[SOLVED] Cpu pairing

[_ThunderClap_]

I plan on getting a RTX3050 and wanted to know what CPU should I pair it with an I5 or I3 both 12thgen. AMD CPUs are not an option. I plan on using switch and ps3 emulator.

 

[helper800]

A 12400f would be a great pairing.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Considering emulators tend to rely on single threaded performance and have limited FPS to begin with, the economy option would be the i3.

 

[helper800]

Considering emulators tend to rely on single threaded performance and have limited FPS to begin with, the economy option would be the i3.

That depends on how you emulate and what you are emulating. Software emulation can be very thread heavy.

 

[hotaru.hino]

That depends on how you emulate and what you are emulating. Software emulation can be very thread heavy.

RPCS3 requires a lot of tweaking to get the most out of it. The default settings likely focus primarily on compatibility, not necessarily performance. See View: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpcs3/comments/kdy4w7/comment/gg3n1xn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
where the poster reports being able to get full speed on games on a 4th gen Core processor simply by tweaking the settings. In a similar vein, Xenia, the Xbox 360 emulator, also only requires a quad-core 4th gen Core processor.

The Switch shouldn't be a problem, considering Bluestacks emulates systems more powerful than it just fine on comparatively lower end PC hardware.

 

[Karadjgne]

Supply is the issue. Normally I'd say an i3-12100 would be the best value, but good luck (seriously) in getting one since their profit margin is so small, Intel doesn't resupply vendors often. Newegg/Amazon has been sold out for months with no info on restock dates.

Which leaves the 12400/F as the best bet. I prefer the 12400, for the price difference to the 12400F I'd rather have the igpu. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

You can sometimes find the 12100 in some prebuilts.

 

[helper800]

RPCS3 requires a lot of tweaking to get the most out of it. The default settings likely focus primarily on compatibility, not necessarily performance. See View: https://www.reddit.com/r/rpcs3/comments/kdy4w7/comment/gg3n1xn/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3
where the poster reports being able to get full speed on games on a 4th gen Core processor simply by tweaking the settings. In a similar vein, Xenia, the Xbox 360 emulator, also only requires a quad-core 4th gen Core processor.

The Switch shouldn't be a problem, considering Bluestacks emulates systems more powerful than it just fine on comparatively lower end PC hardware.

I am much more familiar with emulating on PCSX2 where one can choose to software emulate a PS2 game and some of them can use 10+ threads.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I am much more familiar with emulating on PCSX2 where one can choose to software emulate a PS2 game and some of them can use 10+ threads.

That's for graphics emulation. I don't think RPCS3 or any other post 6th gen emulators have a software renderer because it's simply impractical.

I mean, consider that a 64-core Threadripper can barely manage to run Crysis at 20FPS using DirectX WARP at 720p low-medium settings, I don't think we'll have software rendering for those emulators any time soon.

 

[Karadjgne]

Straight up PS doesn't compare well to threads as such, since PS 1/2/3 didn't use a 'threaded' core type cpu, they were purpose designed microprocessors that basically counted as single core but acted more like a gpu. It wasn't until PS4 that Sony shifted to the Amd 8-thread jaguar cpu to handle the online and OS series code aspects, leaving the gpu to do the actual graphics work. If you figure a 3060 has over 3500 'cores' that work in parallel, technically that'd be the thread count for the game code.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Straight up PS doesn't compare well to threads as such, since PS 1/2/3 didn't use a 'threaded' core type cpu, they were purpose designed microprocessors that basically counted as single core but acted more like a gpu. It wasn't until PS4 that Sony shifted to the Amd 8-thread jaguar cpu to handle the online and OS series code aspects, leaving the gpu to do the actual graphics work. If you figure a 3060 has over 3500 'cores' that work in parallel, technically that'd be the thread count for the game code.

The processors in the PS1 and PS2 had vector units to handle GPU work sure, but emulators that offer hardware acceleration on the PC do so by intercepting the command lists sent to those vector units and lets the GPU handle them. This isn't any different than DXVK. But in any case, these vector units were mostly responsible for the 3D model transforms, there's still a "GPU" if you want to call it that to handle actual pixel shading.

The PS3 had an actual GPU in it, a 7800 GTX based one. The SPUs could speed up certain work to help it, but its primary job was not graphics related.

In any case, if this is a comment about the "software emulation" thing above, that's for running all of the graphics through the CPU. So another ding to PS3 emulation needing more CPU cores for software rendering is that there's really no need to do that. The PS3 has what's effectively DirectX 9/OpenGL 2.1 GPU, which (mostly) every GPU made since is compatible with. It's just a matter of interpreting the command lists correctly.

EDIT: Of note, the PS3's graphics API was based on OpenGL ES and NVIDIA's Cg. So it makes "emulating" the GPU even more easy.

 

[helper800]

The processors in the PS1 and PS2 had vector units to handle GPU work sure, but emulators that offer hardware acceleration on the PC do so by intercepting the command lists sent to those vector units and lets the GPU handle them. This isn't any different than DXVK. But in any case, these vector units were mostly responsible for the 3D model transforms, there's still a "GPU" if you want to call it that to handle actual pixel shading.

The PS3 had an actual GPU in it, a 7800 GTX based one. The SPUs could speed up certain work to help it, but its primary job was not graphics related.

In any case, if this is a comment about the "software emulation" thing above, that's for running all of the graphics through the CPU. So another ding to PS3 emulation needing more CPU cores for software rendering is that there's really no need to do that. The PS3 has what's effectively DirectX 9/OpenGL 2.1 GPU, which (mostly) every GPU made since is compatible with. It's just a matter of interpreting the command lists correctly.

EDIT: Of note, the PS3's graphics API was based on OpenGL ES and NVIDIA's Cg. So it makes "emulating" the GPU even more easy.

Have you ever emulated Champions of Norrath or Champions: Return to Arms? They basically dont work unless run in software mode.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Have you ever emulated Champions of Norrath or Champions: Return to Arms? They basically dont work unless run in software mode.

That just means there's some weird quirk with the game that the hardware acceleration path doesn't account for, and probably won't if no other game has this quirk. There are some SNES games that break due to quirks when running on something like SNES9x, but don't when running on bsnes because it actually emulates the actual bus between the chips.

And also it's a PS2 game, I'd imagine software rendering for that with modern hardware isn't that difficult. Especially since once you get past the VP0/VP1, it's just pixel shading, which is fixed function.

And all of this is irrelevant anyway to how the PS3 is emulated. Also the RPCS3 team isn't going to consider software rendering: https://github.com/RPCS3/rpcs3/issues/9642

 

[KyaraM]

Supply is the issue. Normally I'd say an i3-12100 would be the best value, but good luck (seriously) in getting one since their profit margin is so small, Intel doesn't resupply vendors often. Newegg/Amazon has been sold out for months with no info on restock dates.

Which leaves the 12400/F as the best bet. I prefer the 12400, for the price difference to the 12400F I'd rather have the igpu. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

You can sometimes find the 12100 in some prebuilts.

Depends on the country, honestly. Looking around at online stores in Germany, for example, they seem to be in store all the time, though more expensive than you would want, starting at 99€ for the 12100F tray version and up to 140€ for the non-F depending on where you look. Still a lot cheaper than any other comparable processor, though. Not sure if we are more inclined to spend on bigger processors here or if I tel is sending more of them over, but fact remains that it is available.

 

[Karadjgne]

Depends on the country, honestly. Looking around at online stores in Germany, for example, they seem to be in store all the time, though more expensive than you would want, starting at 99€ for the 12100F tray version and up to 140€ for the non-F depending on where you look. Still a lot cheaper than any other comparable processor, though. Not sure if we are more inclined to spend on bigger processors here or if I tel is sending more of them over, but fact remains that it is available.

True. In the States they sold out in hours, everywhere, and there's been little to no resupply. It's a money thing vs competition, the price was so cheap for the 12100 compared to what was equitable with Amd, but then Amd slashed prices and that hurt sales of the bigger cpus, nobody wanted a $900 12900KS when a 5900x/5950x was less than $500 and good enough for the most demanding titles. And ppl moved from 3000 to 5000 series without a platform change. The B660 got released too late to really help out demand, and nobody buying a Z690 was also getting a 12100. Bad timing on Intels part.