F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Discussion about CPU requirements for emulation hardware

Discussion about CPU requirements for emulation hardware

Discussion about CPU requirements for emulation hardware

I
Inezze009
Senior Member
716
03-17-2017, 10:13 PM
#1
You're planning a custom setup with an i3 7350k and a Ryzen 3 2200G, both paired with B350 and Z270 motherboards. For emulation, the i3 OCs run at 5 GHz, but you're unsure about the Ryzen's performance. You're looking for a budget GTX 1060 to match your build, so GPU choices aren't critical. Your main focus is on upgrading to PS2 and 3DS, which are top priorities. Emulators are generally single-threaded, though newer versions may offer multi-thread support. The quad-core Zen 3 CPU could be a solid choice now for better performance. Let me know if you need more details!
I
Inezze009
03-17-2017, 10:13 PM #1

You're planning a custom setup with an i3 7350k and a Ryzen 3 2200G, both paired with B350 and Z270 motherboards. For emulation, the i3 OCs run at 5 GHz, but you're unsure about the Ryzen's performance. You're looking for a budget GTX 1060 to match your build, so GPU choices aren't critical. Your main focus is on upgrading to PS2 and 3DS, which are top priorities. Emulators are generally single-threaded, though newer versions may offer multi-thread support. The quad-core Zen 3 CPU could be a solid choice now for better performance. Let me know if you need more details!

D
Devies
Member
185
03-19-2017, 06:30 PM
#2
I think i3 might perform better, but it varies with the emulation tools you use. In general, it demands a lot of single-threaded power and can only handle a few threads at once, making a very fast dual-core or maximum quad-core setup likely your optimal choice. Trading speed for cores usually doesn’t improve emulation results. For this scenario, Intel and AMD processors tend to have similar performance per instruction, though the Intel chip can reach up to 4.2 GHz (possibly higher based on your input) while the Ryzen model tops around 3.7 GHz with a likely maximum of 4.0 GHz at most (typical limit for first-gen Ryzen). If you already have everything ready, I’d suggest testing both systems yourself to compare directly. If you’re set, it’s free to experiment and discover what works best.
D
Devies
03-19-2017, 06:30 PM #2

I think i3 might perform better, but it varies with the emulation tools you use. In general, it demands a lot of single-threaded power and can only handle a few threads at once, making a very fast dual-core or maximum quad-core setup likely your optimal choice. Trading speed for cores usually doesn’t improve emulation results. For this scenario, Intel and AMD processors tend to have similar performance per instruction, though the Intel chip can reach up to 4.2 GHz (possibly higher based on your input) while the Ryzen model tops around 3.7 GHz with a likely maximum of 4.0 GHz at most (typical limit for first-gen Ryzen). If you already have everything ready, I’d suggest testing both systems yourself to compare directly. If you’re set, it’s free to experiment and discover what works best.

H
HiperEg
Member
152
03-24-2017, 12:18 AM
#3
I thought so too. I intended to proceed regardless... I’m missing a GPU for testing, but I’ll save the 1 gb HD 7770 for something else. Maybe we can still gather some data. Appreciate the advice.
H
HiperEg
03-24-2017, 12:18 AM #3

I thought so too. I intended to proceed regardless... I’m missing a GPU for testing, but I’ll save the 1 gb HD 7770 for something else. Maybe we can still gather some data. Appreciate the advice.

J
jr5455
Junior Member
4
03-26-2017, 12:33 AM
#4
I suspect either of these systems should be enough for the consoles you mentioned, but if for some reason they're not enough, or you want to try something more demanding in the future, an update to a very high clocked 9th gen Intel or Zen 2 CPU might make the difference if you only need a few more frames, but these things tend to be more of a pass/fail situation. As in, it will work, or it'll run at like 10 fps - not a small margin you can resolve with hardware changes. In these cases, there's no choice but to simply wait for software optimizations.
J
jr5455
03-26-2017, 12:33 AM #4

I suspect either of these systems should be enough for the consoles you mentioned, but if for some reason they're not enough, or you want to try something more demanding in the future, an update to a very high clocked 9th gen Intel or Zen 2 CPU might make the difference if you only need a few more frames, but these things tend to be more of a pass/fail situation. As in, it will work, or it'll run at like 10 fps - not a small margin you can resolve with hardware changes. In these cases, there's no choice but to simply wait for software optimizations.

E
EdenMarie
Member
190
03-26-2017, 02:38 AM
#5
Upgrade your LGA1151 board with CoffeeMod and set it up for i3-8350K. Then perform an overclock. Emulation needs some tweaks, but high-speed cores are ideal.
E
EdenMarie
03-26-2017, 02:38 AM #5

Upgrade your LGA1151 board with CoffeeMod and set it up for i3-8350K. Then perform an overclock. Emulation needs some tweaks, but high-speed cores are ideal.

C
Clareesuh
Member
245
04-06-2017, 05:52 PM
#6
The i3 offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Ryzen provides 4 cores and 4 threads. However, I think the i3 might be preferable at the moment due to its higher clock speed.
C
Clareesuh
04-06-2017, 05:52 PM #6

The i3 offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Ryzen provides 4 cores and 4 threads. However, I think the i3 might be preferable at the moment due to its higher clock speed.

M
moonhoax
Member
148
04-08-2017, 06:41 PM
#7
The i3 performs much better than the 2200G, except for the PS2 which matches 1080p quality. 4K might behave differently, but I'm testing with a 1050 Ti and that's beyond my reach until I have a 1060/1070. The same applies to native PC games, though frame stability improves with the Ryzen. I'll share updates once I upgrade my GPU.
M
moonhoax
04-08-2017, 06:41 PM #7

The i3 performs much better than the 2200G, except for the PS2 which matches 1080p quality. 4K might behave differently, but I'm testing with a 1050 Ti and that's beyond my reach until I have a 1060/1070. The same applies to native PC games, though frame stability improves with the Ryzen. I'll share updates once I upgrade my GPU.

D
DJ_PvPz
Member
184
04-13-2017, 07:54 PM
#8
I own a laptop equipped with i5u / 940mx that definitely handles emulation more smoothly than my previous 2200G / 1060 setup... Most games ran without problems, especially on PS2 titles. I haven’t tested it yet with my newer 3600 / 1060 combo but I’m optimistic it will improve. Intel remains the best choice for emulation here, just because of better support. That said, the RPCS3 creator confirmed the 3600 would work fine, so ultimately it comes down to personal preference. For me, the i5u version offers less input lag and steadier frames. However, game type still plays a big role. Namco fighting games (like Fatal Frame) worked perfectly on the laptop at 2k resolution with no issues on the older combo. While that looked impressive and helped preserve the game’s quality, I’d still recommend Intel for overall performance.
D
DJ_PvPz
04-13-2017, 07:54 PM #8

I own a laptop equipped with i5u / 940mx that definitely handles emulation more smoothly than my previous 2200G / 1060 setup... Most games ran without problems, especially on PS2 titles. I haven’t tested it yet with my newer 3600 / 1060 combo but I’m optimistic it will improve. Intel remains the best choice for emulation here, just because of better support. That said, the RPCS3 creator confirmed the 3600 would work fine, so ultimately it comes down to personal preference. For me, the i5u version offers less input lag and steadier frames. However, game type still plays a big role. Namco fighting games (like Fatal Frame) worked perfectly on the laptop at 2k resolution with no issues on the older combo. While that looked impressive and helped preserve the game’s quality, I’d still recommend Intel for overall performance.

B
bkelton
Member
211
04-19-2017, 03:18 PM
#9
Clear to grasp, this pattern emerged when Ryzen first hit the market with slower clock speeds compared to Intel yet boasted more cores. While average frame rates were lower, the performance drops at 1% and 0.1% were better, suggesting a genuinely improved feel. Later, Intel introduced high-core CPUs that now match Ryzen in gaming performance, and most titles perform much worse on just dual cores.
B
bkelton
04-19-2017, 03:18 PM #9

Clear to grasp, this pattern emerged when Ryzen first hit the market with slower clock speeds compared to Intel yet boasted more cores. While average frame rates were lower, the performance drops at 1% and 0.1% were better, suggesting a genuinely improved feel. Later, Intel introduced high-core CPUs that now match Ryzen in gaming performance, and most titles perform much worse on just dual cores.

S
Snehalsparx
Junior Member
4
04-26-2017, 09:32 PM
#10
I also own an Intel/NVidia machine (i5 7300hq and 1050ti) that handles most PS2 titles smoothly. Problems appear during software rendering tasks (Ratchet and Clank; Gran Turismo 4) and the slower clock speed struggles with the load. With the 2200G I didn’t overclock it, or the RAM (just DDR4 2400) didn’t seem to affect my tests, though my rendering at native settings worked well. Witcher 3 and Gears 5 performed okay in stock mode but had stutter issues at 2c/4t; 4.9GHz fixed that. The Ryzen handled everything without needing any overclocking.
S
Snehalsparx
04-26-2017, 09:32 PM #10

I also own an Intel/NVidia machine (i5 7300hq and 1050ti) that handles most PS2 titles smoothly. Problems appear during software rendering tasks (Ratchet and Clank; Gran Turismo 4) and the slower clock speed struggles with the load. With the 2200G I didn’t overclock it, or the RAM (just DDR4 2400) didn’t seem to affect my tests, though my rendering at native settings worked well. Witcher 3 and Gears 5 performed okay in stock mode but had stutter issues at 2c/4t; 4.9GHz fixed that. The Ryzen handled everything without needing any overclocking.