07-17-2017, 08:11 PM -
(07-17-2017, 06:45 PM)ilcane87 Wrote:(07-16-2017, 07:59 PM)ssshadow Wrote: No, the performance impact of this is basically 0 %. More cores is better for something like RPCS3.
Then I guess I really underestimated how much more powerful an Intel Core i5-7300HQ @ 2.5GHz is compared to my AMD FX-6100 Six-Core 3.30GHz.
If, as you say, one of the former's cores is twice as fast as one of the latter's, I'm picturing their rough "power" in these terms:
FX-6100: 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 6
i5-7300HQ: 2 + 2 + 2 + 2 = 8
Basically, in my uninformed point of view, the i5 has got 33% more "power"; and yet, even though it has fewer cores and it's paired with an inferior GPU, it can achieve twice the performance that I can get (and that's when I'm running at the lowest resolution vs. his 720p, otherwise it's more than double).
I'm sure there are a lot of factors I'm not considering though, but this is good to know.
We are getting into a complicated subject but there are two important factors:
1) Games will usually have one or two threads that take longer to do their thing than the other ones. This is why you only see roughly 50 % CPU usage on average. Most threads will in the end wait for another to finish. Therefore high single core performance is also important. AMD FX may have many cores but each core is very weak so it doesn't matter, it creates a bottleneck. "The chain isn't stronger than the weakest link" so to speak
2) There is more to a CPU than the ghz number. Ryzen at 3 ghz is something like 80-90 % faster than FX at 3 ghz, Ryzen is just more efficient. And this is while doing calculations like 1+1 = 2. A modern CPU also has more features like AVX2 (while FX only has AVX1). RPCS3 maskes use of this too (unlike most oher programs) which makes the performance gap even larger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_V...Extensions