9700K vs 3700X

[Durge Driven]

Where are all these B450-Ryzen update nightmares coming from

Are these users that rush in expect to swap CPUs and everything will be hunky dory ? ....or what ?

New CPU a fresh OS should be a given ...always

" Oh it's too hard ! ..oh it takes days " .......................................


I have drag and drop archives, all manual, 60 registry windows updates, 3 Steams, Origin, MS store
100's of shortcuts between Classic shell and start menu ............. all done in 60 minutes

I have TrueImage full version and I don't even do images anymore I got it so down

 

[Terry Rock]

Thank you
I might upgrade during the summer and I'm not sure what to buy... 3600, 3600x, 3700x, 9700k...
And ofc nobody on the whole internet tested a racing sim in VR yet.

That's why we are asking for some real data/reprojection time. The youtube video is rendered into 60 fps so no matter if you're running 45 fps + asw or 90 fps, we can't find out anything apart from "yep, running nicely" and how good your racing skills are

I wouldn't care if I would've decided on a CPU yet but to know what performance I'd get with the 3600x in the future when I'll go VR is very interesting for me!

I just started the ACC VR test you requested and realized I have no way of capturing the graph seen in my headset.
I'm using the Lenovo Explorer without motion controllers.
I found this bit of software called fpsVR but it states you do need those.
What I've done in the mean time, is gone into SteamVR settings and checked 'Display GPU performance graph in headset'.
I then restarted ACC as in the video previously posted and watched the graph through one lap.
It stayed green the full time with the count in milliseconds and 90 Hz displayed.
That's the best I can do until another solution arises.

 

[Dan Costa]

In the two videos posted, you can see its 45fps, unless the geforce experience recording introduces the same exact stutter. You can install MSI afterburner and open the realtime graphs to confirm the framerate.

Anyways I tried 45fps + reprojection this weekend and its a no-go for me. I am impressed though that WMR reprojection introduces almost no artifacts. They were obtrusive when I had the rift. So if you can deal with 45fps, WMR reprojection gets a thumbs up from me.

 

[RasmusP]

unless the geforce experience recording introduces the same exact stutter

For me, personally, Geforce Experience recordings always stutter. No matter what fps I'm running at, vsync, gsync, no sync, whatever.
It seem that the "image grabbing" is not synced at all with anything so even if you're running locked 60 fps and record at 60 fps, it will stutter every now and then.

The only really smooth recording I could ever do was CS:GO at 200 fps...

Fraps on the other hand is smooth as butter but is very demanding though...

Anyway: never judge fps by how a geforce experience video looks like (and any nvenc therefore. OBS included).

For some systems it seems to be better than on others but I had the same stutter on my 970 and on my 1070.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

So basically you are saying that at full clock speed the 9900K had a 20-30+% advantage depending on the test.

Not quite 20-30%, because games don't scale with GHz or CPU power directly, there are a dozen of other factors involved like RAM speed etc. Actually this IPC comparison proves that AMD doesn't lose in games only due to lack of GHz, it must be about something else, since Intel is ahead even with same frequencies. Meanwhile we know that AMD is ahead of Intel in almost all productivity applications and benchmark tools, even in single threaded benchmarks and all that despite having almost 1 GHz disadvantage. So there is just something with Intel architecture fundamentally suiting today's games better.

 

[Dan Costa]

36 game bench 3900x vs 9900K

 

[Deleted member 197115]

FpsVr does not need controllers, you can bind it to HMD view in options.

 

[Vintagedriver01]

36 game bench 3900x vs 9900K

No AC, just wonder what game in the video can be compared to AC?

 

[Dan Costa]

In the same genre you have pcars2 in that list. Intel is fastest in that one, and probably in every other sim based on my 2700x past experiences on older sims (AC R3E Rfactor Automobilista).

 

[RobertR1]

It would be strange for AMD to have the lead is any of the current sims since they're based on older engines when AMD had next to no marketshare and the dev boxes were on Intel. Unless AMD and/or the developers actively work to patch up older games (little incentive for both) you're likely going to see better performance with Intel chips.

 

[pattikins]

In the same genre you have pcars2 in that list. Intel is fastest in that one, and probably in every other sim based on my 2700x past experiences on older sims (AC R3E Rfactor Automobilista).

There is a 11% difference in PC2 between the processors in the TechSpot list. There is also about a 15% difference between the Ryzen 3700x (or 3600X) and an OC 9700k cpu, in favour of Intel. Undoubtedly Intel have the faster processors, but 15% seems a poor return for twice the cost (3600/9700K), with no guarantee of reaching 90 fps, with a full grid, in VR racing sims.

 

[Dan Costa]

I agree but you will see some VR users gladly pay twice for those extra 15% if it means to never drop bellow 90fps here and there. Like you said the problem is to actually know if the more expensive product is also up to the task. I have an 5.1ghz 9900K and I can tell you its not enough.

Edit: In AC1 with no shaders patch, it actually can stay above 90fps at all times. In every other sim I own, It can't. The biggest culprit to me is not even ACC, its R3E.

 

[Vintagedriver01]

Do you use the beta’s from Steam?
This what happen, I did driven my rounds agains AI in VR and after that I updated to the Beta steamVR and Beta steamWMR. My FPS were now dropped to 20-35 FPS. After I did crash I noticed If a car was passing fast, it did look if that car had two drivers. First I was thinking this beta has changed something in my adjustments, but I did not see any changes.
After a roll back everything was fine at the normal 75-90FPS.
BTW, I’m using the Win1903 update.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Do you use the beta’s from Steam?
This what happen, I did driven my rounds agains AI in VR and after that I updated to the Beta steamVR and Beta steamWMR. My FPS were now dropped to 20-35 FPS. After I did crash I noticed If a car was passing fast, it did look if that car had two drivers. First I was thinking this beta has changed something in my adjustments, but I did not see any changes.
After a roll back everything was fine at the normal 75-90FPS.
BTW, I’m using the Win1903 update.

Beta WMR changed 100% resolution, it's now 147% of native, this is why. Just readjust SS to match resolution you used to have.
Also there are still issue with reprojeciton, if you use one.

 

[Durge Driven]

You got to remember most of the benches are done with 2080Ti @ 1920 to show max gain
But how many use that combo ? ...maybe pro gamers ?

With a 2080 and say 1440p results are tighter

 

[Deleted member 197115]

You got to remember most of the benches are done with 2080Ti @ 1920 to show max gain
But how many use that combo ? ...maybe pro gamers ?

With a 2080 and say 1440p results are tighter

The point is to bottleneck CPU, not GPU, thus low res.

 

[Durge Driven]

Understood, I never said don't review @1920
I would have liked reviews to include 1440p and 4K
What percentile that buy $1,700 US in CPU and GPU use 1920 ?
To anyone games at more then 1920 the results mean little

It is same for GPU benches if you run 1440p or 4K monitor the 1920 benches are immaterial, you only take notice of your resolution

 

[demetri]

Understood, I never said don't review @1920
I would have liked reviews to include 1440p and 4K
What percentile that buy $1,700 US in CPU and GPU use 1920 ?
To anyone games at more then 1920 the results mean little

It is same for GPU benches if you run 1440p or 4K monitor the 1920 benches are immaterial, you only take notice of your resolution

This is done to predict future performance and see how much extra CPU power you have. If you see that a CPU struggles (can't do 60 fps or whatever your target is) at low-res with 2080Ti then you know that it is going to be a bottleneck in the near future.

 

[Durge Driven]

Yes ......all I was trying to say is this .............

That’s especially the case as you move up into 1440p and, especially, 4K gaming. With the burden of gaming performance squarely on the graphics card at high resolutions, which CPU you’ve chosen is of lesser importance amongst the top-tier chips from either side.

I think that describes the majority of the people who buy fastest CPU and GPU

 

[Deleted member 197115]

Nowadays it's mostly VR that demands the most from CPU, most titles taxing them out (even i9-9900k) quite easily,
Flat screens are mostly fine unless you are aiming for insane fps.