Ryzen 5 2400G vs Ryzen 5 1600? More cores vs higher single thread rating

[NealD4]

I'm using a Ryzen 5 2400G with no graphics card and it's all right. Soon I'll get a GTX 1650 and I'm thinking about getting a Ryzen 5 1600. I checked single thread benchmarks and the 1600's score is 77 less than the 2400G (2,108 vs. 2,185).

I know that emulators rely on CPU a lot so here's my question: Would the 1600 be better or worse than the 2400G in running games, or is the difference too low to have any noticeable effect? Or would the extra cores and threads affect performance more than single thread rating?

[sirdaniel]

77 points is not much really. But 1600 has more cache memory L1/L3, but 2400G has more Mghz. So it looks like these equals more or less. Some dev maybe or other enthusiast could say more what is better for pcsx2 Mghz or cache - historically clock was main advantage, so i would stick to 2400g basing on pure data sheet and turn off igpu for save energy and more tdp headroom
You will not gain in pcsx2 going into more cores. Might gain in other apps though.

[fender178]

PSCX2 is a single threaded application just like the console it is emulating. So having more cores won't help in terms of clock speed the 2400G is better than the 1600 and in single threaded performance. So having a higher clock speed indeed does help. However if you look at the PS3 emulator or the Wii-U emulator those two like to have more cores and threads because those consoles are multi-threaded.