add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Intel and AMD

pogiimon
  • 3 months ago

Hi all, I know this is an age old question and I've read a lot of posts on this forum already, but I'd still like some input. Ideally, on this new machine I'd like to run front-end(Unity) and back-end programs when I'm working from home. I'd also like for this machine to run some games(Monster Hunter, MS Flight Sim 2020, some MOBAs). I won't be streaming or doing any video editing.

Specifically I'm debating between the Ryzen 7 2700X, Ryzen 5 3600, Intel i5-9400 and Intel i5-9600k Any help would be appreciated.

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who replied, it made my choice much easier and I learned a ton.

Comments

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

With DX12/Windows optimisations and auxiliary game code developments, we're seeing better and more stable performance with "multi-threaded" 6/8 core CPUs. These optimisations are seeing more favourable all-core load distribution hence anything with greater compute resources will be the sensible way forward. The same applies for non-gaming multi-threaded/simultaneous workloads.

This i5-9400/i5-9600K are single-threaded CPUs hence give it a miss

Like the others, I too would recommend the 8 core/16 thread 2700X approach. The value proposition is fantastic and you get an adequately suited heatpiped (vapor chamber) cooler included (sustained boost loads not far off from the rated boost spec).

The 3600 does edge out a little better for strictly gaming but for your added workloads (Unity) + back-end multiple processes, the more the cores the better.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

Of the ones you've chosen I would go with the 2700x. It's great value 8 core hyperthreaded, it's also going to lose very little value at this point so when you decide you want more power you can get a newer chip or go with a higher end ryzen 9 and keep the rest of your system as is. An upgrade on your cooling solution would be a good idea if you went as high as ryzen 9 though. AMD has said the 4000 series is still going to be on the AM4 socket so there will be future options with your board. I wouldn't go with the intel chips as they don't support hyperthreading, you also box yourself in to having to upgrade your whole platform when you decide in future to upgrade again as they are changing sockets yet again to lga1200 with the 10th gen chips coming this year

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Thanks, I did more research on the 2700x and it seems like a good choice.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

2700X tends to be a bit cheaper than the 3600 and is great value. I'd avoid the 6core/6thread Intel processors; dead end platform and some games are already becoming much more efficient at using many threads.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Thank you. Do you mind explaining a bit more about the 'dead end' of 6core/6thread Intel processors?

  • 3 months ago
  • 3 points

The current ones available are on Z390, and the next series will require new motherboards with a new socket. This means that your maximum upgrade is the 9900k. While good, the AM4 platform is planned to support the Ryzen 4000 series as well and the AMD processors haven't held value as much as Intel ones. This means that an upgrade later will likely be better value than a used 9900k, whether looking at a used 3000 series processor for cheap or a new 4000 series processor. That upgrade potential makes AM4 a better investment, especially when looking at mid range chips.

As far as 6c/6t goes, games are increasingly taking advantage of more threads. This trend is likely to continue. 4c/4t processors are already seeing struggles in recent titles, and 6c/6t or 4c/8t chips are a bit hard to recommend in context of this trend. There are a few cases where these chips are already seeing issues in 1% low performance, and I doubt that things will get any better for them. Worth noting Intel is also expected to follow AMD's lead with their next series and open hyperthreading down the product stack. While a year or two ago 6c/6t may have been a reasonable choice, with the current pricing and performance of AMD and the multithreading trend barrelling onward, I don't see them as a worthwhile investment.

Finally, cost. Decent Z390 motherboards cost as much as decent X570 boards, and the processors themselves are similarly priced or higher. AMD you have the option of running the stock cooler, which adds some value (especially the Prism, as they can be readily resold for a few bucks). With overall costs much the same or higher than AMD, you are paying extra for the downsides above and generally small benefit in the best case scenarios.

Combining these factors together (motherboard platform support and value of threads) makes the i5 6c/6t parts not recommendable in my opinion.

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

they wont be able to run many games in just a few years, the new standard seems to be 6c/12t and anything less than that, or that doesn't have Hyper threading or SMT is kind of a bad choice in 2020, when it comes to longevity

  • 3 months ago
  • 2 points

I will expatiate a bit. All platforms right now are dead end. That is if dead end implies a halt in support and development or upgrade potential. We are approaching a new generation. With DDR5 adoption on next Gen AMD and Intel Chipsets (Ryzen 4000 is not next gen) due approx 12 months from now, any build you do today your PC upgrade path is likely going to lead you to the newest technology in the future. That means the flood of used AMD 3950X's and 4000X's on the market could be deemed as having limited appeal. The appeal of at least one more upgrade will vary user to user of course. Many enthusiasts upgrade their PC's yearly to own the latest and greatest, many do not mind hanging ten with what they have even if their CPU/GPU combo's might stutter through some games, others may see an upgrade path in two years, even on the used market as being a significant boon to ownership of said chipset.

As for 6core/6thread processors, it is speculative how gaming developers will increase core usage and hyperthreading usage. Right now, 6 core / 6 thread CPU's and 4 core / 8 thread CPU's are fine for all but the poorly optimized gaming titles out there (i.e. like Red Dead Redemption 2 where the Xbox One X Version is hugely superior). In future who knows? We might all be flipping our 8core/16thread CPU's due to poor performance or maybe a 6 core will be okay. I definitely find it hard to recommend any of the Intel CPU's right now outside of perhaps the i9-9900K. I would say something like the 2700X is a good investment.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Either the 2700x or the 3600 is going to give comparable performance. If you're heavier into gaming, go with 3600, heavier into unity go with 2700x. MOBAS aren't as demanding as FPS games, where ns matter and maintaining 144fps with minimal stutter or your 1% low can ruin the experience.

The intels are out because no multithreading, they won't perform well at both task. The MOBAS should play fine on 2700x, but the lack of 2 cores and 4 threads isn't the only thing to consider when gaming. The IPC (instructions per cycle) is improved as well as cache latency on the 3600.

However you want to look at it there's not a huge difference in either. I would go with a 2700x and be happy knowing i got a processor that was capable to do the job. After the year rolls through i would have the initial build cost covered and then decide which direction i needed to go in my next upgrade.

Bottleneck prediction matched with 2080 TI

Graphic card and processor will work great together AMD Ryzen 5 3600 (Clock speed at 100%) with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Clock speed at 100%) x1 will produce only 0.03% of bottleneck.

Graphic card and processor will work great together AMD Ryzen 7 2700X (Clock speed at 100%) with NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (Clock speed at 100%) x1 will produce only 4.51% of bottleneck.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

I was good with this post up until we get to the bottleneck prediction. Please - bottleneck calculator numbers are completely meaningless, except for the one scenario that the calculator is assuming -- whatever that is.

There's always a rate limiting part. The CPU generates the frames, the GPU renders them according to the resolution and detail settings, the monitor displays them. That's the pipeline. The slowest part of the pipeline will vary depending on what's running, what graphics details settings are, the monitor resolution, and the monitor refresh rate. The base frame rate is set mostly by the CPU performance and the way in which the game engine is coded. The GPU render speed can vary based on resolution and graphics detail settings. The monitor refresh rate is generally a hard limit defined by the panel used.

An Athlon 200GE can easily keep up with a 2080 Ti running Overwatch or LoL at 4K displaying on a 60 Hz panel, because in that case the bottleneck is the monitor. Switch to a fast 4K panel and the GPU is likely to be maxed out in many games. Change the scenario to Battlefield V at low, 1080p on a fast panel and the CPU is pretty clearly the limiting part. You can't just reduce it to a number.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

OP didn't list a video card. I just used a calculator to give an example that they're close. You're absolutely right here. Bottlenecks have more variables then one but given same hardware swapping 2700x for 3600 you're only going to see marginal difference. The calculator works well in this comparison but isn't a real world scenario and is using a simulated result using an unknown algorithm; hence, I used the word prediction.

  • 3 months ago
  • 1 point

Ok, that's a interesting use of the calculator. It's hard to say how accurate it is, but if you're using the numbers purely in a relative sense then there might be some value to it.

These forums regularly see people who have been mis-taught about "bottlenecking" elsewhere, and I generally try to disabuse them of the notion that getting a particular number on some bottleneck calculator has any usefulness.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube