Did you review the source or profile the emu, or do you make your judgement out of what you believe the implementation of an accurate SNES emulator should take?
In the former case, cold you enlighten us on the parts that are slower then they should be.
In the latter case, please have a look at the source.
Yes, I did, version 089 (http://bsnes.googlecode.com/files/bsnes_v089.tar.xz). Is clean and well written C++, but in addition to the accuracy, I see a problem in the emulation itself: templates, data structures, L1 data cache usage, synchronization. In my opinion, that emulator could be rewritten in plain C, with better data structures, and without such rare synchronization, using just one quarter of the resources is using today (v089).
I pointed just 2 things: 1) against the byuu affirmation about Nesticle ROM patching for speed (in my opinion the speed of Nesticle was because of great implementation of the Bloodlust folks, via 386 assembly -both for the Watcom C + TASM DOS/DOS4GW case, and the Win32 port-), and 2) the non-sense of a whole 3GHz (with 3 of 4 threads at 100% usage), for running a SNES system, even with 100% accuracy.
In the former case, cold you enlighten us on the parts that are slower then they should be.
In the latter case, please have a look at the source.