Which AMD CPU would you recommend ... ?

[Nobbs66]

Definitely a valuable list. Has just about every CPU you can think of.

But one thing I think you guys need to realize is that most programs don't rely on single thread performance the way PCSX2 does. If that's your whole logic then your limiting your self to higher cost Intel based CPU's with a max of 4 cores which I think is currently the most Intel offers.

Versus if you take a more balanced approach you can get a more reasonably priced AMD based CPU with a max of 8 cores.

Still loses

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/1544?vs=697

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/1107


Also, my 6 core 12 thread Intel chip was only $400.


If I had $1000, I could have gone for the 8 core 16 thread 5960x.

[FlatOut]

Definitely a valuable list. Has just about every CPU you can think of.

But one thing I think you guys need to realize is that most programs don't rely on single thread performance the way PCSX2 does. If that's your whole logic then your limiting your self to higher cost Intel based CPU's with a max of 4 cores which I think is currently the most Intel offers.

Versus if you take a more balanced approach you can get a more reasonably priced AMD based CPU with a max of 8 cores.

From the first post: "Which AMD CPU(s) would you recommend specifically for PCSX2?"
That's why we're limiting ourselves.

Intel got plenty more cores on offer. if you've thousands of dollars to spare, you can even get an 18 core Intel processor.

[tsunami2311]

If he looking of recommendation that for PCSX2 emulations Amd is not the way to go if he look for pc gaming  Amd is still not the way to go as most PC games are still STP orientated still, just like PCSX2 only PCSX2 is way more demanding then any PC game. Amd is better at mulit core orientated programs and they were banking on that 5+ years ago, but to this date very little use multi core correctly let alone even uses it.

If money is issue you could go AMD but would need to probably still OC, and there are i3 and i5 that same price of the amd chip that better still.

Till Amd release there "zen" chip and it actual does what  say it will on paper, I wouldnt recommend Amd to no one that does any kind of gaming.less money really is issue or they just amd loyal besides the gains the "zen" claims will only put on par with what intel has now not surpass them.

Like I said Amd need to pull that magic rabbit out there hat with "zen" and it actual has to surpass what they claim it will do to put any pressure on Intel. and for all we know the reason why Intel has not released a chip that better then last years chip by more then few %, Is cause there sitting on it cause they knew about Amd "zen" chip and are waiting for it release to see if it does what they claim it will before Intel release that chip. And we would all be screw if that Intel chip  just runs circles around the "zen" chip including Amd. as Intel will charge extra premium for  over what they already do, which no one would want.

Amd is more concerned about Mobile/APU these days.

[dogen]

Definitely a valuable list. Has just about every CPU you can think of.

But one thing I think you guys need to realize is that most programs don't rely on single thread performance the way PCSX2 does. If that's your whole logic then your limiting your self to higher cost Intel based CPU's with a max of 4 cores which I think is currently the most Intel offers.

Versus if you take a more balanced approach you can get a more reasonably priced AMD based CPU with a max of 8 cores.

An 8 core AMD will give you the best performance for stuff like encoding, for the price.
But you can get an i3 for less, and it's between a 4 and 6 core AMD in muti core performance, and at least 50% faster in single core performance.

And I do think most programs are single threaded anyway.



If you really want to switch to AMD, wait for Zen. If it clocks high enough, it should roughly match Haswell.

[StriFe]

People should stop trying to convince people, if he wants an AMD then let him/her. Threadstarter I would recommend you definetly to wait till AMD Zen comes out. Also ppl should stop saying you must have a need of STP of 1600, cause it depends which game he/she wants to run, for the games I run my Phenom II x4 980 BE is fast enough to run them at 60 fps with ease.

[refraction]

People should stop trying to convince people, if he wants an AMD then let him/her. Threadstarter I would recommend you definetly to wait till AMD Zen comes out. Also ppl should stop saying you must have a need of STP of 1600, cause it depends which game he/she wants to run, for the games I run my Phenom II x4 980 BE is fast enough to run them at 60 fps with ease.

While that might be true, they might just want to play say, monster hunter now, which doesn't need a mighty CPU, but when you're spending $100+ on a CPU to play it, then you decide to play GTA or MGS, it's gonna run like crap on a pre 1600STP cpu, then you need to buy another CPU to reach that performance. It's not just about what's okay for now, it's what's going to last somebody a good while.

If you do want to go AMD, as advised, wait for Zen, there are supposed to be huge improvements which will at least pretty much bring their chips in line with Intel ones. If you don't want to wait, look at getting an i5 intel CPU if you can stretch to it.

[tsunami2311]

1600 on intel and 1600 on amd are not the same either. there are games Blyss has issue with on his AMD system that I have no issues with, namely Xenosaga and it and some of it scenes, he struggles to keep 40 fps in some of scenes where as my system keep 60 in those same scene using same setting, and his AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz has  1600+stp last I checked,  base of his AMD FX 6300  is like 1400 my system is barely 1200stp. rest of our system pretty similar.

I even show blyss recordings of this and I wasnt using the internal record of pcsx2 that show full speed reguardless, so i pretty sure AMD STP and INTEL STP are not equal when it comes to pcsx2.

amd it not really be reccomend cause it not really worth it for pcsx2 less OC'ed even then. like been said if MUST have amd wait till zen is released.

[refraction]

1600 on intel and 1600 on amd are not the same either. there are games Blyss has issue with on his AMD system that I have no issues with, namely Xenosaga and it and some of it scenes, he struggles to keep 40 fps in some of scenes where as my system keep 60 in those same scene using same setting, and his AMD FX 6300 @ 4.4Ghz has  1600+stp last I checked,  base of his AMD FX 6300  is like 1400 my system is barely 1200stp. rest of our system pretty similar.

I even show blyss recordings of this and I wasnt using the internal record of pcsx2 that show full speed reguardless, so i pretty sure AMD STP and INTEL STP are not equal when it comes to pcsx2.

It could also depend if you are still running at stock and how much you are turboing too, remember an overclocked 6300 will not turbo, but the STP benchmark on cpubenchmark may have gotten a better turbo from the AMD than the intel CPU, the listing of < 1200 STP for the 920 seems too low to be honest, and it flew when you hit 3.6Ghz

I sincerely doubt that the stock AMD FX 6300 outperforms a stock i7-920 on STP, it's been a long time since 300mhz difference has swung it for AMD, especially for 300 points in the cpu benchmark.

[tsunami2311]

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu...re&id=1781


https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu...GHz&id=834


http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i7-92...MD-FX-6300

even this show stp to better on the fx 6300

at stock the FX has more STP yet runs worse so either those are wrong or pcsx2 dont like amd architecture. intel need less stp then amd needs to get the better performance either way they are not equal and no i am not OCing everything is stock. so imo STP of 1600 for both an Intel and Amd chip are not equal the Intel is gona run better.

[dogen]

I sincerely doubt that the stock AMD FX 6300 outperforms a stock i7-920 on STP, it's been a long time since 300mhz difference has swung it for AMD, especially for 300 points in the cpu benchmark.

Well, the 6300 turbos up to 4.1Ghz, and the 920 only 2.93, so it's still behind in IPC, but faster because it's running at a 40% higher clock speed.