My 2013 i3 can't run PSP and SNES games with 99%+ accuracy anymore

I'm this guy and Demon's Souls used to work a lot worse, but a recent update made it perfect so these results of old videos can't be trusted.

Persona (5) is shit, but I tried it for benchmark reasons.

The game is never at 20 fps, the streets were troublesome in the past, but now they work like all the other places in the game, with the right config tweaks.

That video is actually older than the regressions as you can clearly see.

Prove it.

Also who the fuck cares about the 2600 anymore, its 3600/X where its at.

youtube.com/watch?v=y4kp33TVmjQ
20fps rdr which is lower than intel chips, rdr is a bad game to benchmark though, most chips seem to run at 30fps
youtube.com/watch?v=-fz-hPylhgs
20fps persona 5..... there's honestly no reason looking further into this chip at this point. it's dipping below 60fps in dungeons too, this is like 4 year old Intel tier.

maybe these guys just don't know what they're doing but amd still seems bad for emulators.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

If you aren't looking at the fps counter you will never notice the 1 second dip. Also I don't know what settings this guy is using, he might be retarded.

Also 60fps causes glitches so you should play at 30 anyway.

Now also give Intel videos, and also give the price comparison.

And when you do that, it will immediately become obvious why Intel is not worth. You literally won't be able to tell for the vast majority of the time if you swapped CPU's and wasn't glued to the counter.

So is it juat not optimized or what? R5 3600(X) seems to have i7 7700k perf in benches.

What you're talking about is what you call AMD cope user.

The bottom line is that AMD is just inferior to Intel. There is technical jargon to explain why but I don't know it.

Not to mention it has better/on par performance compared to the actual hardware, and the CPU isn't fully utilized, so there is a lot of room for improvement.

Also there can be done other comparisons outside of emulators, even if you care for them mostly, you are using your PC for other stuff as well, and the comparison there favours AMD price/performance wise.

I just searched around a bit. But the problem seems to only persist in RPCS3 and sometimes in CEMU.
This might just be because of how the emulator emulates the games.

Man, Americans do love paying premium price for inferior products.

Mainly because older emulators require less juice. If you uncap frame rates you'll see Intel blast ahead of AMD in any emulator though. Intel is just better.

Attached: 1543920253881.jpg (1920x413, 139K)

>ww3 starts next year
time for your depixol sweetie

There's nothing inferior about them. AMD is years behind with every single release they put out. Spending less to get a cheaper product is what you're all about.

But single core perf is closely matching in 3rd gen and the ryzen has more threads (12 vs 8) unless I can't read.

Lot has changed in few months.

>youtube.com/watch?v=ajr7K_mUOzk

Then it must be great for emulation and all other games! Go ahead and purchase it, don't regret it now.
youtube.com/watch?v=6b-QDHU_tbM

youtube.com/watch?v=_FtvApqhSBE

Lots have changed since a year ago in RPCS3. You can now get ~40-50fps in street area in p5 with just Ryzen 1600.

Seems like people here are posting year old or months old emulator that's in constant development without checking for recent performances.

>modern emulators want a lot of cores

Attached: 1509382848103.png (548x666, 361K)

I that why it's dropping to sub 30 in that street?

I'm playing PSP games on an i5 2400 and they run without any problems.

Ryzen 3 3700x is 31.3% cheaper for like 10% of the performance hit.
I don't see the problem here.
Also why not compare to the 3800x which is 399 or the 3900x which is 499, both closer to the price range?

Funny how entire /g/ and the rest of the Internet has the opposite opinion, but OK, you are the expert here man.

>drops to 28 for a split second
I guess the emulator devs need to fix their shit

>Also why not compare to the 3800x which is 399 or the 3900x which is 499, both closer to the price range?
He's a shill, don't bother.

>for like 10% of the performance hit.
It's more than this and if you don't care about inferior performance go ahead and get it dude, no one is saying you can't. 10% in an emulator makes games unplayable in some cases.
>Also why not compare to the 3800x which is 399 or the 3900x which is 499, both closer to the price range?
I just posted a random video first that popped up.

This is Yea Forums and an emulation thread on top of that. Intel is far better at playing video games. Saw this the other day
youtu.be/raDZ5d_0VU0?t=665

Many older Intel chips get 20fps higher in those heavy areas, and they don't drop below 60 in closed areas.

>Many older Intel chips get 20fps higher in those heavy areas, and they don't drop below 60 in closed areas.
Post proof

This thread is fucking cancer.

I'm trying to help people, you're the one trying to sell CPUs.

Also older Intel chips will shit the bed in other areas when compared, so you will be shooting yourself in the foot if you buy them.

Unless I'm completely retarded:
youtu.be/GE6m-iWSj4A
60 fps

Yes, trying to sell them the more robust and cheap CPUs...

While you are the one helping them with overpriced pieces of shit...

3600

AMD is shitting all over Intel right now
Intel incels mad as fuck

Not him but.
To be fair, OP never stated his budget, seeing he only owns an i3 I'm not betting on him being able to buy a $300+ cpu.
If OP is rich, then a 9900k could make sense for now. However, at nearly every other price point it seems that the Ryzen 3rdgen would make more sense. Mostly also because of the application outside of emulation or games.

Right, Ryzen 3000 series is a beast, its like ~20 perf gain over older Ryzen 1600.

Even if you are rich, you should vote with your wallet and not buy shit.

Before my 2600 I had an i3 as well, that old PC had an AMD card, and my new PC has and nvidia card.

I'm not a fanboy of either company. In terms of CPU performance to price ratio, you have to be retarded to go Intel at this very moment. If they slash prices then the conversation will be different, but even then if you at all care for anything outside of gaming, like making videos/streaming or whatever, AMD will be a better choice at even price point.

>you should vote with your wallet
The problem with this is you either sacrifice short term for longterm or you sacrifice longterm for shortterm. GPU market in the case needs a strong healthy competitor to survive the nVidia monopoly pricejack scenario that we're in. Hopefully AMD will come up with something with their full rDNA or maybe Intel. I'd rather not waste money on nVidia at this moment. AMD is nearly 10-15% right now in marketshare and they will only get worse if they do not have a good product linedup.

The price to performance ratio is completely irrelevant to emulation which demands performance. If you cheap out you can't play games.

>nvidia has the best drivers, most powerful cards, and the best supporting software
>user who clearly hates video games doesn't want to give them money
makes sense

You sound like you never play emulators.

First, people aren't rich. If the choice is not play any emulators, or play them with AMD, that's the choice they have, regardless.

Second, you overblow the performance difference and how noticeable that is in reality. AMD already matches or outperforms the real hardware.

Third, price/performance ratio overall matters, even if you care primarily for emulators.

I see this drivers thing a lot, but in my experience nvidia has given me a lot more drivers trouble where I have to reainstall than AMD.

Getting a cheaper AMD CPU might mean getting a more powerful card, which matters A LOT in gaming outside of emulators.

>You sound like you never play emulators.
And you are grasping at straws by saying baseless shit. I say that because I have a fuckton of emulation experience and have had AMD and ATI in the past, they've never been good at emulating games and even with Intel I've experienced having CPUs just under the task of emulating the game, it renders it completely unplayable.

You're talking about performance in the context of normal video games and not emulated games which slow down, glitch out, or have broken audio under load. It's you who evidently doesn't emulate much.

It doesn't matter, gimping yourself is just retarded if you're building a PC to emulate. You want the best CPU unless you're only upgrading for a specific game you know runs well on a specific chip.

No man, my shit ain't baseless.

I play emulators on a 2600, I know how much it performs, I know how much it cost me, and I know how much an Intel chip would have, and where it would have been better/worse than the AMD one.

You are the one that is talking out of your ass with situations that have little to do with real world scenarios and usage cases.

>best driver
AMD has better linux drivers. Windows has roughly equivalent drivers. No need to be an NPC and parrot some 10 year old meme.

>most powerful cards
Irrelevant. Only 1% of people care about spending >$500 cards. For most people, $100-$400 is more than good enough. There's strong AMD competition in this sector.

>best supporting software
>CUDA
Irrelevant for gaming
>EPIC Games/Unreal Engine
Valid. But I don't support the practice of artificial inflation of gaming benchmark because games are utilizing nVidia only proprietary middleware to cripple AMD cards. Its anti-consumer tactics and harms the competitive industry.

Ultimately I don't care too much about perfect performance but rather about whether or not I can afford a gaming card in the forseeable future. I don't want the next RTX 3060 to be locked behind $500 line up. I'd rather RTX 3060 be brought down to $200 lineup like how the *60 line up has always been at.

If WW3 breaks out, not playing games will be the least of your worries you dumb fucking retard.

It is baseless because I know I've emulated more than you have.

You don't even know about the software I'm talking about, typical linux poorfag. You don't even play video games do you?

Yeah, that's why you base your "arguments" on outdated videos...

>just don't buy amd
I wonder who's behind this post. Already pre-ordered your new (10+4)mm++++ Copelake, goy?

Also pre-emptive "whats so bad about nvidia monopoly?"

I'd rather not experience another decade of stagnation like we had in intel vs amd. Retards hailing 2500K as a holy grail of CPU when they should be looking at it from a bigger picture and say Intel failed to innovate for 10 years and stagnated. AMD nearly died. Consumers were stuck with dual-cores for 10 years with 1-2% IPC gain every 2 years.

Intel users don't have to upgrade cpus lol.

Intel dual-cores/quad-cores are already irrelevant in today's gaming world.

>Also pre-emptive "whats so bad about nvidia monopoly?"
Prices.

The emulator scene (and to some extent Intel security mitigations which harm performance) is actually changing quite rapidly. RPCS3 in particular has improved a ton for Ryzen within the last year.

cope