Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,505
CP2077 loves cores! Thats why 5950x is almost 50% faster than 5600x at 1080p. Similar story with Intel.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
MSI 3080 i5 7600k benchmark
- Thread starter Dan4dr
- Start date
Oh yeah, i've seem people get full core scaling on 16 core 32 thread Ryzen's, its the future....
SC gets a lot of flack, but in some respects they're doing something special imo.
We're long overdue proper multi-core utilisation, I'd like to think that we're seeing a change in that but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
Honestly as long as people are willing to invest time and perhaps a little more money in overclocking I still think the 10850K is a fantastic buy depending on the price. I recommended it a bunch last year, in part due to poor availability from AMD but it was also very well priced for for a good long time. I seem to remember it being sub £350 at one point even. Then of course there's use-cases, albeit rare, where Intel is the better option, although that's rarely for purely gaming purposes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,505
Agree, but I am biased
lol.10 cores rumbling away at 5.2ghz is rather good for the cash. Even the AMD hardcore fundamentalists might concur?
Who am I trying to kid
LOL Agree, but I am biased
10 cores rumbling away at 5.2ghz is rather good for the cash. Even the AMD hardcore fundamentalists might concur?
Who am I trying to kid
Hah.
I wouldn't turn my nose up at it, there's a tool for every job, right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,505
It was an agonising choice as I built the i9 rig about a week before Zen 3 came out. No complaints though, particularly as i got the willy wonka 3080 golden ticket
It was an agonising choice as I built the i9 rig about a week before Zen 3 came out. No complaints though, particularly as i got the willy wonka 3080 golden ticket
You lucky..... #####
Honestly I would call the 10900K a bad buy, and there's few occasions where that hasn't been the case.
The 10850K is basically the same CPU and it's regularly been around 20-40% cheaper, I realise that some may argue the 10900K has superior silicone but I've yet to find an 10850K owner who hasn't been able to hit similar clocks.
The odd part of the competition to me is that the best "budget" option right now is Intel with the 10400F, it's a great bit of kit that's hovered around £120-140 since it launched. It might not be the best long term platform option, but for people who just want to build and forget it's the best 'entry level' gaming CPU on the market right now. AMD was hitting it hard prior with the likes of the 1600AF and to a lesser extent the 3100 and 3300 -- both of which are quads within spitting distance of second hand AMD hexa's and brand new Intel hexas.
It was an agonising choice as I built the i9 rig about a week before Zen 3 came out. No complaints though, particularly as i got the willy wonka 3080 golden ticket
Rough choice but it's not one I'd feel bad about if I were in your shoes.
I upgraded to a 5800X as I already had the AM4 board and while it's a good CPU if I was upgrading from scratch right now I'd probably go Intel i7/9 + Z490 since you get a couple of extra cores for the same price as AMD which makes it more futureproof for gaming although you would lose stuff like PCIe gen 4.0 but this won't be needed for gaming yet and by the time it is the CPUs will be to slow to make use of the extra bandwidth anyway.
I do not agree with this.
@humbug already presented information regarding Ryzen 5x00 series CPU's having massive headroom. Even that aside, when we look at PCI-E 3.0 vs 4.0 there's already an (albeit) slight difference.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2104-pcie4-vs-pcie3-gpu-performance/
Will it matter in a year or two? Probably not, but we have people including the OP who keep their processors for a half decade or more given the chance, and at that point the differences are going to be far more noticeable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 5,505
Hard to say but pcie 3.0 is 10 years old! Not sure if us lot with Z490 'pcie 4.0 ready' will make the jump to 11xxx for marginal fps gains but some might?
The 1% difference you're talking about would likely flip the opposite way and further extend in a few of years by having a couple of extra cores and while you could upgrade to a 12/16 on AMD these will likely remain expensive and will still be easily beaten by newer CPUs with less cores for the a similar price making a future upgrade not cost effective.
Absolutely.
I think when making those arguments you're looking at people chasing frames, and that being the case you could still do that with current Ryzen platforms in most games -- aka those sporting PCI-E 4.0, as we've seen Ryzen 5x00 has the headroom and 4.0 grants said headroom the bandwidth for graphics cards. If you want to plop a top tier Nvidia 6090 down the line in such a scenario I suspect you'll have a better time with an 8 core Ryzen under 4.0 than say... Coment Lake under 3.0?
If you read the review there's a 6% + difference at times with current hardware. I'm not convinced the extra core count will make as much of a difference beyond octa-core setups, although as you've said yourself AMD has the option to surpass that. I've seen 3900's for under £300 for example, high value second hand markets for CPU's are Intel's domain. You have to remember that outside of aforementioned outliers (Star Citizen) most games are designed for the lowest common denominator, being consoles. Current consoles even have tiers, but they're essentially 8c/16t AMD APU's that are slower than a 3700X.
Last edited:
Most of the differences were from PCIe gen 3 running at X8 and while there was the odd game that was worse on 3x16 that's probably more down to poor coding of the game rather than anything else.
The 5900/5950X will hold their price more since they are the last CPUs of the platform and given that they are hardly even available right now 4 months after launch I doubt there will be a huge stock of these as second hand parts.
while you can get a 3900X for £300 it's already beaten in games by a 5600X for around the same price and that's only in 1 generation.
Had you brought into PCIe gen 2.0 just as gen 3.0 released you would have been fine running any card right up till the 2080ti without bandwidth issues, the problem you would run into though is the old CPUs couldn't keep up long before that.
Last edited:
So we're agreed that poor coding is a factor, which is historically the case with multiplatform gaming?
AMD's 12-16 core chips holding greater value is supposition, ultimately Intel is more popular than AMD even when AMD has the better product. It's the reason we regularly see Skylake quads go for silly money (I saw a 7700K second hand combo with a mobo go for £350 not that long ago). The same cannot be said of AMD in said markets, in fact I saw a 3700X go for almost £200 in the MM on this website not so long ago.
For your third point, I agree that in current games the 5600X is usually better. However, your primary point was that a 10 core Intel was a better buy than an 8 core AMD in the long run. That's observably false, both I and @humbug have presented reasoning for this.
There absolutely is a noticeable difference right now between PCI-E 3.0 and 4.0 depending on the game, in large for the reasons mentioned by @turbot1984. That is only going to increase, and while "minor" right now it will not be for those that buy for longevity in a couple of generations. It's easy to say 6% is nothing (and I've seen other tests which give larger benefits, but I decided to link something easier to stomach) right now, but that 6% could well be 30% with the same platforms in half a decade. A difference where the limiting factor may well not be the CPU.
The difference between PCI-E 2.0 vs 3.0 is that at that time, there wasn't anything saturating 2.0. In current times there is blatant and presented evidence that 3.0 is being saturated. 2.0 wasn't the standard for anywhere near as long as 3.0 has been.
Last edited:
That's may have been the case in the past as most people brought Intel but now AMD is hugely outselling Intel so in the next few years there will be a lot of demand for AM4 CPUs especially the 5000 series which will be the best upgrade available to many people who have AM4 boards but are running older CPUs.
10 core Intel vs 8 core AMD performs about the same so matters very little right now but if a game can take advantage of extra cores in the future then it will favour the CPU with extra cores.
Even if it is 30% deficit in 5 year which I doubt very much it will be have you seen the results when trying to run a RTX3090 with a 5 year old CPU? So makes absolutely no sense buying a top end GPU to run on an aging platform.
We've addressed this.
This is only true within the enthusiast market and even then more people are buying Intel.
You're confusing factors regularly, perhaps on purpose, I'm not fussed either way. You don't seem to understand the argument being made, which is one of longevity -- while you yourself are arguing for longevity. What makes sense is to buy a GPU which suits the platform it's bought for, just because something is 5 years old does not necessarily mean it's not suitable. What might make it unsuitable is limited bandwidth on PCI lanes or a CPU which cannot feed it. This is observably less likely to be the case with current AMD.
Funnily enough we can observe CPU comparisons for 5-6 + year old hardware on current tech sites:
https://overclock3d.net/reviews/sof...c_performance_review_and_optimisation_guide/3
The Intel 6850K is used in the above, a CPU which is from 2016, but being an X99 platform and a hexa did not suffer from the same problems Intel's mainstream quads have. The test itself dates to roughly this time last year, unlike Intel AMD is not suffering from core scaling, and they have far better IPC and multi-core management.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2016
- Posts
- 2,884
- Location
- East Lothian
Worth considering too, the additional bandwidth of PCIe 4.0 when it comes to Resizable Bar. The expectation is that whilst gen 3 can still support it, gen 4 will likely allow for increased performance. We've seen how much of a benefit ReBar can be in AC Valhalla which was likely optimized for it given it was AMD sponsored. If Resizable Bar is to become a tool developers optimize their games for then that would be another strong reason to go with PCIe gen 4 going forward.
Ahem! I’m running a 3090fe on a 5 year old cpu. But, it’s a 5930k x99 platform - 6 cores 12 threads, with quad channel ddr4 at tight timings. And it overclocks and runs at 4.6ghz.
I game at 4K 60hz and 3440x1440 up to 90hz, and all my games fly with this setup. I thought I’d be itching to upgrade the cpu etc after getting the 3090, but I’m just not.
The only game giving me slight pause for thought is flight sim 2020 though, but from what I’ve seen spending a big chunk on a new cpu, motherboard and ram might net me a very negligible improvement.
Also, granted the OP’s cpu is bad these days with only 4 cores and no hyperthreading, and he does need to upgrade. however, why is no one addressing the fact that he said he’s getting Worse performance with a 3080 than he did with a 2070s??? He might get roughly the same in some games being cpu bottlenecked, but should absolutely not get worse performance.
And, his 3D mark graphics score only (not really affected by your cpu) is very low for a 3080, at only 15,641. Shouldn’t it be about 17,000 -18,000?....
https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=spy P&cpuId=2191&gpuId=1338&gpuCount=0&deviceType=ALL&memoryChannels=0&country=&scoreType=overallScore&hofMode=false&showInvalidResults=false&freeParams=&minGpuCoreClock=&maxGpuCoreClock=&minGpuMemClock=&maxGpuMemClock=&minCpuClock=&maxCpuClock=
I game at 4K 60hz and 3440x1440 up to 90hz, and all my games fly with this setup. I thought I’d be itching to upgrade the cpu etc after getting the 3090, but I’m just not.
The only game giving me slight pause for thought is flight sim 2020 though, but from what I’ve seen spending a big chunk on a new cpu, motherboard and ram might net me a very negligible improvement.
Also, granted the OP’s cpu is bad these days with only 4 cores and no hyperthreading, and he does need to upgrade. however, why is no one addressing the fact that he said he’s getting Worse performance with a 3080 than he did with a 2070s??? He might get roughly the same in some games being cpu bottlenecked, but should absolutely not get worse performance.
And, his 3D mark graphics score only (not really affected by your cpu) is very low for a 3080, at only 15,641. Shouldn’t it be about 17,000 -18,000?....
https://www.3dmark.com/search#advanced?test=spy P&cpuId=2191&gpuId=1338&gpuCount=0&deviceType=ALL&memoryChannels=0&country=&scoreType=overallScore&hofMode=false&showInvalidResults=false&freeParams=&minGpuCoreClock=&maxGpuCoreClock=&minGpuMemClock=&maxGpuMemClock=&minCpuClock=&maxCpuClock=
Last edited: