Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Intel vs. AMD(Emulation Processing)
#1
Question 
I may already know the answer to this question(I know the usual "higher the MHz the better".

I currently have an AMD 3GH dual now, but when I get my new rig, I want to know if I should aim for an AMD quad or an Intel quad(both at 3.4GHz, but with Intel having more processing architectures, and costing more money).

Main question is: Is there a noticeable difference in the emulation performance with the higher SSExx-SSSEx processing?

-Ben
Reply

Sponsored links

#2
If u watch Only towards PCSX2 Intel wins it with ease (Even though I totally dislike Intel, but besides that).
Reply
#3
AMD? They're no longer can compete with Intel and it not just emulation, pretty much just about everything. These days, AMD is only good at GPU and that's about it. Maybe the server side but I don't pay much attention to it Tongue

@StriFe79

Why hate something that is far more superior? There are three things that I could think of that make one hate or dislike Intel: 1. fanboy, 2. envious/jealousy, 3. money issue (thus stuck with an inferior amd cpu).
Reply
#4
(12-22-2011, 09:29 AM)StriFe79 Wrote: If u watch Only towards PCSX2 Intel wins it with ease (Even though I totally dislike Intel, but besides that).

I'd have to say about, 25% PCSX2 and 75% PC Gaming.

I just want to know if spending more of my money on Intel will result in me having better performance with PCSX2, and if there is a big difference, like a 10-20% or so difference, and if it's worth spending money on.

My budget isn't as high as I wanted it, so I'm iffy on the stuff I want to buy.

(Perhaps someone that has owned an AMD and Intel processor can clue me in?)
Reply
#5
I'm myself a defender of AMD and actively boycott Intel since it first introduced the serial number into the CPU long ago and keep trying to push DRM and TC features directly on it.

But there is no doubts at the moment Intel has better performance and should be your choice if performance is what you need now.

Since the bulldozer was first announced sometime ago things seen to point AMD would not try to beat or surpass Intel anymore at CPU performance. Bulldozer is clearly directed to keep a shadow of competition at the mainstream level. To me it looked like AMD was betting at the integration CPU + GPU + possibly PPU (because Nvidia is the main concern to AMD now and it is somewhat ahead already with PhysX).

Bulldozer architecture screams AMD is letting to the GPU almost all non integer processing, which obviously is intended for the APUs post llano.

So, for now Intel has better performance even in bang for your buck fashion.
Imagination is where we are truly real
Reply
#6
(12-22-2011, 09:44 AM)Axxon95 Wrote: I'd have to say about, 25% PCSX2 and 75% PC Gaming.

I just want to know if spending more of my money on Intel will result in me having better performance with PCSX2, and if there is a big difference, like a 10-20% or so difference, and if it's worth spending money on.

My budget isn't as high as I wanted it, so I'm iffy on the stuff I want to buy.

(Perhaps someone that has owned an AMD and Intel processor can clue me in?)

Ok.

Quote:60.26 FPS - SLUS 20672 - Intel Core i5 2500K - 3.0 GHz (Underclock) - Rezard
58.50 FPS - SLUS 20672 - AMD Phenom II X4 955 BE - 4.0 GHz OC - Rezard

It's clear who the winner is with PCSX2 (and that's by ~25%), but one must really evaluate their situation (and the fact that 25% better is ~100% more costly). I had a friend who had me help him build a PC (the actual owner of that Phenom), and I recommended the Phenom to him. The reason being he was a bit budget conscious, and would be using it more for native-PC games. Sometimes you can settle for less if it's all you need.

AMD's best at a high clock can definitely handle some of the heaviest PS2 emulation, but you may find a few that really need that little bit more for the best experience possible. If there happen to be certain games you'd just be too disapointed to have run slow, then you should just look into those a bit.
Reply
#7
Quote:I may already know the answer to this question(I know the usual "higher the MHz the better".

this hasn't been the case for 6 years

its now more like "architecture + mhz"
Reply
#8
Intel wins this race . Go with intel. And a good gpu.
Reply
#9
(12-22-2011, 11:54 AM)Squall Leonhart Wrote: this hasn't been the case for 6 years

its now more like "architecture + mhz"

FX-8150 Turbo is 4.2 GHz and still can't compete with the i5 2500 ( 3.3 GHz ) at single core performance


and since the silicon layers can't handle a lot of Mhz

so it should be ( architecture X2 + Mhz )

Reply
#10
Yes, Intel does win the race, but AMD spent less on gas to still arrive at the finish line. Wink

Comparing clocks?
AMD's best nets you about 1.5fps per 100Mhz, and Intel's best is about 2fps per 100Mhz.
Probably worth mentioning that Intel's at stock is faster that AMD's at it's max, and can reach higher clocks with greater ease, too. Yet even some games considered of the heaviest could run full speed with the two processors I posted at that ~60fps clockrate. (e.g. Tekken 5, Metal Gear Solid 3, Shadow of the Colossus)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)