Will a A4-3400 be good enough for most emulators?

[Mr. Nemo]

I'm in need of a PC that uses low wattage while being good enough to run most games for Gamecube/Wii and PS2 emulators (that level of quality). Will a A4-3400 APU work for that situation (dual core, 2.7 ghz processor with 512mb DDR3 GPU)? The budget is for $200 and the price for the Mobo, APU and 4 GB RAM will be around $150 with $30-40 left for a 300 watt PSU. I have a spare chassis and monitor to use. I'm mainly interested in the wattage because it will be used for long stretches of time and I want to keep the electric bill down.

I know the recommendation for PS2 and WII emulators are close to dual core 3.0 ghz, but at 2.7 ghz, the A4-3400 should be close enough for most games that aren't fast paced or time sensitive. I'm looking for around 30-40 frames a second at low settings and my main concern is the GPU. it's rated a 710 on a benchmark chart and the recommended GPU for a PS2 emulator is 880. Has anyone tested this APU to see how well it'll work? If not, can someone guide me to the right website or youtube video to see it in action?

[!nstaGib]

.....Not really. The A4 is a pretty budget processor. It may, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much...

[Mr. Nemo]

.....Not really. The A4 is a pretty budget processor. It may, but I wouldn't get your hopes up too much...

Have you tried it or seen it in action though? When I mean low settings, I mean running the games in their native resolution. I already have tried a low end computer with dual core 1.9 ghz with onboard GPU and had roughly 32 fps on Digimon World 4. With an extra 800 mhz and a much better GPU, it should work in theory. I would just like some proof before I buy the parts. I'm not expecting to play God of War or anything Graphic intensive. I'm talking Digimon World 4 intense. On the Gamecube side of things, I've already seen reports from Dolphin forums that you don't need that great of parts. The Wii needs semi-decent parts, but nothing too great. The main thing I'm hesitant about is the PS2 portion of emulation.

[gkparadise]

30-40fps and not looking to play games with intense graphics... then yes A4 is enough
i used to play suikoden IV and MS Saga with 40-50fps on a sempron 140, gt220 and 8gb ram, can even play most nippon ichi games max fps

[Mr. Nemo]

30-40fps and not looking to play games with intense graphics... then yes A4 is enough
i used to play suikoden IV and MS Saga with 40-50fps on a sempron 140, gt220 and 8gb ram, can even play most nippon ichi games max fps

What were your resolution settings? Were you also using speed hacks? Very curious since the A4-3400 is the twice the CPU as the Sempron 140 and the GT 220 is much slower than the HD6410D (has less stream processors and they are the same DDR speed).

[gkparadise]

native.. preset to aggresive(sometime to balanced if something goes wrong)

[Mr. Nemo]

http://wiki.pcsx2.net/index.php?titl...aphics_plugins

Looking at PCSX2's wiki page, a 2.0ghz Intel dual core is recommended if you use speed hacks and stay at native settings. 2.5ghz dual core if you are using an Athlon 64 (same speed hack rules applied). Also, the GPU portion is mainly for certain graphic heavy moments in games. It now makes sense why the low end computer did so well with the low end GPU. I probably didn't configure the emulator correctly to begin with when I tried it on that system. It is recommended to go as high as 4ghz, but it's all based on what you are trying to play. My most GPU intense game is probably XenoSaga 2 or S.L.A.I.

In short, I'll give it a shot and report on it later. I'm very interested in the power usage+performance. If it works, it looks promising to be a cheap platform for people wanting a gaming system on the low-end spec of things.

[!nstaGib]

Have you tried it or seen it in action though? When I mean low settings, I mean running the games in their native resolution. I already have tried a low end computer with dual core 1.9 ghz with onboard GPU and had roughly 32 fps on Digimon World 4. With an extra 800 mhz and a much better GPU, it should work in theory. I would just like some proof before I buy the parts. I'm not expecting to play God of War or anything Graphic intensive. I'm talking Digimon World 4 intense. On the Gamecube side of things, I've already seen reports from Dolphin forums that you don't need that great of parts. The Wii needs semi-decent parts, but nothing too great. The main thing I'm hesitant about is the PS2 portion of emulation.

I work at Staples, and regularly play around with the laptops/desktops. The A4 is really pretty lame in my opinion, compared to an i3 or i5. I know there's a bit of a price difference there, but I really think it's worth it. I haven't specifically run any emulators on it though. I was just pretty unimpressed with it's price/performance. I think there are better options out there

[!nstaGib]

For example, the A4 3400 gets a 2097 on PassMark. The i5 2430m gets a 3480. Even the i3 540 gets a 2845

[Mr. Nemo]

For example, the A4 3400 gets a 2097 on PassMark. The i5 2430m gets a 3480. Even the i3 540 gets a 2845

Passmarks are generally a good indicator. Not in this case. A larger cache increases the score by a hefty margin and the emulator in question will gain 3-4 fps at best under the CPU. I'm not talking out of my bootie when I write that as well because the PS2 emulator has a forum showing the frame difference between several processors with different caches running at the same speed. That site has also changed how they score their CPUs and GPUs in the last 2 months, so a large portion of the newer scores are off by several hundred points in comparison to the older items. Here's a small example; the CPU i used to test that Digimon 4 game was a quad core 2.1 ghz. I said it was a dual core because the emulator can only handle 2 threads and most of those CPUs used up an entire thread on 1 core if using a 64-bit OS (the most recent build can support 3 threads on a select few games). It scored a 1976 on a Passmark test 4 years ago. Seeing a dual core 2.7 ghz with less l2 cache is faster than a a Quad Core 2.1 ghz is enough to tell me they haven't updated all the scores, making them invalid. On top of that, their tests with the A4-3300 show it performs slightly better than the A4-3400, which further proves there are errors being made with those Passmark tests. The A4-3400 should have a higher score. Not by much, but higher since the A4-3400 has an extra 200mhz on both cores compared to the A4-3300.

The GPU that is on those Intel examples are also really bad in comparison to the Llano series. That means I'll have to buy a graphics card and add more wattage. Thank you for your advice on the matter. I really wanted actual examples, but from the lack of response from other people, it seems the emulating portion of the community isn't interested in what the A4-3400 can do. The majority of people interested in that stuff also have rigs that are well above the requirements needed for smooth playback. This looks like a case where I'll just have to jump in and try it out myself. I'll have other uses for the computer than just PS2/Gamecube/Wii, but that was something I was hoping as a bonus.

[!nstaGib]

Passmarks are generally a good indicator. Not in this case. A larger cache increases the score by a hefty margin and the emulator in question will gain 3-4 fps at best under the CPU. I'm not talking out of my bootie when I write that as well because the PS2 emulator has a forum showing the frame difference between several processors with different caches running at the same speed. That site has also changed how they score their CPUs and GPUs in the last 2 months, so a large portion of the newer scores are off by several hundred points in comparison to the older items. Here's a small example; the CPU i used to test that Digimon 4 game was a quad core 2.1 ghz. I said it was a dual core because the emulator can only handle 2 threads and most of those CPUs used up an entire thread on 1 core if using a 64-bit OS (the most recent build can support 3 threads on a select few games). It scored a 1976 on a Passmark test 4 years ago. Seeing a dual core 2.7 ghz with less l2 cache is faster than a a Quad Core 2.1 ghz is enough to tell me they haven't updated all the scores, making them invalid. On top of that, their tests with the A4-3300 show it performs slightly better than the A4-3400, which further proves there are errors being made with those Passmark tests. The A4-3400 should have a higher score. Not by much, but higher since the A4-3400 has an extra 200mhz on both cores compared to the A4-3300.

The GPU that is on those Intel examples are also really bad in comparison to the Llano series. That means I'll have to buy a graphics card and add more wattage. Thank you for your advice on the matter. I really wanted actual examples, but from the lack of response from other people, it seems the emulating portion of the community isn't interested in what the A4-3400 can do. The majority of people interested in that stuff also have rigs that are well above the requirements needed for smooth playback. This looks like a case where I'll just have to jump in and try it out myself. I'll have other uses for the computer than just PS2/Gamecube/Wii, but that was something I was hoping as a bonus.

If you supposedly know so much about this, then why did you even ask the question? The amount of cores or cache really isn't all that relevant in terms of actual performance, it's the architecture that matters. Those scores are all relevant. What do you mean updated? They're all tested using the same benchmark, nothing is going to change if they run the test on the same processor again. Not to mention, the Intel iX series processors are better than the A4/6/8 series. It's just that simple. Yes, even considering the video processing. The benchmarks speak for themselves.

[Mr. Nemo]

I asked because I wanted proof of a confirmation or denial of what I was expecting. I am aware the Intel CPU performs better, it's the GPU I was concerned with. The HD6410D is really close to the GT 220 in terms of hardware specs and that works fine on several tests. Yes, I pretty much knew the answer already, but specs and actual performance are always different things entirely and getting an answer from a person using it would have been lovely.

I'm sorry if you feel like I wasted your time. Your answer was uneducated on what I wanted to know and you used general advice (buy Intel instead of AMD), something I didn't need. I know my current PC build does the trick already, but it's also an extra 500 mhz for both cores and a much better GPU. That build also uses twice the wattage and I don't want to run it all day for what I need it for. That's why I asked. Again, thank you for your time, you just haven't tried it using the programs I want to use the system for.

Gkparadise used the program on much lower settings than I planned on using, so it wasn't an answer I was completely looking for, but a decent indicator that the CPU was going to good enough to suit my needs. The wiki article I found came later after I asked. Again though, hardware theory and actual performance are different.

[Mr. Nemo]

I assembled the computer three days ago and played Digimon World 4, and Red Faction 1 with no speed hacks on the ps2 emulator. Both ran at 60 fps, so it should work for a few more games that are a little heftier if the emulator can properly emulate the game (for example, Ring of Red ran about 28 fps during the combat, but that has happened with every computer I used, leading me to believe it's the emulator, not the hardware). You may want to upgrade to an A8-3850 if you don't mind the extra 35w TDP and potential fan noise because of the GPU being better, plus an extra 200mhz. Other than that, it worked great.

[jack101]

For what it's worth, I recently bought an A6-3400M laptop and overclocked from 2.3GHz to 2.6GHz. There are quite a few games that will run fast enough but there is a larger number of games that will not, especially Wii games. These emulators are mostly CPU dependent and AMD is just not up to the task right now.

[Mr. Nemo]

For what it's worth, I recently bought an A6-3400M laptop and overclocked from 2.3GHz to 2.6GHz. There are quite a few games that will run fast enough but there is a larger number of games that will not, especially Wii games. These emulators are mostly CPU dependent and AMD is just not up to the task right now.

Which specific games did you try and what was the bottleneck? I ask because the 7 games I've tried were never crippled because of the CPU, but one game stuttered a little due to the GPU (it was Front Mission 5 and speed hacks set to 2 fixed it). The A6-3400M GPU is quite a bit different compared to the A4-3400, so it'll help other people with their hardware purchases if you mentioned your OS and your settings when you tried those specific games. When it came to the Wii/Gamecube, I've only tried Megaman X: Command Mission and Naruto: Ninja Council 2. Both ran smoothly with default settings on Dolphin. They aren't Wii games though and haven't tried any of my Wii games just yet on it.