Well that's interesting...

[cdoublejj]

So I was playing around with my HTPC which has a Regor 240 clocked @ 3.6 with 4gb of ddr2 800 and an Nvidia GT640 and decided to see how bad Legend Of Zelda Skyword Sword would lag and found it plays at a nice 30fps with minimal lag here and here. All though with a large file copy going on the back ground it dropped to 20-24fps.

[KHg8m3r]

I'm actually surprised that an Athlon X2 managed to get that high

[cdoublejj]

It's shame I don't have a worth while video camera to record with. The most notable lag is when Link picks an item up and shows it to the screen/player. Other wise it's 30 FPS. I haven't gotten far in to the game though, i haven't done the flying race or wings ceremony or what ever it is.

[cdoublejj]

Tested Super Mario galaxy up to the first "sling shot" a nice steady 40-60 FPS.

it should be noted that the resolution is or should be 1360x768.

Although SMG did crash out i may still have the CPU clocked a wii bit too high.

[kirbypuff]

Not so surprising.

The Athlon II X2 (Regor with 1MB of L2 cache) has almost the same performance per clock as a fully-featured Phenom II* (Deneb with huge L3 cache) ! when overclocked.
What's even more interesting is the more you overclock it, the better it gets (unlike the Phenom II).

Regor is actually even better than the Phenom II in terms of power consumption, price (they're dirt cheap), memory throughput, latency and overclocking potential (almost every CPU sample can overclock by more than 20% at *stock* voltage)


* There's still no modern AMD CPU or APU that can match Phenom II's performance per clock.

[KHg8m3r]

Seeing how Dolphin relies on the single-core speeds of CPUs, and the Athlon X2 series (including the Athlon X2 240 that the OP has) have some pretty shitty single-core speeds. In Dolphin tests, it's slower than the Wii itself at performing GC/Wii emulation, sitting at number 63 (at stock speeds, mind you. The OP is probably sitting higher due to his overclock)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AunYlOAfGABxdFQ0UzJyTFAxbzZhYWtGcGwySlRFa1E#gid=0

And pretty much any newer A8, A10, or FX-8xxx series CPU will beat it. In fact, literally anything newer than a Core 2 Quad from Intel will beat it.

[kirbypuff]

Updated the previous post.

(11-02-2014, 10:40 AM)KHg8m3r Wrote: And pretty much any newer A8, A10, or FX-8xxx series CPU will beat it. In fact, literally anything newer than a Core 2 Quad from Intel will beat it.

Performance per clock. An Athlon II clocked at 3.6GHz will beat any FX CPU or A-series APU clocked at 3.6GHz (without turbo boost)

[DatKid20]

A10-7850k says hi.

[KHg8m3r]

(11-02-2014, 10:49 AM)kirbypuff Wrote: Performance per clock. An Athlon II clocked at 3.6GHz will beat any FX CPU or A-series APU clocked at 3.6GHz (without turbo boost)

Pretty sure that at the same clock speeds the new FX and A-series CPUs will beat out the Athlon X2, since they support newer instruction sets and have faster IPCs

[kirbypuff]

FX CPUs = No way, their performance per clock (especially with floating point calculations) is abysmal, The only good thing is the improved memory bandwidth.
A-Series APUs based on the Athlon II with additional tweaks and new instructions = Sure