|
The first question is WHY are you building this system? What's your current CPU and how is it lacking? If you've got a 7700k and are fine with it for now but fearful of future games, just wait until those games are closer? If you need to upgrade now, then it comes down to what you want to spend and when. Intel still does beat AMD in gaming, but you really have to go all in and buy a 9900k/ks/wait and buy a 10900k or you won't have enough threads for a proper modern high-end system. The Ryzen 3000 series are fairly easy to put a solid system together. As long as you buy the right components (particularly RAM) you shouldn't have any problems.
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
My 3600 (non X) manages 4.6Ghz on one CCX, the other I set to 4.55. The only thing that crashes is the SiSoft benchmark, I haven't had any stability issues outside of that and even Prime95 works fine. Am I good just keeping it like this?
SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Apr 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 23:48
|
|
|
What are you doing? The 3600 goes to 4.2ghz if you leave it alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
I meant to put 4s there oops!
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2020 23:53
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:The first question is WHY are you building this system? What's your current CPU and how is it lacking? If you've got a 7700k and are fine with it for now but fearful of future games, just wait until those games are closer? If you need to upgrade now, then it comes down to what you want to spend and when. I want to build a high end system that will outperform the upcoming consoles and deliver high frame rates for all video games. Since the consoles are 8 core based on Zen 2 I think the 3700, 3900 or i9900 are all contenders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
Kraftwerk posted:I want to build a high end system that will outperform the upcoming consoles and deliver high frame rates for all video games. The games will be optimized very specifically for any quirks of the consoles hardware. The first few years you might get equal performance but as things stretch people will get used to how PS5 does certain things and work around it. While on PC AMD and Nvidia will behave differently enough that you pick the middle road that works okay on both. Same with CPUs really. That said you are going to have better cooling and a better clock so CPU wise a 3700x might hold up, I wouldn't be surprised if it needed an upgrade to keep up with the PS5 near the end of the console's life though. Consoles run other stuff too now so it's less and less true, but you are running way more stuff that's not related to running the game than consoles are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
That's the wrong way of looking at things. Unless there are games you want better performance out of right now, buying stuff right now is pointless. You'll always get more for your money down the road.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 01:08
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:That's the wrong way of looking at things. Unless there are games you want better performance out of right now, buying stuff right now is pointless. You'll always get more for your money down the road. Good advice. I’ll stay put and wait then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
At some point you gotta pull trigger, and research + building has a time cost. It's up to you how often you want to mess about with tweaking voltages and power curves. It might be worth an extra $100-200 to be able to put it off another 6 months even though you could use that to get a better CPU at half price now and technically you never really made full use of the part you bought. If you plan on watching Netflix on a second monitor you are going to want 1-2 cores for that so a 3700x makes perfect sense to me in a 6 core game. My background tasks easily occupy a few cores. I also choose not to worry too much and donate free cycles using folding at home. Worst case I'm doing science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:I meant to put 4s there oops! I would tell you that if it ever fails a test, to back it off 100hz. Occasional crashing is not worth 100, 200 MHz...
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 08:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If AMD can do another 10-15% gain in IPC that will put them basically on par with Intel’s gaming performance. You pretty much have to compare ~5Ghz Intel something-lake vs ~4.5Ghz Zen2 to get that "Intel's still ~10% faster than AMD on games" thing to be true. Of course usually a ~10% difference in game will be barely noticeable at best. Paul MaudDib posted:and people seem to have agreed this level of performance difference over Zen2 is insignificant and unnoticeable, 10-15% IPC increases are now barely anything at all according to you? You do remember that SandyBridge, which was considered to be a incredible improvement at the time, had something like a ~20% IPC improvement over the previous Intel arch? And supposedly everyone else feels the same cuz' you said so?? That is BS thread gaslighting Paul. What people have felt for a long time is that the ~1-5% performance increases Intel was offering for generation after generation while charging a premium weren't worth buying or getting excited over.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 08:50
|
|
|
So what specifically prevents AMD from hitting clocks as high as Intel? Is it architectural, something to do with manufacturing, combination of both?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:04
|
|
|
I would guess it is mostly due to the process. Intel's 14nm is extremely refined at this point, but it is a complete dead end due to power efficiency. There's no obvious reason why Zen won't clock past 5 GHz if/once the manufacturing process supports it, overclockers have already benchmarked Zen CPUs way past that mark with LN2 cooling.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:They're already pretty much on par. He's very obviously mocking the exact thing you did here - saying Intel's lead doesn't matter, but AMD closing the gap would be a big deal. It's a really stupid position that almost everyone in this thread takes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:34
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:He's very obviously mocking the exact thing you did here - saying Intel's lead doesn't matter, but AMD closing the gap would be a big deal. It's a really stupid position that almost everyone in this thread takes. Everyone assumes the AMD chips will be much cheaper, so yeah it’s a much bigger deal than Intel’s premium “lead”. People are also excited about the prospect of dropping a Zen 3 chip into their existing hardware instead of buying a new motherboard again for this year’s Skylake. Intel’s lead is terrible value to the vast majority of gamers. IPC uplift on a new AMD generation is much better value 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:42
|
|
|
SCheeseman posted:So what specifically prevents AMD from hitting clocks as high as Intel? Is it architectural, something to do with manufacturing, combination of both? Other architectures (POWER8 did 5Ghz on 22nm for instance) have hit 5Ghz on older processes and if you didn't care at all about power or heat Bulldozer did too. Also Intel is kinda blowing out its power budget like AMD was forced to with Bulldozer to get the clocks up. Some of the up coming CometLake chips are going to have power budgets of over 200W if want to clock all the cores up to 4.5Ghz or so for instance. If you restrict these newer or current model Intel CPU's to 90-105W power ranges they reach similar clocks to what AMD's chips will do. K8.0 posted:He's very obviously mocking the exact thing you did here - saying Intel's lead doesn't matter, but AMD closing the gap would be a big deal. It's a really stupid position that almost everyone in this thread takes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
The posts are still there, they're easy to read and understand. The attempted gaslighter with poor reading comprehension is you. As much as people like to pretend Paul is stupid because he's a troll and deliberately obstinate and contrarian, he's obviously not stupid and in this case his contrarianism has a very good point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 11:58
|
|
|
eames posted:I would guess it is mostly due to the process. Intel's 14nm is extremely refined at this point, but it is a complete dead end due to power efficiency. Heat transfer from the tiny chiplets is rough, I feel like that's the biggest barrier to getting clocks up on Zen 2. Well that and the hotspot issues from 7nm density. Arzachel fucked around with this message at 12:07 on Apr 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 12:03
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:The posts are still there, they're easy to read and understand. And if you know Paul then you know that is very typical sort of stuff for him/her to post. There is no hint of parody there. K8.0 posted:As much as people like to pretend Paul is stupid because he's a troll I have said Paul's brain is broken when it comes to talking about AMD products and I stand by that statement based on Paul's previous comments.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 12:33
|
|
|
Paul is very nice and autistic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 15:08
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Everyone assumes the AMD chips will be much cheaper This is absolutely not a good assumption.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 16:31
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Everyone assumes the AMD chips will be much cheaper, so yeah it’s a much bigger deal than Intel’s premium “lead”. People are also excited about the prospect of dropping a Zen 3 chip into their existing hardware instead of buying a new motherboard again for this year’s Skylake. How often do you (or these people you speak of) upgrade CPUs?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:He's very obviously mocking the exact thing you did here - saying Intel's lead doesn't matter, but AMD closing the gap would be a big deal. It's a really stupid position that almost everyone in this thread takes. It doesn't and it would. Not from an end-user perspective, because as endlessly stated you need a pretty specific set of conditions to get into the area where the difference matters, but from an arguing about poo poo on the internet perspective Intel losing the gaming crown in an absolute sense would be as big a shakeup as you could get in this space. Or at least, whats left to shake up after everything Ryzens already done. I do think AMD will up prices if they do so though. How much is an open question, but if they can be the unqualified best processor for gaming they won't need to be the value brand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
From a mass market appeal perspective you're absolutely right, but that's usually not what's being talked about. You get people saying "Intel's lead doesn't matter and AMD is just as good" and "boy I can't wait to upgrade to Zen3" with nary a breath between. You get people talking about how AMD is superior value, ignoring that that is mostly because Intel is still ahead. The Zen2>Zen3 upgrade proposition isn't going to be a good value, and anyone excited about it should have just bought an 8700k 3 years before Zen3.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 18:32
|
|
|
Would 8750k to whatever 3700x equivalent Zen3 brings be a decent upgrade? I haven't been paying too much attention to Ryzen since I'm not looking to upgrade anytime soon, I was originally planning to upgrade around June, but since it looks like nothing is happening anytime soon, I'm probably just going to wait out for 4000 and maybe see if Nvidia drops 3xxx series by then.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 19:23
|
|
|
As Intel produces something that's a better value for me, I'll happily migrate back to them; I'm vendor agnostic, and very much aware that these titanic multinational corporations are not my friends. "Better value for me", though, looks like * Higher throughput (more cores at comparable performance, or markedly higher performance with comparable core count) under sustained full load * With a comparable power envelope * At a comparable price point * Sidebar: G A M E C A C H E is a dumb as gently caress marketing name, but I'm not going back to less cache per core So yeah. Come on, Intel. Give me a reason to quit being excited about AMD.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
Buff Hardback posted:Would 8750k to whatever 3700x equivalent Zen3 brings be a decent upgrade? I haven't been paying too much attention to Ryzen since I'm not looking to upgrade anytime soon, I was originally planning to upgrade around June, but since it looks like nothing is happening anytime soon, I'm probably just going to wait out for 4000 and maybe see if Nvidia drops 3xxx series by then. With that said, any information on zen3 isn't public yet. So who knows how good it is compared to zen2. mdxi posted:So yeah. Come on, Intel. Give me a reason to quit being excited about AMD. Khorne fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Apr 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 20:04
|
|
|
Khorne posted:Assuming 8700k, unless you have an 8750 laptop chip in which case the zen2 laptops are coming and appear to be amazing compared to Intel's offerings but I'd still hold off for more reviews, then zen3 is likely a sidegrade unless you need more cores. Yeah, I was dumb and meant 8700k. Realistically, it's not relevant until the end of the year and my 1070ti gets a replacement, at which point i'll consider doing a full upgrade anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 20:57
|
|
|
ItBreathes posted:I do think AMD will up prices if they do so though. How much is an open question, but if they can be the unqualified best processor for gaming they won't need to be the value brand. They're better in in the server market without qualification, and yet they still didn't set prices high. Intel had to slash and burn prices to match.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 21:11
|
|
|
The only reason you'll need to upgrade from an 8700K for the foreseeable future is either because you need more cores for your work or hobby or just because you want to. We've only just hit games that need more than a 4/8 minimum, and the only one I can think of off the top of my head is Battlefield V. I doubt very much the new consoles and games developed for them are going to make your 8700K struggle, even if you're going for 144fps at bay resolution. I'd wait until DDR5 is a thing and well established personally, even if Zen3 is a banger.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 21:14
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:He's very obviously mocking the exact thing you did here - saying Intel's lead doesn't matter, but AMD closing the gap would be a big deal. It's a really stupid position that almost everyone in this thread takes. K8.0 posted:From a mass market appeal perspective you're absolutely right, but that's usually not what's being talked about. You get people saying "Intel's lead doesn't matter and AMD is just as good" and "boy I can't wait to upgrade to Zen3" with nary a breath between. You get people talking about how AMD is superior value, ignoring that that is mostly because Intel is still ahead. The Zen2>Zen3 upgrade proposition isn't going to be a good value, and anyone excited about it should have just bought an 8700k 3 years before Zen3. This is indeed my point. Stickman posted:Everyone assumes the AMD chips will be much cheaper, so yeah it’s a much bigger deal than Intel’s premium “lead”. People are also excited about the prospect of dropping a Zen 3 chip into their existing hardware instead of buying a new motherboard again for this year’s Skylake. Discount Zen2 chips vs full priced Zen3 chips will be in the same position as AMD vs Intel are right now. AMD processors almost always go on deep discount when the new stuff comes out. If you can buy a 3700X for under $200, would you buy a 4700X for $350 when they launch? You'd be paying almost twice as much, close to $200 more, for maybe 15% more performance. It's the same calculus that affects Intel purchases right now. Zen2 is an inflection point for gaming performance, as well as many productivity/multimedia workloads (AVX2 performance). It's much better than Zen1/Zen+ per core, such that you are basically better off paying more even if you get less cores (eg 2700 vs 3600, you probably are better off taking the 3600, even at say a $30 higher price). It's not self-evident that Zen3 will make such a big leap for general performance - Zen1 had a lot of ground to make up. (although there are some hints that Zen3 may have significantly more AVX performance as well, but what exactly the change is hasn't really been pinned down by the tech-speculation community, just that some early floating-point benchmarks are apparently much better, to the tune of 50% higher scores. Dual AVX2 units? AVX-512 support? Dual AVX2 units that can be fused into a 512 unit? I haven't really seen a consensus yet.) Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Apr 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:They're better in in the server market without qualification, and yet they still didn't set prices high. Intel had to slash and burn prices to match. I mean, they didn't do that to be nice or because they like having lower profit margins. They price the way they do because they feel they have to. If they no longer have to, they won't price that way. And if you remember the days of the 1Ghz race or the initial Opteron launch or the Athlon 64 launch or the current prices of the 3950X, Threadrippers, andTR40 motherboards etc, AMD has clearly shown they will price above Intel if they think think they can.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
I can't be trusted to remember anything apparently, and I have a 8600k, not an 8700k. I definitely think that my CPU's been doing just fine, so yeah I guess it does boil down to "only makes sense to upgrade just for giggles" at this point.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 22:57
|
|
|
Any place that both Intel and AMD can reasonably be equal they will undercut each other for price and that will shift the premium people are willing to spend on +5% +10% and +15% IPC. You get the best price when both Intel and AMD are close in performance. I want both to do well, I like rooting for an underdog (everyone does) so I currently favor giving my money to AMD if things are equal maybe they'll take the crown and I'll want to give Intel my money more. I'd be happy with both systems might as well help the little guy out even when both are giants already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Buff Hardback posted:I can't be trusted to remember anything apparently, and I have a 8600k, not an 8700k. I definitely think that my CPU's been doing just fine, so yeah I guess it does boil down to "only makes sense to upgrade just for giggles" at this point. Not having hyperthreading might cause problems when next-gen console ports come out, but for the most part that CPU should still last you a while. I also have a 8700k and am looking for an excuse to switch to AMD, but since I don’t run heavy/multithreaded workloads there’s no justification in sight. If AMDs next (DDR5) platform will also last multiple CPU generations then that’d be a great time to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2020 23:30
|
|
|
eames posted:Not having hyperthreading might cause problems when next-gen console ports come out, but for the most part that CPU should still last you a while. I also have a 8700k and am looking for an excuse to switch to AMD, but since I don’t run heavy/multithreaded workloads there’s no justification in sight. I think the 8600K does better than people give it credit for, at least right now. People tend to overstate the importance of hyperthreads based on a few anomalous cases. 6C6T should be straight-up faster than 4C8T in essentially all cases, 8C8T should be equally fast to 6C12T in essentially all cases. You can't have the extra thread actually resident on the core at the time but context switching is not that costly an operation overall - even with not having to do context switching, a SMT thread only gets about 30% more performance at best on Intel. Having those extra real cores lets you juggle a couple more marginally loaded threads easily, and if they are fully loaded (no spare execution units available) then SMT buys you nothing. The big example that I've seen is Far Cry 5 which blatantly has something wrong when running on non-SMT 6C6T processors. Specifically 6C6T: 4C4T models are not affected in this way. But when you look at the numbers, a G5600 2C4T is able to deliver more than twice the 0.1% framerate of a 5.2 GHz 9600K, something is wrong there. This has been consistent across a number of GN reviews, so evidently it is not a fluke in testing, it's something wrong with the game. Maybe there's a dumb check that assumes that if 6 cores are available it can launch 12 threads or something like that.  The other example would be something like DAW workstations where there is a quantifiable latency benefit to actually having 12T resident on the core at the time, even if it is not doing any more actual work in total than 8C8T or whatever. (the people who got fairly hosed were the 8400 owners: they don't get the 5 GHz benefit, they have lower-than-Zen2 IPC after only 18 months, they have poor resale value. Still a decent low-end gaming processor but it went from midrange to low end in only 2 years. thus cementing the usual logic: if you're going to buy Intel, buy the top of the range, not that it's a great idea right now.) Right now I wouldn't recommend a 6C6T for a new build, at least not at current prices, but it's not dead in the water yet. In most games, 6C6T lands right where you'd expect. And 8C8T lands right next to 6C12T as well. There's no reason to build one right now, with AMD offering reasonable gaming performance with SMT enabled, and Intel about to push core counts a bit higher and enable SMT across their lineup. But I wouldn't freak about your system not having it. And don't forget, this problem affects the Ryzen 4000 mobile as well, since this time around AMD has used that as a market segmentation strategy on many of the mobile processors, up to and including Ryzen 7 models. That's another example of AMD settling into their new role as "market leader" and finding ways to extract rents. Are they better than last year's lineup - sure. Is there an manufacturing-based justification for upcharging you for SMT - not really, same as when Intel did it. A lot of people will pay it, so why not. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Apr 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2020 00:07
|
|
|
.
sincx fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Mar 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Far Cry 5
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Just Ubisoft being Ubisoft, nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 10:15 |
|
|
PC LOAD LETTER posted:Yes they are. Like, believe it or not, my disdain for Zen is mostly related to Zen1 and TR 1000/2000 and Epyc Naples. Zen2 is a very solid uarch now, it's at a good price that will only get better, and you do have to justify the upgrade cost from there (including on Zen3, performance increments will get smaller from here and prices will get higher). I'm not going to say that it's right on the heels of Intel, it's going to take them at least one more generation to catch up or edge past Intel's 2017-vintage processors and Rocket Lake is coming at some point too, but Zen2 is no longer so far behind (30% improvement in gaming, 50-60% improvement in x264 encoding per core, compared to Zen1) that it's stupid for gaming or productivity/multimedia users (AVX friendly) like Zen1 was. HEDT they have taken the performance lead, mobile is a big win in high-core-count processors that Intel hasn't moved to 10nm yet and a smaller win vs Ice Lake. Although all of those segments have increased price and/or decreased features (SMT) significantly vs the "underdog" days, of course. It's going to take more than a "5-10% IPC gain" to catch Intel in gaming though like some people are hoping. Those are GPU-bottlenecked figures, and with Coffee Lake not running at its best available performance. 5 GHz Coffee Lake still wins by 10-15% depending on the game. 1080p or 720p is "not realistic" for an actual system configuration, but as a CPU test that is actual CPU performance % that AMD has to make up. If we do the measurements at 1440p then AMD will have to make an X+Y% synthetic performance improvement to show X% in the real benchmarks. You either measure real CPU performance, or you need to make up enough real CPU performance to overcome the GPU bottleneck in your chosen testing conditions. Can't have it both ways. People (including here) drastically undersold the differences between Kaby/Coffee Lake and Zen1 because of GPU bottlenecks. We saw poo poo like 4K tests on a GTX 1080 (fastest card available at the time!) to show that there was "practically no difference" between the two. In the end, the 1080p and 720p tests ended up being right - faster GPUs caused the architectural difference between those chips to become apparent. The 8700K's faster per-core performance has ruled the roost for years, it's going to be 3 years before AMD has fully responded to it. And we are edging towards to the release of a new generation of GPUs, within the next 6 months. Right now you start seeing a difference at 1440p on a 2070S or 5700XT, that's the $400-500 tier. Next year the difference will show up at the $250-350 tier at 1440p. The lower-core-count Intel stuff was an idiot trap, you were better off saving another $100 or whatever. But the 5820K is a trooper holding in there more than 5 years after launch, the 3930k even longer than that, an OC'd 7700K holds in there with the i5s these days, and an OC'd 8700K still beats anything in the AMD lineup even almost 3 years after launch. Hell, even the 2600K holds in there, marginally. sincx posted:I just hope in September I don't regret getting a 3900X last month for $400. I don't think I will. If you aren't absolutely strapped for budget, 3900X is one of the most compelling values in Zen2 actually. You get a shitload more cache and higher clocks and power limit. For another $130 over a $270 3700X, it's kind of a no-brainer. Basically flat pricing from the 3600 chiplet is great, the double chiplet thing lets them keep the cost down while doing that compared to the 3700X. You get what you pay for, a CPU with above-the-norm core count with pretty solid performance, the per-thread performance is mildly better than the 3700X because of the cache. It's a pretty nice design. You usually get what you pay for in high-end processors. I would rather do a high-end chip purchase less frequently than upgrade every gen. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Apr 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2020 05:31
|
|