Jump to content

Latest Benchmarks - Intel vs AMD


Recommended Posts

Seems to me that, for DCS at least, AMD has on the 3700X the equal of the Intel 8700K ... but the cost is very similar ... so, I'm glad for AMD ... but the early promises of surpassing Intel seems that were not achieved.

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't recall any promises to surpass Intel. They certainly suggested being on par but surpassing? They do in multicore for sure but not in singlecore.

Also, it still seems that RAM is extremely important for Amd :

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't recall any promises to surpass Intel...

 

Maybe not promises from AMD, but on this forum I got tired reading the constant advises of "dont buy now, wait for the new Ryzen killer chips" ... so, the end result is, at least to my eyes, underwhelming :(

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really depends on what you're using it for. In single-threaded games at 1080p where you're not GPU bound, an OC'd 9700k/9900k has a small advantage (usually less than 10%) over the 3700x/3900x. At 4k, the processors perform very close most of the time because you become GPU bound. If you game at 4k (or possibly VR), you may not notice a difference between the two. The question at 4k is really longevity of the CPU and how long before you'll get to a GPU that needs a more powerful processor; will the Intel chip get you through one extra upgrade cycle? It's hard to say, as games may become more multi-threaded or more optimized for AMD over time - no one really knows the answer to that.

 

 

Then it becomes a question of what else you do with your PC. If you run highly multi-threaded apps and creation software, it looks like the 3700x/3900x outperform Intel most of the time and sometimes by a large margin.

 

I agree with the sentiment of most of the reviews I've read, on the whole the Ryzen 3000 series is a better all-around CPU, but in purely single-threaded applications the 9700k/9900k still have a small lead.

3800X, X570, 32GB 3600, RTX 2080Ti, SSD, Odyssey+ VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AMD vs Intel is either or...YET what about the new GPUs???

 

Apologize if posting in the wrong section. Nonetheless, anxious to begin my DCS career so to speak...Does anyone have a GTX 1660Ti using for DCS..if so are u regulated to 1080p or is VR or 2K possible? Also, as the new releases from ED and it's affiliates are launched is 16GB of RAM sufficient or will 32GB be the new standard...if not already? The System Req has been static for some time..including with the latest releases such as the F-14...About to purchase/build just trying to get the best bang for my buck...mainly Mil-Sim; Flight-Sims exclusively...Thx in advance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad for AMD ... but the early promises of surpassing Intel seems that were not achieved.

 

true that.

these 3000’s were hyped pretty heavily here in the forums. both by the ‘experts’ and by those who interpret spec sheets.

seems they were wrong.

 

it would be interesting to look back and see if was the same group who said the rift-s would suck, before it came out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe not promises from AMD, but on this forum I got tired reading the constant advises of "dont buy now, wait for the new Ryzen killer chips" ... so, the end result is, at least to my eyes, underwhelming :(

I can't imagine why you feel underwhelmed since company made no indications that this chip will be a killer. If some people overhyped themselves then they can only blame themselves.

 

As for the chips themselves. 3900x with proper memory tuning will keep up with 9900k except for some very well binned chips giving you 5.2 Ghz. I want to see a reviews of 3800x vs 9900k with matured BIOS as this one caused problems to all reviewers I've seen so far and properly tuned memory.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Passmark scores for single threaded performance of Ryzen 3 CPUs were reportedly slightly higher than the competing Intel i9-9900k as of a few days ago. From recent benchmarks, this seems to be somewhat misleading. In particular, the anandtech benchmark shows much lower performance.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't feel underwhelmed. AMD still managed to turn out a generally quite useful processor.

 

For DCS World, however, it looks like Intel is the way to go. At least if your missions include very large numbers of objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing the Gamers Nexus review points out is that Frametime, albeit being a little higher than with Intels flagship, are more consistent, e.g. less spikey on the Ryzen - that could be beneficial in VR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better to wait for some comparison in DCS VR. Benchmarks and other games can be misleading. And 3800 can possibly be a better performer after OC since less cores means less heat and base freq of 3800 is even higher than 3900, contrary to boost freq.


Edited by bies
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did think that the forums have been suggesting for the last year that these new CPUs would walk all over the Intel units, be much cheaper and all run at 5Ghz.

There's just nothing like some hype.

 

All the same, it's good that AMD are now able to compete, as it's hopefully going to result in prices for CPUs from both manufacturers to drop.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yea what a joke,you would have to be pretty low iq to go for amd now if you play dcs ,lol also now is such a bad time to buy with ddr5 boards coming next year its practicly outdated allready

 

 

Here's a tip. Never love something that can't love you back. It's just a motherboard and gaming, there's no reason to call people stupid, is there?

 

And everything in technology gets outdated the minute you buy it. It's worse depreciation than driving off the lot with your new car.

hsb

HW Spec in Spoiler

---

 

i7-10700K Direct-To-Die/OC'ed to 5.1GHz, MSI Z490 MB, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz, EVGA 2080 Ti FTW3, NVMe+SSD, Win 10 x64 Pro, MFG, Warthog, TM MFDs, Komodo Huey set, Rverbe G1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a supplier, I also greatly prefer AMD products. If Vulkan moves object processing to multi-core so AMD can comfortably work with the 476th's NTTR map, that would eliminate the last reason I have to consider an Intel build.

 

 

In the meantime though, with AMD lagging so much in benchmarks potentially relevant to DCS, Intel remains a more solid choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lagging behind in single digit percentages is hardly significant. In real terms, a 5% difference on 50fps is only 2.5fps; even 10%, which is about worst case, is only 5fps.

 

The difference I will gain by dropping a 3000 series into my 2 yr old motherboard to replace my first gen chip will be on the order of 30+%, or 15fps. The ability to upgrade down the road is worth the 5%, at least to me.

Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vulkan utilizes multi-core?

Yes. This should be the reason for ED to port DCSW to run on Vulkan. And then if you consider this and build a little future proof - the AMD CPU is now the better option. 3900X (3800X?) really does not lag a lot behind 9900K in single core honestly. As of Gamers Nexus benchmark the Ryzen also has a more stable frametime than its Intel counterpart which translates into a more smooth experience, especially for VR this could possibly make a feelable difference.


Edited by Der Hirte
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing Vulkan can do, DX12 can't do.

 

And the relevance of that is?

DCS is coded currently for DX11 and ED have already stated that they’re working on releasing with Vulkan.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know where Vulkan API integration is on the roadmap?

I'm not 100% certain where to find the thread/posts and also don't have the time to look for it but I remember someone (Silver Dragon?) stated something about the progression of Vulkan implementation and most people left with the impression that it already was surprisingly advanced, more than you'd think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Latest Benchmarks - Intel vs AMD

 

Vulkan utilizes multi-core?

 

what do you mean by utilize?

 

any app can use more than one core if it’s coded to do so.

 

i would reduce expectations of “vulkan”. it’s not a silver bullet. there is no magic. it’s just a more basic api that lets you get closer to the metal.

 

it’s nothing different than what we could do in the old days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. This should be the reason for ED to port DCSW to run on Vulkan. And then if you consider this and build a little future proof - the AMD CPU is now the better option. 3900X (3800X?) really does not lag a lot behind 9900K in single core honestly. As of Gamers Nexus benchmark the Ryzen also has a more stable frametime than its Intel counterpart which translates into a more smooth experience, especially for VR this could possibly make a feelable difference.

 

The game engine still has to be written to take full advantage of it. Simply using Vulkan doesn't fully optimize everything for multi-core. My understanding of Vulkan is that it makes it much easier for devs to accomplish this, and do so across a variety of platforms.

 

There are benchmarks available showing games using Vulkan today where the Ryzen 3700x and 3900x do not have any appreciable advantage over the 9700k and 9900k.

3800X, X570, 32GB 3600, RTX 2080Ti, SSD, Odyssey+ VR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...