Jump to content

Question for the CPU enthusiast


Recommended Posts

I am looking to build a new PC. I am in the camp that single core speed is king! This was the main factor that goes into my choice of processor. My first build had the Athlon XP CPU with the Voodoo 5 GPU, so I guess I have dated myself LOL :P My 1st Intel build was the Intel Core i7-940 with the BFG Tech GeForce 7900GT and I have stuck with Intel ever since.

 

It seems that AMD has regained the lead with the Ryzen 9 5900X and I was wonder if this is obvious in game?

 

Actually, I would like you guys to share your 1st builds and stories, just for shits and giggles. On my 1st build, I spent 3 days trying to figure out why it wouldn't turn on, just for my 6 yr old at the time to ask nonchalantly, "Daddy, did you turn on "that thing?" - pointing to the power supply as he walked off to play with his LEGOs LOL. :dash:

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup!, The Zen 3 CPU's are currently "king of the heap" when it comes to IL2 and any of them should give you a good performance up-lift provided you have suitable RAM and GPU.

 

My, not so funny, mistake was to build a new PC using the latest Intel i7 10700k CPU for use with the HP Reverb G2

Eventually saw the light, after reading too many forum posts, and obtained a 5800x and associated motherboard. 

 

Gained an instant 10% performance boost with IL2 and with some RAM tuning now knocking on the door of 20% better than the intel CPU. This now allows me to run the G2 at 90Hz with 100% super sampling and MSAA x 2 in Ultra settings for single player reasonable target density scenario's.

 

Image is absolutely stunning but had to sacrifice high cloud settings and some others to keep 90Hz. 

 

My feeble defence in choosing the Intel CPU, originally, was that stock of Zen 3 chips was very limited at the time and it was cheaper (but only in the short term) 🤑

Edited by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve
duplicate word removed :(
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

The coming Intel 11th gen will be better than Zen 3 in single core performance. If I were you, I'd go Ryzen or wait for 11th gen cannon lake or 12th gen Alder lake.

 

And you will be able to put your dinner on top of your PC and cook it with the extra heat that the soon to be released Intel Rocket Lake CPU generates! 😎

 

Alas I suspect that we will be unlikely to see Cannon or Alder lake anytime soon based on the struggles intel appear to be having with smaller die yields.

 

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

 

And you will be able to put your dinner on top of your PC and cook it with the extra heat that the soon to be released Intel Rocket Lake CPU generates! 😎

 

Alas I suspect that we will be unlikely to see Cannon or Alder lake anytime soon based on the struggles intel appear to be having with smaller die yields.

 

 

That is not a bad observation! I think Intel has maxed out what they can do on their current die, anything more you might need those old "phase changing" cooling units to keep those temps at bay. My gaming room is in the attic and in the summer, we are talking temps upward of 25°C with the air-conditioned on full blast. So for that reason alone, I am really liking the RYZEN 5s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you look at SYN_Vander's benchmark results, in this list:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gJmnz_nVxI6_dG_UYNCCpZVK2-f8NBy-y1gia77Hu_k

 

You realize how dominant Zen3 series of Ryzen CPU's is right now, in this game.

 25 out of the first 26 places are taken by the new Ryzens and the owner of the only Intel CPU in the first 25 spots already replaced his top of the line, Intel CPU with a new Ryzen 9 5950x. 

 I'm not saying the performance lead can't go back to Intel, because it can, but right now AMD has the best CPUs for this game, and for pretty much everything else.

Good single core boost, very strong multithreading performance, very high IPC compared to Intel and very power efficient.

 Another good feature of this generation Ryzen CPU's is that, if you give it decent memory, (3600Mhz-3800Mhz, low timings) and a decent cooler, it will give you most of it's available power out of the box.

 

  

 

 

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Decision made!

Going with the i9-11900K (whenever it is available) since I game in 5K. It will be paired with the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420.

 

Thanks for the help guys!

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Going with the i9-11900

 

 

Looking forward for your results.   The results of the testing done by Anandtech, on 11700k were not that impressive. Maybe 11900k is better.

Hope it works ok for you.:good:

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2021 at 6:19 PM, =AW=drewm3i-VR said:

The coming Intel 11th gen will be better than Zen 3 in single core performance. If I were you, I'd go Ryzen or wait for 11th gen cannon lake or 12th gen Alder lake.

 

Rocket Lack?

Betting that now suddenly Intel will finally produce significant gains is a poor wager. It can happen, but still a poor wager.

 

AMD is the way to go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Rocket Lack?

Betting that now suddenly Intel will finally produce significant gains is a poor wager. It can happen, but still a poor wager.

 

AMD is the way to go.

 

Yup that turned into a failure at the end lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SJ_Butcher said:

 

Yup that turned into a failure at the end lol

Yep, another dud from intel lol. Go AMD for the foreseeable future...or get intel on the cheap. Maybe tiger lake for laptops will be good as it is 10nm and the single threaded performance on the u-series parts is excellent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

5800x is the unsung sweet spot as I keep saying - that’s why I went that way.

Well, I have all three current ZEN 3 CPUs - 5600x, 5800x, and 5900x. I would say 5800x is the worst of them. In lightly threaded apps like games, my 5800x is hardly better than my 5600x (with PBO on). 5900x is the best, both in single and multi threaded apps.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, thermoregulator said:

Well, I have all three current ZEN 3 CPUs - 5600x, 5800x, and 5900x. I would say 5800x is the worst of them. In lightly threaded apps like games, my 5800x is hardly better than my 5600x (with PBO on). 5900x is the best, both in single and multi threaded apps.

 

Depends on your apps and goals :) Of course the 5900x is faster, but that wasn’t my point.

 

The 5800x is much better than the 5600x in my use case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gambit21 said:

 

Depends on your apps and goals :) Of course the 5900x is faster, but that wasn’t my point.

 

Yes, I think I get your point. At first, I thought 5800x would be the best option. But my experience has not confirmed my earlier expectations, and 5800x, although more expensive, is not significantly better than 5600x, while 5900x is significantly better than 5800x, and not so much more expensive than 5800x. Of course, as you say, it depends on your apps and goals.... and on the silicon lottery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just slapped together a build with a 5600x, RTX 3070, 16mb ram etc. I get (depending on weather really) 85+fps (85 is about as low as they go) with everything turned up full blast in game and a whole bunch of extra bells and whistles turned on in the gfx card settings at 2560x1440 - native monitor resolution.

 

I'd probably sit comfortably at 144fps if i went down to 1080, but where's the fun in that?!

Edited by Diggun
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 6:22 PM, JG7_X-Man said:

Decision made!

Going with the i9-11900K (whenever it is available) since I game in 5K. It will be paired with the Arctic Liquid Freezer II 420.

 

Thanks for the help guys!

 

Please, let us know how it goes with the SYN_Vander bench. We all are eager to know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Diggun said:

I just slapped together a build with a 5600x, RTX 3070, 16mb ram etc. I get (depending on weather really) 85+fps (85 is about as low as they go) with everything turned up full blast in game and a whole bunch of extra bells and whistles turned on in the gfx card settings at 2560x1440 - native monitor resolution.

 

I'd probably sit comfortably at 144fps if i went down to 1080, but where's the fun in that?!

 

I think I'm gong to downgrade my GPU search to a 3070.

Since my 4K monitor is 60hz, I'm probably throwing money away with most games/sims with a 3080 - MFS2020 probably being the exception. However I may never even purchase that sim.

 

Not that getting a 3070 will be any easier. 'sigh'

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed to 5800X from i3-8350k at 4.8Ghz and I still get slowdowns in IL-2. My new CPU is only about 10-20% faster by most reviews, so the difference is not large enough to smooth out everything. I guess I can blame the glacial pace of progress in CPU performance these days. The days of Murphy Law are ancient history. And as a "bonus" my system now occasionally freezes when I remote connect to my work computer, which never happened with my overclocked-to-death el-cheapo Intel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WheelwrightPL said:

 The days of Murphy Law are ancient history.

 

I not Moore's Law?

But the description of your Ryzen 5800X looks more a Murphy Law thing. 😁

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2021 at 3:31 AM, WheelwrightPL said:

I changed to 5800X from i3-8350k at 4.8Ghz and I still get slowdowns in IL-2. My new CPU is only about 10-20% faster by most reviews, so the difference is not large enough to smooth out everything. I guess I can blame the glacial pace of progress in CPU performance these days. The days of Murphy Law are ancient history. And as a "bonus" my system now occasionally freezes when I remote connect to my work computer, which never happened with my overclocked-to-death el-cheapo Intel.

maybe the issue is in the GPU side?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/20/2021 at 3:27 PM, JG7_RudeRaptor said:

X, I have great results with i9-9900k and RTX 2070 Super. I don't even have anything OC on my rig and I'm getting 60 fps

at 2560x1440. Settings at max. You are running 5120x 1440 or something like that ?

Yeah broiski! I run at 5120x1440 and I get about 55 FPS with my OC (avg is about 50). However, it won't cut it with FS2020.

Doesn't matter anyway - There are zero 3090s in sight so I am just in a holding pattern to build. I am going to use the guys at Silicon Lottery from the CPU though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a heads up. Gamer's nexus tested the 11700k and called it ' A waste of sand".  

 

You may want to wait for independent reviews of 11900k before getting it, just to make sure you have all the info and not only what Intel is saying.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jaws2002
Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel offering the same and the same...nothing new to the table and even they reduced the amount of cores just to win the single core performance. Pathetic

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the new Intel CPUs are so horrible, why do they have better single-core performance than the new Ryzens ? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

And you pay less for it, too. AMD had a breakthrough because they managed to get 20% more instructions processed per unit of frequency, now Intel beat them at their own game, but they are still getting bad press. I think people's expectations are unrealistic. That and click bait.

Edited by WheelwrightPL
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WheelwrightPL said:

If the new Intel CPUs are so horrible, why do they have better single-core performance than the new Ryzens ? https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

And you pay less for it, too. AMD had a breakthrough because they managed to get 20% more instructions processed per unit of frequency, now Intel beat them at their own game, but they are still getting bad press. I think people's expectations are unrealistic. That and click bait.

Really need to see how the Rocket Lake Intel chips perform with IL2 before we can know that single core advantage is anything to write home about.

 

While you may pay less for the Rocket Lake CPU suspect that any initial savings will be gobbled up by the additional power that this CPU needs.

 

Personally, have no interest in what is obviously a "stop gap" chip and am happy to wait and see what the next round Intel and AMD CPU's will bring to the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jollyjack said:

That sort of technique has been avoided or abandoned for speed hungry game PCs?

It is not suitable for a gaming PC as the gamig PC wouldn't be any faster by having a second socket. But it would make it far more expensive. You can have up to 64 cores in one CPU socket today. You would need an aplication that either scales well beyond that core count or you'd need specialist applications that ask for specific configurations.

 

In the old days, you could have two, four or eight cores instead of one by going multi socket. Now, as said, it scales only once you are beyond 64 cores / 128 threads. It is easy to make use of a second core. But it is more difficult to make use of the 95th core. Games have a hard time going past 6 cores and maxing them out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jollyjack said:

As for some technical CPU dumbo 's Q: I remember about 20 years ago that there were double CPU mother boards, {Xeon?) used as rendering computers for video.

That sort of technique has been avoided or abandoned for speed hungry game PCs?

 

Just came across this: https://www.gamingscan.com/how-many-cores-for-gaming/

 

 

Processors have more cores in the same die this days, so you get the benefit of extra cores, but with the added bonus of significantly faster and more  efficient connection between cores. 

 No need for multi socket platforms in most normal applications. Even mainstream motherboards, that you can buy today, can efficiently use up to 16 cores and 32 threads CPU"s (on the AMD side), without going to the more specialized work station/server platforms. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we look strictly at gaming it still seems that sure Ryzen 5900x and 5950X are king, but the 11900K is close to very close behind with what I would say a really small number of frames.

5 or 10 frames on 240 or more frankly I do not care much here. What I care is availability of the 5900X and 5950x CPUs that are nowhere to be found. I am fed up waiting for months now.

So upgrading from my 9900K/Asus Z390 board will be to a 11900K with a Z590 Board, this because my store has the 11900K on stock. As simple as that.

You would imagine that for Adobe Photoshop that I use often, the 5950x with half more cores would be on top. But on that bench the 11900K (stock) came first.

AMD will wait for me for the next gen. If Intel is not able to keep up then sure Zen4 by next year will definitively kill the Goliath and I may change then.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...