The 240 FPS resuits were worse than the 120 FPS results by a bit too.

The OpenGL version was also significantly faster. My system is a relatively recent clean install of windows and has up to date drivers.īluestacks had corrupted/broken textures that showed as weird neon colors so even though it scored pretty decent I dont think I would trust it for much. 64-bit binaries were used where available. Also went through the pain of comparing directx to opengl for some of the emulators. I did test bluestacks at 240 fps in a few results just to see if it would make a difference but it actually scored a little worse than 120 fps. Everything was tested at 1920x1080, 120 fps (unless otherwise noted), 4 cores and 4gb memory since this was the highest some of these emulators would go. Can't really get a comparison if the benchmark only works in one of the emulators. most other benchmarks just didnt want to run or work in a lot of the emulators, GFX Bench, 3dmark, etc. I wanted to do more tests than just Antutu but. Memory: 2x16 GB Dual Rank RAM 3200mhz C16 (Crucial Ballistix)Īll testing is done with settings consistent as possible between emulators, and in otherwise their most optimal configuration + setup ( so things like having Hyper-V turned on or off where needed for best performance, etc).Wasn't sure where to share this, but a quick google showed that this sub had the most reddit threads related to this topic. There are a lot of new android emulators, and updates for the older ones since I last did anything like this a few years ago so I was curious which one was actually the fastest one now. All other versions of Bluestacks tested is Nougat 64-bit with Hyper-V. EDIT: Updated post with results for Bluestacks 5 64-bit Pie version (without hyper-v support).

Hyper v bluestacks 5