How well does Cemu run on Ryzen 1600x?

[chaosblade02]

The only game I'm really interested in playing is Xenoblade Chronicles X, and maybe BOTW. If I can get 25-30fps in those games, I'd be satisfied.

Here is my full specs:

CPU: Ryzen 1600x (stock currenty) w/Cooler Master Hyper 212+ turbo (2 fans)
Ram: 16GBs 2667mhz CAS 13 ram
Motherboard: MSI X370 gaming pro carbon
GPU: GTX 1080ti (Gigabyte windforce model with 3 fans)
Windows 10 pro 64 bit

I tried Cemu on my old PC about a year ago, and it didn't get playable frame rates in XCX. About 8-20fps.

My old PC:

I5 2500K @ 4.2ghz
Ram: 16GBs DDR3 1600mhz
GPU: R9 390

Can anyone at least confirm that Cemu runs considerably better on the top rig than the bottom rig? I remember there were issues with Cemu + AMD GPUs?

[werpu]

The only game I'm really interested in playing is Xenoblade Chronicles X, and maybe BOTW. If I can get 25-30fps in those games, I'd be satisfied.

Here is my full specs:

CPU: Ryzen 1600x (stock currenty) w/Cooler Master Hyper 212+ turbo (2 fans)
Ram: 16GBs 2667mhz CAS 13 ram
Motherboard: MSI X370 gaming pro carbon
GPU: GTX 1080ti (Gigabyte windforce model with 3 fans)
Windows 10 pro 64 bit

I tried Cemu on my old PC about a year ago, and it didn't get playable frame rates in XCX. About 8-20fps.

My old PC:

I5 2500K @ 4.2ghz
Ram: 16GBs DDR3 1600mhz
GPU: R9 390

Can anyone at least confirm that Cemu runs considerably better on the top rig than the bottom rig? I remember there were issues with Cemu + AMD GPUs?

Well depends... You might be really happy with the upcoming Cemo 1.11.3 they added more threads to the PowerPC emulation so that 3 threads are natively distributed, this if course shines
on multicore systems which can deliver then number of threads needed without a hickup (I guess we are now at 4-5 threads)
On my 3.8 GHz OCed Ryzen 1700 the framerate almost doubled. In areas where I had a fluctuating 27-30fps I now have 40-50fps and in less demanding areas I scratch the 60pfs or higher and if I limit to 30fps I am hitting a solid 30fps literally everywhere
(BOTW that is)
So what does that mean for the Ryzen 1600, which has a slightly higher IPC than the Ryzen 1700 but slower than my 3.8GHz OCed version.
My personal guess is Cemu 1.11.2 should deliver you in areas like BOtWs Hateno solid 22-25fps and 1.11.3 should give you a solid 30fps everywhere and uncapped probably 40fps on stock settings in more demanding areas.
If you overclock you might get another 5-7 fps on top of that. You will get that if you install all needed hacks and patches to get the fps up.

But I can only speak for BOTW not for Xenoblade.

[werpu]

Well depends... You might be really happy with the upcoming Cemo 1.11.3 they added more threads to the PowerPC emulation so that 3 threads are natively distributed, this if course shines
on multicore systems which can deliver then number of threads needed without a hickup (I guess we are now at 4-5 threads)
On my 3.8 GHz OCed Ryzen 1700 the framerate almost doubled. In areas where I had a fluctuating 27-30fps I now have 40-50fps and in less demanding areas I scratch the 60pfs or higher and if I limit to 30fps I am hitting a solid 30fps literally everywhere
(BOTW that is)
So what does that mean for the Ryzen 1600, which has a slightly higher IPC than the Ryzen 1700 but slower than my 3.8GHz OCed version.
My personal guess is Cemu 1.11.2 should deliver you in areas like BOtWs Hateno solid 22-25fps and 1.11.3 should give you a solid 30fps everywhere and uncapped probably 40fps on stock settings in more demanding areas.
If you overclock you might get another 5-7 fps on top of that. You will get that if you install all needed hacks and patches to get the fps up.

But I can only speak for BOTW not for Xenoblade.

Ok just to add some additional info. I have my Ryzen 1700 oced to 3.8 GHz and I get with all optimizations on in 4k 42 fps in Hateno with the latest build which will be released for free on jan 1st with the lowest values being around 32 fps
but normally it is 40-42fps and in open areas i have 50fps+ sometimes hitting 60 where I seem to have a soft lock somewhere set.

The optimizations are
a) No AA
b) 4k Textures
c) NVidia fog and explosions (this will give you another 5-10fps in areas with lots of fog and explosion effects)
c) All Shadow optimizations off (the shadown hacks can drain your performance with about 5-10fps)
d) fps++
e) 3 core recompile (it uses 3 threads natively for the cpu emulation)
f) Cemu Hook

The funny thing is although i get fps between 40 and 60fps depending on the area, the game speed itself is not affected the game still
plays in the same speed as with 30fps. I guess the fps++ hack must be the cause of this, it is just that the game itself is much smoother.

Also I have not tried in 1080p but I checked the performance and got the results that 4 threads were running around 95% and my gfx card also
was pretty much maxxed out due to 4k. So I do not expect different results with a 1080p setting. My personal guess is
with an i7 8700k you might be able to achieve a solid 60fps in 1080p but the same results as I have in 4k, because the card (NVidia 1070) simply is maxxed out,
this is a limit which probably will be lifted once the emulator supports Vulcan.


So what does that mean for a Ryzen 1600x, I guess if you oc it to 3.7 or 3.8 GHz you will get absolutely the same results or maybe slightly better results
(I have my ram running at 2933 GHz so not full speed) depending on your config.
The game definitely is better now than on the console which in some areas drops into the low 20s on the Wii-U (Hateno for instance)
If you dont oc your processor you definitely will get a performance better than the original, after all the core clockspeed of the 1600x
is already 3.6GHz with a single core boost of 4GHz, so the game definitely should give a very good performance.

But as I said this all applies to 1.11.3 which will come out in a few days (unless you wanna Patreon the project then you can have it now)
for 1.11.2 expect 30-40% less performance due to its single threaded. So a performance similar to the console is achievable with the Ryzen in BOTW
but not that much more.

[Catcher40]

I have a Ryzen 7 OC@3800Ghz, Gigabyte GTX 1070 8GB and Corsair Vengeance DDR4 16GB @3200Mhz and i can run Zelda fine in triple core but for some reason XCX will only boot in single core mode despite everything i've tried, it loads up but then the screen stays black and the FPS stays at 0.00, if anyone has got it working in double or triple core i love to know how.

[chaosblade02]

Update.

I OC'd my Ryzen 1600x to 3.95ghz pretty easily. That's a 6 core OC. Some people with 1600x processors have reported 4.1ghz+ OCs, and most of them disabled 2 cores. OC'd my ram to 2933mhz @ CAS 14 timings. I'm working on getting 3200mhz ram, but it doesn't look like it's going to hit 3200mhz at timings lower than CAS 18. Pretty sure 2933mhz @ CAS 14 is better than 3200 @ CAS 18.

Also, I can confirm XCX doesn't boot on double or triple core. But it runs pegged @ 30fps on single core. There are a few spots it dips when acquiring texture cache, but with texture cache, it'll run pegged at 30fps everywhere with no dips. If double or triple core actually worked for XCX, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't run pegged @ 60fps, if it runs 30 on single core.

Everyone told me Ryzen was bad for emulation, but on every emulator I've tried, including Cemu, it performs very well. Runs Dolphin, PCSX2 and Citra very well.

The main reason I got Ryzen over Intel, was during Black Friday/Cyber Monday week, Ryzen 1600x CPUs were $200. And I needed a 6c/12T processor. Intel's new I7s were marked up to over $400, or double the price of the 1600x. It's not even close to double the CPU, maybe 15%. And if you want to OC them, you'd have to delid the chip (extra $40 on a chip that's already over MSRP), and then get a 240mm radiator on top of that ($100+ for CPU cooling). Z370 motherboards are also more expensive than X370 AM4 boards. Ryzen 1600x runs really cool on air cooling, with no delid. I grabbed a $40 Cooler Master Hyper 212+ Turbo (2 fans), and temps level out around 65c during Intel Burn Test. All things considered, there was enough of a price difference that freed up my budget to get a 1080ti instead of the 1070 I had initially planned. So my choice was Ryzen 1600x + 1080ti or I7 8700k + 1070. I think pretty much any gamer who isn't a complete Intel fanboy would take the rig with the 1080ti in it.

[werpu]

So my choice was Ryzen 1600x + 1080ti or I7 8700k + 1070. I think pretty much any gamer who isn't a complete Intel fanboy would take the rig with the 1080ti in it.

Actually you might even get an additional saving. AMD wants to keep the AM4 socket backwards compatible until end of 2020 (offical word from them)
So the chances are very high that you can update to the next 2-3 Rizen Revisions (the next one is due in March which will be kind of a Tock release - aka higher single core frequencies
same core) without any need to swap the board. If you swap processors on a regular base you might save another few hundred bucks that way, unless the new board revisions
have a feature you really need.

The downside is on a single core performance the latest intel i7 8700k offerings simply are 30% faster than the current Rizen on single core performance - due to a higher frequency (with the gap narrowing somewhat if you OC), but hey, good enough is good enough. And I agree in the long term spending the money on a 1080 is better than spending it in 30% more single core performance since most games except for Cemu wont drive the processor in single core performance to the limit anyway (and in 4k Cemu wont even do that since it is card capped). With 144Mhz gaming on 1080p probably being the exception. There you really need the fastest single core performance in conjunction with the fastest graphics card you can get for some games.

As for buying a processor now. Bad time. Intel is heavily affected by a severe processor bug (which AMD is not, but AMD is affected by a less severe one (Intel and ARM as well, funnily the recent AMD design is the least affected of all tested platforms) so we might see a price drop of the Intels soon, also the next AMD revision is out in march which might catch up or go higher than Intel in IPC performance - depending on how far they can drive up the frequencies.

[ZshadeZ]

I picked up a 1600 for $160 just before Christmas. Combined price for 1600, mobo, and 8gb ddr4-2400 was $260. Overclocked to 3.85 with stock cooler, and the games I was most interested in emulating (BotW, XCX, Tales of Graces F) all run fine. I'm damned happy with Ryzen's performance in general, but especially for that price.

[chaosblade02]

Actually you might even get an additional saving. AMD wants to keep the AM4 socket backwards compatible until end of 2020 (offical word from them)
So the chances are very high that you can update to the next 2-3 Rizen Revisions (the next one is due in March which will be kind of a Tock release - aka higher single core frequencies
same core) without any need to swap the board. If you swap processors on a regular base you might save another few hundred bucks that way, unless the new board revisions
have a feature you really need.

The downside is on a single core performance the latest intel i7 8700k offerings simply are 30% faster than the current Rizen on single core performance - due to a higher frequency (with the gap narrowing somewhat if you OC), but hey, good enough is good enough. And I agree in the long term spending the money on a 1080 is better than spending it in 30% more single core performance since most games except for Cemu wont drive the processor in single core performance to the limit anyway (and in 4k Cemu wont even do that since it is card capped). With 144Mhz gaming on 1080p probably being the exception. There you really need the fastest single core performance in conjunction with the fastest graphics card you can get for some games.

As for buying a processor now. Bad time. Intel is heavily affected by a severe processor bug (which AMD is not, but AMD is affected by a less severe one (Intel and ARM as well, funnily the recent AMD design is the least affected of all tested platforms) so we might see a price drop of the Intels soon, also the next AMD revision is out in march which might catch up or go higher than Intel in IPC performance - depending on how far they can drive up the frequencies.

That 30% gap closes to around 15% if you OC the Ryzen processor to around 4.0ghz and give it 3200mhz ram. If Zen 2s will be able to hit 4.5ghz on 6 or 8 cores, that would pretty much close the gap on coffee lake. I'd be surprised if Zen 2 hits that high on an average chip, but that's probably a best case scenario, not necessarily a realistic one, like Zen 2 maybe OCing 200-300mhz better. Also, the higher the OC, the more Ryzen benefits from faster ram. There is a direct correlation.

The 1600x pushes my 1080ti to 100% in the vast majority of games @ 1080p resolution. Anything higher than 1080p, there won't be any CPU bottleneck at all. I actually found my performance to be better than what a lot of benchmarks suggested. I think a lot of them were done early on, before Ryzen got updates. Or the tests were done with 2400mhz ram. Ryzen likes faster ram. I got a pretty considerable performance boost by OCing my Ryzen to 3.95ghz + OCing my ram to 2933 cas 14. Unfortunately, this Hynix ram won't run 3200mhz stable. It's possible Ryzen gets another update that expands ram compatibility further, but I'm not holding my breath. I paid $146 for this ram, during a time when most ram kits are in the $200+ range, considering that, I'll gladly take 2933mhz cas 14. I'd have to pay an extra $100 for a ram kit that's much better than what I got, something like Gskill Flare X 3200mhz CAS 14 is running around $240-$250 for an 8GB x2 kit. Zen 2 probably won't be worth an upgrade, but Zen 3 or 4 might be. Especially if they drop a 6 core Zen that can OC to 5ghz+, and run even faster ram. Since the memory controller is on the chip, and not the motherboard, having an older model motherboard shouldn't effect future, expanded ram compatibility on later Ryzen processors. Some people have got ram running @ 4000mhz (OC) on the same motherboard that I got. So I know the board is at least capable of pushing that.

I picked up a 1600 for $160 just before Christmas. Combined price for 1600, mobo, and 8gb ddr4-2400 was $260. Overclocked to 3.85 with stock cooler, and the games I was most interested in emulating (BotW, XCX, Tales of Graces F) all run fine. I'm damned happy with Ryzen's performance in general, but especially for that price.

The 1600 was $190, and the 1600x was only $10 more when I got it. I had no intentions of using the stock cooler, anyway. And I was likely to get a better bin with the 1600x for an extra $10. But if the price difference is $30-$40, I'd definitely say get the 1600 over the 1600x. So you got a great deal for $160.

[epigramx]

The 1600x pushes my 1080ti to 100% in the vast majority of games

That's because they are not emulators, HOWEVER, the discussion is relatively pointless after the multicore recompiler. e.g. my haswell now finds it extremely easy to emulate the CPU of the Wii U for all games and it's only the bad AMD OpenGL drivers(unless it's Linux) that don't let the emulated GPU do more (this is confirmed also after discussions I had with Cemu devs).

PS. This assumes you don't want to run BotW at 60 or above but fps++ still has several bugs.

[werpu]

That 30% gap closes to around 15% if you OC the Ryzen processor to around 4.0ghz and give it 3200mhz ram. If Zen 2s will be able to hit 4.5ghz on 6 or 8 cores, that would pretty much close the gap on coffee lake. I'd be surprised if Zen 2 hits that high on an average chip, but that's probably a best case scenario, not necessarily a realistic one, like Zen 2 maybe OCing 200-300mhz better. Also, the higher the OC, the more Ryzen benefits from faster ram. There is a direct correlation.

Actually i am pretty confident that the gap will be closed or at least would be neglegtable. The Ryzen+ will not be only a ghz upgrade (we can expect 10-12% by the raised frequencies) but more important the cache will be improved and the single core turbo boost will be replaced by a more intelligent boost system which can work on all cores or some of them depending on the need.
I do not expect a huge jump, but a performance close to Coffee Lake more or less maybe slightly lower. It does not matter anyway, because we are speaking of numbers here which most games. Also the impact regarding Meltdown in Intel is huge, not for games, but I have seem reports where people lost 70% of performance on IO heavy ops. For games however it is neglegtable atm.