I was speaking more about the flux detection limit of such a dish (implicitly assuming the receiver could make sufficiently short measurements to enable folding of the data to detect pulses in the time-folded dataset). One could try to coherently sum the measurements from a number of telescopes to increase the signal to noise.
Alternately, one could also try to detect the pulsar by averaging over the pulse profile, but that still requires that the telescope+receiver sensitivity is better than the period-averaged flux density. But then you're risking confusion of other, continuum, radio sources in the beam.
It's still the case that most pulsars are much fainter few GHz frequencies than they are 1 GHz (e.g., https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2053). Though there are likely selection effects (discussed in the linked paper), most of the pulsars we know about can be expected to be ~40x fainter at 10 GHz than they are at 1 GHz. The linked paper cites a 6.5 GHz survey that identified 18 pulsars (compared to > 1000 detected in the ~1.4 GHz survey).
I suppose it depends on what one's aims are, though. Someone wanting to only detect pulsars in general, it'd be easier to do at lower frequencies. But there's certainly some science to be done by observing them at higher frequencies.