Dolphin, the GameCube and Wii emulator - Forums

Finally, an AMD processor that run as well modern emulators.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1700x-38...ks-leaked/

Not until I see Dolphin Benchmark . Just to keep in mind that Ivy Bridge is 30% slower than Haswell in Dolphin
In real life , haswell is not that fast , only 5->6% better than Ivy Bridge
AMD FX series also did well on other benchmarks but when it comes to emulator like Dolphin , you never know...
I would wait for Anandtech review , as they always do Dolphin Benchmark
For Example , they did it on i7 7700k
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10968/the-...champion/3
Just to be clear , most modern AMD CPUs are good enough for Dolphin if you overclock them . I tried Dolphin on A10 6790k @ 5.0GHz , most games run well , even demanding games like TLS (though I do have some slowdown)
As long as AMD keep their promise , their CPU should be able to run most games well

I understand, but the benchmark already shows that the IPC gains are real, and very expressive. STP is the most important when it comes to emulators, isn't it?

With pcsx2, at least, that's the way ...

Are there other benches besides CPU mark? Synthetic is meh.

This isn't "confirmed" or even about modern emulators. This thread title is extremely misleading.

I do however think that those results are PROBABLY what we can expect. Good multithreaded performance but singlethreaded performance still lagging behind Intel. Which means emulators will likely continue to run better on Intel setups.

(02-15-2017, 11:47 PM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]This isn't "confirmed" or even about modern emulators.  This thread title is extremely misleading.

I do however think that those results are PROBABLY what we can expect.  Good multithreaded performance but singlethreaded performance still lagging behind Intel.  Which means emulators will likely continue to run better on Intel setups.

Yeah... It makes perfect sense.



"Regardless of the fact that the engineering sample we’re looking at may be only running at 3.4Ghz without Turbo, the result would remain just as impressive even if it was hitting its intended Turbo clock speed of 3.8GHz. It manages to successfully edge out the 5960X and the 6800K and falls behind the 6900K by no more than 3%. That’s a very impressive feat considering Intel’s i7-6900K and i7-6800K both turbo up to 4Ghz and 3.8Ghz respectively in single threaded mode thanks to Broadwell-E’s Turbo Boost 3.0 feature. This means that even if the Ryzen engineering sample was in fact running at 3.8GHz Turbo frequency, it would still be outperforming Broadwell-E clock for clock ever so slightly."

More Benchs 1600x:

Intel:

http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5-1600x-cp...mark-leak/