I play a multiplayer game that runs on an older version of the cry engine and is cpu limited. It’s also a game where there are sometimes lengthy periods in between matches. In addition it requires coordinated team play to win, trying to Rambo it against higher tier teams will get you killed and earn the scorn of your team mates. So for these reasons I’ll have Discord running and on my second screen I’ll often have a few chrome tabs open with a video playing and perhaps something interesting to read in-between matches. And that’s all it takes to be close to overwhelming my 4770k. So even if I don’t see a significant increase in game performance I’m hoping that these new Ryzen chips will help eliminate the multitasking bottlenecks I’m experiencing. It’s nothing fancy, just a basic gaming PC, but even that is starting to require some serious computing power to maintain smoothness. Streaming at the quality I’d like to do it at is out of reach for me at the moment.
-
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.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
I play a multiplayer game that runs on an older version of the cry engine and is cpu limited. It’s also a game where there are sometimes lengthy periods in between matches. In addition it requires coordinated team play to win, trying to Rambo it against higher tier teams will get you killed and earn the scorn of your team mates. So for these reasons I’ll have Discord running and on my second screen I’ll often have a few chrome tabs open with a video playing and perhaps something interesting to read in-between matches. And that’s all it takes to be close to overwhelming my 4770k. So even if I don’t see a significant increase in game performance I’m hoping that these new Ryzen chips will help eliminate the multitasking bottlenecks I’m experiencing. It’s nothing fancy, just a basic gaming PC, but even that is starting to require some serious computing power to maintain smoothness. Streaming at the quality I’d like to do it at is out of reach for me at the moment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 5,157
- Location
- South Wales
Wonder how much longer for leaks, surprised nothing yet.. though i wouldn't really trust anything leaked today anyway unless it had a good source.
Not sure if that was aimed at me but I wasn't implying I "streamlined" my PC just for gaming. Far from it.
Yes I have anti virus software installed. I don't have rgb stuff installed or keyboard/mouse control though.
I don't have browser loaded up while gaming as I use a single screen. If I'm that desperate to look something up I use my mobile next to me. If on the rare occasions I need to voice chat I'll use steam as it is normally already open because of the game.
Out of all my friends only 2 even have a PC capable of gaming and neither of them have loads of programs open either.
Streaming/encoding etc is niche. If you do either of those you're certainly not in the average casual user group like myself
Yeah, i don't think it does make a difference, as long as you have plenty of spare CPU threads and System RAM, windows is pretty good at seperating tasks on threads in a way that its not slowing down other tasks, so long as the threads are there.
ar don't. But I was brought up on DOS so I've had it sort of ingrained into me. Gaming on Windows used to be awful back in the day.
I think to the people who ask what do you need so many CPU threads for? I would say why not, a high performance 12 thread CPU can be had for little over £100 now and with it you can use your PC in such a way that you gon't have to go around shutting stuff down before playing games.
Is that not a more convenient way of using your PC?
Is that not a more convenient way of using your PC?
If lots of threads was stupidly expensive then I'd also question "why do I need so many", but as @humbug says when you can get 12 threads for little money then surely it becomes a moot point? It's not like you're having to balance price vs performance. Plus, now that Intel have finally relented and starting to up their core counts, Microsoft and other software developers will now have an incentive to start utilising more cores and threads; it might be OK to argue 4c/8t is fine for now, but in short order we could see that such a configuration is insufficient, especially in games.
I know it's WCCFTech, but there's some interesting reading to be had near the bottom. Apparently the creator of the Ryzen DRAM calculator has offered some insight on things that might be coming with Ryzen 3000.
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-valhalla-cpus-x370-x470-motherboard-bios-support/
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-3000-valhalla-cpus-x370-x470-motherboard-bios-support/
they should just hire him, i'm sure his skill and knowledge would be useful to them.
Is there an easy way of doing this? IE without taking a RAM stick out, halving your system RAM would surely have an impact in its self?
I wonder if renaming CCX to CCD is indicative of it being an 8 cores thing now? Renaming "Core Complex" to "Compute Core Design" purely for a laugh seems redundant.
Sorry, I'm grasping all of the straws, I have none spare
Sorry, I'm grasping all of the straws, I have none spare
Would just need to use a game that didn’t make use of 50+% of the total RAM.
I remember way back when that single/dual was only worth <5% but that was years ago. This seems to be the trade off of using 2x CCD to give you 16 cores, each channel is connected to one specific CCD.
Ok, i'll do it when i have time and let you know when its done.
Well in the case of intel the core counts have a big cost premium, their 8 core chips are way more expensive than their 4 core and even their 6 cores when they were first launched.
With AMD obviously if a 12 core costs the same as a 8 core and there is no obvious downside then by all means buy it.
But I feel the need to correct this again, because it keeps been brought up that software threads on a cpu does both these things
(a) provides noticable more responsiveness, performance on a typical windows desktop.
(b) allows you to have more background apps open
For a average desktop user its only really the core count that has an affect and software thread count can mostly be ignored so a 6/6 almost the same as a 12/6, there is exceptions of course e.g. people who encode media. Or maybe spend large amounts of times compressing/decompressing files. For background apps, if you load something like steam in the background it doesnt sit there hogging a core/thread preventing other programs from using it, it doesnt work like that.
The downsides of higher cores is likely to be.
Higher price - how much higher who knows
Higher temperatures
Higher power consumption
Higher spec VRM required and as such possibly more expensive motherboard needed.
More context switches (lower cpu efficiency).
e.g. when I got my 2600X a 2700X was an extra £110, for 2 more cores I felt wasnt worth it, a standard 2700 was an extra £40 for those 2 cores but at lower clocks. That one I did think about. But ultimately I was already pushing the budget I had set so it was the 2600X. SMT isnt an issue on AMD as its given as standard so you just get it regardless of chip you buy at least, unlike intel who have managed to add it as a tax on their cpu's for a software feature.
Also, to keep the same amount of RAM you could move the 2nd stick onto the same channel as the 1st if you have four RAM slots.
Good point, i'll do that.