# what is the bst gpu and cpu for emulation



## sebbydaman (May 13, 2017)

I want to do dolphin and ps2 mostly and want to know which are the best mins and max ( just using textures but dont really care about 4 k. also want laptop options. 

     I want the ryzen 1600 for desktop but dont know how well it premors because I know emulators prefer a high clock speed in single core. for  laptop would a 1060 or 1050 be overkill ??


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 13, 2017)

Well, actually a GTX 1050 is far from being overkill for emulators like Dolphin at high settings. If you crank up the resolution and add HD textures, you could need up to a 1080. Also, remember a LOT of emulators don't work well with AMD CPUs, like CemU.


----------



## Glyptofane (May 13, 2017)

You need the fastest CPU you can afford and then still hope it will be enough. GPU for emulation generally only needs to be something decent.


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (May 13, 2017)

Yeah, also the CPU. Especially DS emulators that run 100% on the CPU (StapleButter is dev'ing one, melonDS. For the moment, an i7-7700K struggles to deliver full speed )


----------



## sebbydaman (May 13, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Yeah, also the CPU. Especially DS emulators that run 100% on the CPU (StapleButter is dev'ing one, melonDS. For the moment, an i7-7700K struggles to deliver full speed )


really-_- hmm needs way more optimization then but what about just decent settings like 1080 p and 60 fps . will that help against needing a 1080 or 1080 ti


----------



## Futurdreamz (May 14, 2017)

I think it depends on if emulators benefit from multiple processors or not. If they do, AMD. if not, Intel. I think that holds true even with Ryzen, but it is close.


----------



## nero99 (Jul 3, 2017)

StarTrekVoyager said:


> Well, actually a GTX 1050 is far from being overkill for emulators like Dolphin at high settings. If you crank up the resolution and add HD textures, you could need up to a 1080. Also, remember a LOT of emulators don't work well with AMD CPUs, like CemU.


I know this thread is just old, but don't spread misinformation. Cemu works fine with amd cards and cpus.. I'm using a amd ryzen 1600 and a power color red devil RX580 8gb with no issues, except for the current bugs in cemu itself. Been playing MK8 and BOTW at 30fps for botw, and between 50-60fps for mk8


----------



## StarTrekVoyager (Jul 3, 2017)

There have been reports of bugs with CemU with AMD cards.


----------



## petethepug (Jul 4, 2017)

Any PC can handle most games (at a stable framerate for Dolphin Emulator.) With almost any PC. I have a Windows 7 un-edited Pavilion HP PC (I forget model but I think its 500.) And with an earlier version of Dolphin it ran at 30 FPS with some noteable frame drops playing Legend of Zelda Windwaker (minimum it went down to 25 or 28.)

For PS2 your going to want a decent CPU as it has trouble running on emulators. The best FPS I got with my hardware is 10 - 20 FPS with frequent frame drops playing Jak and Daxter and some very noticeable visual glitches.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

For PS2 emulation I wouldn't go anything under sandy bridge CPU on intel side. For AMD I wouldn't even be thinking of emulating because of poor single core performance but I suppose an FX OC'd high would work.


----------



## Deleted-379826 (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> For PS2 emulation I wouldn't go anything under sandy bridge CPU on intel side. For AMD I wouldn't even be thinking of emulating because of poor single core performance but I suppose an FX OC'd high would work.


That's unfortunate, PS2 emulation is bad on AMD chips? Grabbing the Ryzen 5 1600x, should surely be powerful enough, no?


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

TheVinAnator said:


> That's unfortunate, PS2 emulation is bad on AMD chips? Grabbing the Ryzen 5 1600x, should surely be powerful enough, no?



CPUs matter much, much, much more for modern emulation than gpus. Since graphics generally translate fairly painlessly from an emulation perspective there's little use for power there because it's the CPU that's emulating almost everything. If you get a top of the line AMD processor you should be fine with emulation if you're going for middling you're just better off paying the intel tax if emulation is a primary concern because then it does make a difference, in fact it can make a pretty huge difference.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> For PS2 emulation I wouldn't go anything under sandy bridge CPU on intel side. For AMD I wouldn't even be thinking of emulating because of poor single core performance but I suppose an FX OC'd high would work.


I played a number of PS2 titles just fine on my FX 8350, which happens to be underclocked at 3.9GHz.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> I played a number of PS2 titles just fine on my FX 8350, which happens to be underclocked at 3.9GHz.



Yeah Per core

Nobody has mentioned it yet but one of the reasons why Intel CPUs are better than AMD CPUs (clock for clock) is because Intel handles more Instructions per Clock. Per core, Intel CPUs are up to 40% stronger than an equivalent AMD CPU. AMD only balance that out with more physical cores, which gives them an advantage in multi-threaded tasks.

AMD have the edge in the low budget market with their FX line, but for anything that needs a stronger CPU, it's Intel all the way.


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> Yeah Per core
> 
> Nobody has mentioned it yet but one of the reasons why Intel CPUs are better than AMD CPUs (clock for clock) is because Intel handles more Instructions per Clock. Per core, Intel CPUs are up to 40% stronger than an equivalent AMD CPU. AMD only balance that out with more physical cores, which gives them an advantage in multi-threaded tasks.
> 
> AMD have the edge in the low budget market with their APUs, but for anything that needs a stronger CPU, it's Intel all the way.


huh....

"poor single core performance but I suppose an FX OC'd high would work."

I was stating, no need for any overclocking... Mine is slightly underclocked and performs just fine. Plus, Ryzen's single-core performance is by no means bad.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> huh....



Sorry meant to say FX not APU


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> Sorry meant to say FX not APU


My point stands. I've edited the post with it exactly, as I may not have been clear enough.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

I am not saying amd is bad for emulation just a poor choice but ryzen probably does way better than the phenoms, fx apu etc would do


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> I am not saying amd is bad for emulation just a poor choice but ryzen probably does way better than the phenoms, fx apu etc would do


Again, my main point was against "FX OC'd high would work.". No. Not at all. As I've said, mine is even underclocked.

Also, it's not really a "poor choice". It works decently, plus Ryzen is definitely powerful enough.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> Again, my main point was against "FX OC'd high would work.". No. Not at all. As I've said, mine is even underclocked.
> 
> Also, it's not really a "poor choice". It works decently, plus Ryzen is definitely powerful enough.



There is more than one FX CPU you know


----------



## gnmmarechal (Jul 10, 2017)

jDSX said:


> There is more than one FX CPU you know


...

Not sure if you're just trying to get out of this without admitting you're wrong or not.


"an FX OC'd high would work." is most certainly implying that "there is no FX CPU that can perform this task without a high overclock", which is definitely untrue.

The proper way to say that only higher-end FX CPUs would be suitable for this task would be something along the lines of "A higher-end FX or an overclocked lower end one". That, even if untrue (I cannot affirm nor deny that, for I do not own weaker FX models, nor do I want to spend my time pointlessly going and fetching performance results for a number of CPUs I'm not particularly interested in, as it serves nothing in my point), would be a much more accurate statement.


----------



## jDSX (Jul 10, 2017)

gnmmarechal said:


> ...
> 
> Not sure if you're just trying to get out of this without admitting you're wrong or not.
> 
> ...




So you have a 8 core FX 8350 that can run emulate games at 60fps. Great!

But what I am trying to say is in general the AMD line x4 810, fx4100 8120 etc all suffer from poor IPC the only thing that they beat intel  is in raw cores

EDIT: By the way this is true to it's word

"Just because a CPU has a high clock speed (e.g. in GHz) doesn't mean that it is powerful.[ For example, a 4GHz Pentium 4 is much, much less powerful than a 3GHz i5. Though "i5" is quite vague, as that could be any of the generations or models, P4s are just that weak. Newer CPUs are almost always better. Though the particular architechture does matter.A common misconception is that a higher CPU clock speed guarantees improved emulation performance. Although clock speed is one of the main factors for good CPU performance, it is not the determining factor. Newer CPUs generally perform better than older ones at similar clock speeds. For example, a 2.4 GHz dual-core Intel Core 2 processor will generally outperform a 3.2 GHz dual-core Intel Pentium D processor. Even though the Pentium D is clocked higher, the Core 2 Duo is faster due to the Core microarchitecture of the Core 2 Duo having so much higher instructions per clock than Netburst microarchitecture of the Pentium D that it can do more instructions per second despite having lower frequency. This is true of many modern Intel vs AMD processors  as the high-end Intel processors are more efficient than the high-end AMD processors. Main reason for that is because Intel processors have higher performing floating-point units, and far greater cache/memory bandwidth/lower latency."


----------

