AMD Ryzen For Simracing?

[Dan Costa]

My 2600k at 4.6 GHz certainly wasn't faster than my 2600 at 4 GHz. And given the diminishing returns of increasing overclock you start seeing even at that point (one reason I didn't even bother making an effort to run it higher), I wouldn't even expect the 5.1 GHz one being faster while having a pretty steep requirements to even run it at that frequency not really worth the effort and money for the gain, but if you say it was, then I have to believe you I guess.

What do you mean it wasn't faster? generally wise or simracing? I'm discussing single-thread only (sim racing). In full online servers my 2700x 4.3ghz caused more cpu bottlenecks than my 5.1ghz 2600K in VR.

That's a very wrong assumption. I'm not even at 1x1440p@144Hz.

You dip bellow 144fps due to cpu bottleneck at that resolution on a standard AC or R3E installation?

 

[Case_]

What do you mean it wasn't faster? generally wise or simracing? I'm discussing single-thread only (sim racing).

Both. In every scenario, my 2600 OC at 4 GHz is noticeably faster than my 2600k at 4.6GHz was. It might not have been as big of an upgrade, but it certainly wasn't a downgrade like you seem to be suggesting it should be.

You dip bellow 144fps due to cpu bottleneck at that resolution on a standard AC or R3E installation?

I don't know, I don't have a fancy 1440p 144Hz monitor. And I'm not even sure what "a standard AC or R3E installation" means and what settings that represents. But I don't think I would be able to sustain 144 fps at 1440p, not with this CPU and certainly not with my GPU. Perhaps if I lowered my settings. I was targeting 120 fps for a while at my 1920x1200 resolution, but stopped doing that because I can't tell the difference from 60 in game responsiveness anyway, and I certainly can't display more than 60, so why bother. R3E managed to mostly keep up (though not always) with my settings, AC not really.

 

[Dan Costa]

Both. In every scenario, my 2600 OC at 4 GHz is noticeably faster than my 2600k at 4.6GHz was. It might not have been as big of an upgrade, but it certainly wasn't a downgrade like you seem to be suggesting it should be.

checked some records. My 2600K was 5.2ghz and my 2700x was 4.3ghz. It was a clear downgrade in min-framerates in VR and almost every game, really. I can't speak for yourself but thats my experience.

I don't know, I don't have a fancy 1440p 144Hz monitor. And I'm not even sure what "a standard AC or R3E installation" means and what settings that represents. But I don't think I would be able to sustain 144 fps at 1440p, not with this CPU and certainly not with my GPU. Perhaps if I lowered my settings. I was targeting 120 fps for a while at my 1920x1200 resolution, but stopped doing that because I can't tell the difference from 60 in game responsiveness anyway, and I certainly can't display more than 60, so why bother. R3E managed to mostly keep up (though not always) with my settings, AC not really.

Just disable Vsync and see what framerates you are getting. On my 1440p 144hz monitor a standard AC installation (no SOL, no patches) it runs way way above the 200's fps range. R3E a bit less. Its hard to find a modern cpu that bottlenecks AC bellow 144fps at that resolution.

 

[Dan Costa]

In games that dont use many cores, such as this one, you can se how close they are. But I had 500mhz more on my i7.

So yes, you are better with the ryzen than your 4.6ghz 2600K Specially in modern multi-core games. Like the rest of the review shows.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwrevie...k-revisit-2018-benchmarks-vs-9900k-ryzen-more

 

[Case_]

A quick comparison between the stock settings (so boost cores according to XFR) vs. manual overclock (3.95 GHz all cores) on Ryzen 2600 (and a GTX 1660Ti):

AMS

rF2

ACC

Dirt Rally 2

Spoiler alert: It really matters very little and might not be worth the hassle. In fact the stock even seems to gain a few fps in rF2, but that's rF2 for you - the most unpredictable sim there is

However, what static screenshots don't tell you is that the overclock seems to smooth out some framerate drops and make the average framerate a bit more leveled. Though not significantly so, I would say.

Edit: Also note that the resolution is 1920x1200 and not 1080p, apart from ACC which is set to 1080p at the moment because I was trying to do some recording outside of my standard OBS setup (because I have a big fps drop in ACC if I run OBS for some reason). And the graphics is certainly not set for maximum framerate possible.

 

[Case_]

Edit: Nevermind, mistake on my part.

 

[Phil Gravett]

Looks like I have to do a pc upgrade as my motherboard is playing up, it’s a x99 board with a i7 5280k

Which of these new Amd chips and mboard would give me best upgrade ?

Thanks

Phil

 

[Terry Rock]

Looks like I have to do a pc upgrade as my motherboard is playing up, it’s a x99 board with a i7 5280k

Which of these new Amd chips and mboard would give me best upgrade ?

Thanks

Phil

What GPU are you currently using?
That'll determine if these new chips will sufficiently benefit you or not.

 

[Case_]

Edit: Sorry, responded and overlooked the "new" bit.

 

[Alex Townsend]

There was a published 'review' way ahead of release from some Spanish site but people are thinking it could well be bogus.
If it's not then a 3600 should be a great upgrade for most people.
Then again, I'm still not sure about the differences between 3600 and 3600x
People say the non x is cheaper, lower TDP and higher OC but then others state the x have more features, run cooler and have more performance out of the box. So I'm kinda lost as to what I would need.
At least with Intel you get the K and know its unlocked. AMD they're all unlocked so makes it a little more confusing as to the benefits vs requirements...

 

[Case_]

The X models are (or rather - have been so far) basically just higher quality chips that can be pushed a bit higher than the non-X, so they have higher boost frequencies and also higher TDP to take advantage of the higher boost. Or another way to put it - the X models are basically factory overclocked versions of the non-X ones. If you overclock the non-X, you can generally get on the level or very close to the X version, depending on the silicon lottery.

Unless AMD decide to change something for the new chips.

 

[Alex Townsend]

Thanks for that @Martin Fiala finally a decent explanation on this.
I also heard that the way these chips OC automatically can actually be better than trying to manually OC them.
This is interesting to me as I'm not an overclocker, I'm just looking for best performance for sim racing. The rest of the time my computer can just go into potato mode for all i care as i only use it for games and racing really.

 

[Case_]

You can see my comparison of a manual overclock vs. stock (=automatic boost) on my 2600 a few posts up. It's somewhat worth it to manually overclock a non-X, even though you'll see little gain in real-life application and especially in gaming, but with a non-X, which goes higher by default and often is capable of sustaining high boost even on all cores, it's probably not really worth it unless you're really trying to squeeze every last bit of performance out of the CPU.

I can get my 2600 to run more or less stable at around 4 GHz on all cores. It would probably make it a bit higher still, but I'd have to raise the voltage beyond what I consider reasonable. Generally, I run it at 3.9-3.95.
If I leave it to the CPU itself, then it boosts to 3.7 GHz on all cores or to around 3.85-3.9 on one or two cores (as you can see above as well). So yeah, the OC gain really is minimal here. I'm pretty sure it could boost higher, but it's limited by its lower TDP (which is one of several things the boost logic takes into consideration).

 

[Phil Gravett]

What GPU are you currently using?
That'll determine if these new chips will sufficiently benefit you or not.

980 Ti

 

[Terry Rock]

980 Ti

With the 980Ti, I'd probably stick with the I7.
Now if you had at least a 1070, I'd sell that CPU to offset the cost and certainly make the jump to at least the 3600.
You will benefit from either move, but the return would be better with a little more GPU.

 

[Case_]

Unless you know his target resolution and framerate, it is impossible to judge GPU vs CPU.

 

[Phil Gravett]

thanks for the replies guys

as I stated in my original post I'm having motherboard issues, the cost of an obsolete x99 board is still quite expensive - I'm happy to take the plunge on a new MB and CPU - my issue was I'm that out of touch with current CPU tech - I have always had intel stuff

new GFX card can come later and realise bigger benefits

 

[RasmusP]

thanks for the replies guys

as I stated in my original post I'm having motherboard issues, the cost of an obsolete x99 board is still quite expensive - I'm happy to take the plunge on a new MB and CPU - my issue was I'm that out of touch with current CPU tech - I have always had intel stuff

new GFX card can come later and realise bigger benefits

Simracing = Single Thread Performance.
Sadly it is like this, in most mainstream games it's a lot different.

Looking at the PassMark comparison page:

New Ryzen 3xxx are expected and praised to have the same, if not higher single thread performance than the current i5/7/9 9xxxk Intels.
So yeah, you'll gain a lot of performance for simracing!

I myself have a gtx 1070, basically same performance as your 980ti. In all simracing titles apart from ACC, I'm around 60-70 fps for normal race situations with my i7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz.
Did you overclock your 5820k? If not, the boost will be even more impressive!

My 1070 could run everything apart from ACC and some bad spots in rF2 at shady sunset or rain with a lot more fps than my old i7 can do so my personal opinion:
Wait for actual benchmarks, then grab one of the Ryzen CPUs and be happy.

btw, I went from 1920x1080 to 3440x1440 and still, my 1070 could run at a lot higher fps...

 

[robt100]

I have a related question (ish) so thought I'd pop it in here....
I'll be upgrading my pc at the start of next year, 2 things:
1) My current PC was built in 2013 (FX6300 cpu.....yeah I know!) How much of a difference will I feel going onto the latest Ryzen +/Ryzen 2 systems? I already run an SSD. and upgraded to a 1660ti, but thats CPU bottlenecked at the moment.
2) With AMD saying there is AM4 support until 2020, is it worth me hanging on for 12 more months to see whats available for Ryzen 3 (4th gen) and a new platform? I'm on win7 at the moment which kinda puts a little pressure on my options, but I can deal with that..

 

[RasmusP]

I have a related question (ish) so thought I'd pop it in here....
I'll be upgrading my pc at the start of next year, 2 things:
1) My current PC was built in 2013 (FX6300 cpu.....yeah I know!) How much of a difference will I feel going onto the latest Ryzen +/Ryzen 2 systems? I already run an SSD. and upgraded to a 1660ti, but thats CPU bottlenecked at the moment.
2) With AMD saying there is AM4 support until 2020, is it worth me hanging on for 12 more months to see whats available for Ryzen 3 (4th gen) and a new platform? I'm on win7 at the moment which kinda puts a little pressure on my options, but I can deal with that..

A ryzen 3700 would simply blow you away, judging by the currently expected performance. I guess doubled fps in sims, tripled or more fps in games that can make better use of multiple cores.
Hanging in there to get the first cpu in the new platform... Hmm, difficult!
No idea honestly. Sure it might be worth it but on the other hand you would to wait and wait again instead of blowing your head out with a ryzen 3xxx.
I would go for it honestly. I don't expect a massive jump after this one for 2-4 years.