I just had the Pentium and the 4650, though the clock setting I was using was a little unstable. I'll have to test again and see if my current results are comparable.

I'd still love to get this machine to 4GHz, but only if it's actually worth all the extra strain it would put on my system. Having a higher CPU clockspeed is meaningless when it means running your RAM with looser timings and an insanely high voltage setting. 😜

As far as running Dolphin, it would be sweet to play Melee again, but I recently bought the new Smash Bros for 3DS, and it's pretty sweet being able to play against people online, aside from all the annoying network lag. 😜

UPDATE: I found out that I'm stable with my FSB termination voltage set to 1.2. Guess I don't have to worry about cooking my CPU now. 😉

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

UPDATE: I found out that I'm stable with my FSB termination voltage set to 1.2. Guess I don't have to worry about cooking my CPU now. 😉

That's great. Now you can clock that baby up! 😁

Actually the Core 2 platform is not very sensitive to the RAM latency timings, unlike AMD's equivalent and earlier (due to the on-die memory controller). Of course, there would be a slight difference if you're benchmarking or running specific memory-bandwidth intensive apps. Otherwise, you're probably not going to notice it. So, just loosen the memory timings to something like 5-5-5-15 and get your CPU to the clockspeed you want. You can then tighten the timings later. Afterall, OCing with 4 DIMMs will place greater strain on the chipset plus 45nm CPU support is unofficial for 965P. Also remember you're mixing and matching the DDR2 DIMMs so the last thing you want is the RAM/chipset to be holding you back.

Actually, since I've found that I can run BSNES fine with 3.7GHz, I think I'm just going to stop here and focus on tuning my voltages. I've already brought down my FSB term, and I've found that I can run a lower NB voltage as well.

My system must be a bit of an odd duck, because I have noticed that memory timings can make a difference. For whatever reason, I actually start having more problems if I run my timings really loose, like above 5-5-5-15 (running 4-4-3-11 right now 😉) My system flat-out won't boot if I set the CAS latency to 6, so the loosest I can boot with is 5-6-6-17, but this throws all sorts of errors in Mprime, and it simply isn't worth it for being able to attain higher clock speeds.

PCSX2 has an option that gives a much higher framerate on quad cores over dual cores. It's called "MTVU" and is recommended if you have 3 or more cores. When I was on my Core2Duo E6400 I couldn't play Final Fantasy X on PCSX2, but with a Core2Quad Q6600 and MTVU turned on, it runs nicely.

Also, Dolphin's older versions seem to run a lot better than the newer versions. I was pretty annoyed myself because I wanted to play Resident Evil Remake and couldn't because it was running too slow on my Q6600, so I downloaded the oldest version I could find and it doubled my framerate. I found that interesting, so I downloaded every revision in between 3.0 and 3.5 (where it started to slow down a lot) and discovered something they added in the code after Dolphin 3.0.629 was the culprit, because everything before that version would make the game easily playable on a Core2, and everything after it made it completely unplayable. I then tried the older version of Dolphin on my Core2Duo E6400 and it ran Resident Evil Remake perfectly as well! So I went from being annoyed with Dolphin being slow on a Q6600, to getting an older version and having it run great on my Core2Duo as well!

First, I wouldn't disable CPU TM, and I would leave clock ratio to automatic. I mean.. more performance is ok.. but running always at max speed isn't really advisable imo. And I'm quite sure that won't hurt game speed

Then, try to set pci express frequency to 100, I read in a lot of places that it should be the recommended frequency (though personally if I overclock both my P5LD2-X/1333 and P5QPL-AM I have to raise it, otherwise it won't boot)

But most important thing is to update BIOS to last version (2104 according to asus website)

Skyscraper wrote:

There are no dangers involved with running the Core 2 Duo at 85C, if the CPU degrades its from the FSB Term. voltage (CPU VTT) @ 1.45v not the heat. I would not worry too much but I would make sure the case is well ventilated so the rest of the componets dont get too hot and I would not run any Prime95 24h stability tests with the CPU VTT @ 1.45v. I would also add active cooling on the memory when running them @ 2.3V.

Actually intel itself claims max temperature should be 72°C

mirh wrote:

First, I wouldn't disable CPU TM, and I would leave clock ratio to automatic. I mean.. more performance is ok.. but running alwa […]
Show full quote

First, I wouldn't disable CPU TM, and I would leave clock ratio to automatic. I mean.. more performance is ok.. but running always at max speed isn't really advisable imo. And I'm quite sure that won't hurt game speed

Then, try to set pci express frequency to 100, I read in a lot of places that it should be the recommended frequency (though personally if I overclock both my P5LD2-X/1333 and P5QPL-AM I have to raise it, otherwise it won't boot)

But most important thing is to update BIOS to last version (2104 according to asus website)

Skyscraper wrote:

There are no dangers involved with running the Core 2 Duo at 85C, if the CPU degrades its from the FSB Term. voltage (CPU VTT) @ 1.45v not the heat. I would not worry too much but I would make sure the case is well ventilated so the rest of the componets dont get too hot and I would not run any Prime95 24h stability tests with the CPU VTT @ 1.45v. I would also add active cooling on the memory when running them @ 2.3V.

Actually intel itself claims max temperature should be 72°C

I could probably get away with re-enabling CPU TM, as my CPU is running well below thermal limits with my current settings, even with Mprime going in the background. From what I can tell, CPU TM is basically another name for the internal throttling mechanism Intel CPUs use when they run beyond thermal limits. I've run my CPU beyond thermal limits before, but I understand it's not a good thing to do for the life of the chip. As it stands, things are running just fine right now with my current, rather conservative, overclock.

As far as leaving the clock ratio at automatic, that's not an option for me. When I do that, my machine tries to run the RAM at 833MHz, which I have not been able to achieve stably. setting it to a 1:1 ratio, I can get a healthy overclock on the FSB and CPU, and run my RAM at a speed it is actually comfortable with.

For a long time I played with having a higher PCI Express frequency, first 110MHz, then 120, and I found that setting it too high causes erratic behaviour and may lead to data loss, so I just leave it at 100 now.

And one of the first things I did when I got this mobo was upgrade the BIOS to the latest revision, so that I could run my Pentium Dual Core in it. I've only owned this board since 2012 when I got it from eBay. 😉

mirh wrote:

Skyscraper wrote:

There are no dangers involved with running the Core 2 Duo at 85C, if the CPU degrades its from the FSB Term. voltage (CPU VTT) @ 1.45v not the heat. I would not worry too much but I would make sure the case is well ventilated so the rest of the componets dont get too hot and I would not run any Prime95 24h stability tests with the CPU VTT @ 1.45v. I would also add active cooling on the memory when running them @ 2.3V.

Actually intel itself claims max temperature should be 72°C

The claimed 72C max temp has more to do with stability than what the CPU can handle without beeing damaged. Tcase is also different from core temperature.
45nm Intel chips can run 24/7 at 90+C with default voltage. Its the caps on the motherboard around the CPU I would worry about, they dont like that kind of heat.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

As far as leaving the clock ratio at automatic, that's not an option for me. When I do that, my machine tries to run the RAM at 833MHz, which I have not been able to achieve stably. setting it to a 1:1 ratio, I can get a healthy overclock on the FSB and CPU, and run my RAM at a speed it is actually comfortable with.

Wtf? Clock ratio has nothing to do with RAM ratio

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

For a long time I played with having a higher PCI Express frequency, first 110MHz, then 120, and I found that setting it too high causes erratic behaviour and may lead to data loss, so I just leave it at 100 now.

Lucky you. My computer just hang with everything above ~300MHz FSB if I try to force 100MHz PCI-E (and when I pass 120MHz SATA controller just dies)

Skyscraper wrote:

The claimed 72C max temp has more to do with stability than what the CPU can handle without beeing damaged. Tcase is also different from core temperature.
45nm Intel chips can run 24/7 at 90+C with default voltage. Its the caps on the motherboard around the CPU I would worry about, they dont like that kind of heat.

What do you mean with stability?
For example, when I pass 3.5GHz overclock prime95 starts to show errors, and after 3.55 programs start to crash often with BSOD sometimes.
Was you referring to this?

mirh wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

As far as leaving the clock ratio at automatic, that's not an option for me. When I do that, my machine tries to run the RAM at 833MHz, which I have not been able to achieve stably. setting it to a 1:1 ratio, I can get a healthy overclock on the FSB and CPU, and run my RAM at a speed it is actually comfortable with.

Wtf? Clock ratio has nothing to do with RAM ratio

My mistake. I take it you were referring to the ratio between the CPU and the base FSB, then?

mirh wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

For a long time I played with having a higher PCI Express frequency, first 110MHz, then 120, and I found that setting it too high causes erratic behaviour and may lead to data loss, so I just leave it at 100 now.

Lucky you. My computer just hang with everything above ~300MHz FSB if I try to force 100MHz PCI-E (and when I pass 120MHz SATA controller just dies)

120MHz is where I started having problems with my SATA controller. 110MHz seems fine, but leaving it at the default 100MHz is probably the best course of action in terms of stability. I might try 110MHz again just to see if it increases performance.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

mirh wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

As far as leaving the clock ratio at automatic, that's not an option for me. When I do that, my machine tries to run the RAM at 833MHz, which I have not been able to achieve stably. setting it to a 1:1 ratio, I can get a healthy overclock on the FSB and CPU, and run my RAM at a speed it is actually comfortable with.

Wtf? Clock ratio has nothing to do with RAM ratio

My mistake. I take it you were referring to the ratio between the CPU and the base FSB, then?

Exactly. If you put it to auto, CPU will be able to enter idle mode.. Otherwise it will be always at maximum.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

mirh wrote:

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

For a long time I played with having a higher PCI Express frequency, first 110MHz, then 120, and I found that setting it too high causes erratic behaviour and may lead to data loss, so I just leave it at 100 now.

Lucky you. My computer just hang with everything above ~300MHz FSB if I try to force 100MHz PCI-E (and when I pass 120MHz SATA controller just dies)

120MHz is where I started having problems with my SATA controller. 110MHz seems fine, but leaving it at the default 100MHz is probably the best course of action in terms of stability. I might try 110MHz again just to see if it increases performance.

Oh, you misunderstood.
I'm practically required to use use auto (that I believe automatically increase pci-e frequency) or manually guess the value for, say, 375MHz FSB frequency.
If I put 100 (and I stick with 375 FSB) computer hangs. If I pass 120 SATA controller doesn't respond.
But I think that if everything just work fine for you with 100MHz PCI-e... that would be the ideal value

I don't believe there is an "auto" setting for the clock ratio in my BIOS. It just sets whatever the max is for the multiplier.

Your motherboard must be strange then, if things only work right with PCI-E set to 110MHz. I guess that's like my motherboard and RAM timings; if the timings are too loose, it'll either have problems, or it just won't boot. You'd think it would be easier to get things working with looser timings than with tighter ones. Anyway, mine's set to 100 manually. It's what they recommend in the guides.

mirh wrote:

What do you mean with stability? For example, when I pass 3.5GHz overclock prime95 starts to show errors, and after 3.55 program […]
Show full quote

Skyscraper wrote:

The claimed 72C max temp has more to do with stability than what the CPU can handle without beeing damaged. Tcase is also different from core temperature.
45nm Intel chips can run 24/7 at 90+C with default voltage. Its the caps on the motherboard around the CPU I would worry about, they dont like that kind of heat.

What do you mean with stability?
For example, when I pass 3.5GHz overclock prime95 starts to show errors, and after 3.55 programs start to crash often with BSOD sometimes.
Was you referring to this?

If everything else is equal the CPU will run further from the point of instability when it runs at a cooler temperature. If the cooling solution is designed to keep the CPU well below 70C then the system will still be stable (and not suffer from thermal throttling) after 4 years when the heatsink is full of dust and the CPU temp is ... well a little bit hotter than 70C.

Intel likes to have margins. If the spec says 72C max then overclockers will overvolt less to stay within that range... less RMAs for Intel. The combination of high temperature and "too high" voltage kills CPUs faster than "too high" voltage alone. Killing a modern Intel CPU with heat alone is borderline impossible.

mr_bigmouth_502 wrote:

I don't believe there is an "auto" setting for the clock ratio in my BIOS. It just sets whatever the max is for the multiplier.

Your motherboard must be strange then, if things only work right with PCI-E set to 110MHz. I guess that's like my motherboard and RAM timings; if the timings are too loose, it'll either have problems, or it just won't boot. You'd think it would be easier to get things working with looser timings than with tighter ones. Anyway, mine's set to 100 manually. It's what they recommend in the guides.

Wtf? Every motherboard on the face of this planet has to have auto "cpu clock setting"..
It's just that yours has different names for the same things.. (I have always seen the auto/[number] selection, but that's fine)

Besides, it's not like I can't boot with 100 pci-e.. it's just that I can't exceed a certain limit without raising it (and I don't trust "auto" setting)
Anyway if 100 works for you that's perfect