4670k to Ryzen 5 2600

Greame Champion

Technomaniac
Premium
215
34
I'd go for a 3600, I have a 4690K and that is the jump I'm saving for, in terms of single core performance it isn't quite worth it to go to a 2600
Thanks,
Which sims benefit from multicore performance? and which are best for single.
For instance my cpu is a bottleneck in raceroom and ACC but all is very good in rfactor 2. Is that what you find.

Regards Greame
 
356
131
Thanks,
Which sims benefit from multicore performance? and which are best for single.
For instance my cpu is a bottleneck in raceroom and ACC but all is very good in rfactor 2. Is that what you find.

Regards Greame
Almost all recent sims and probably all future sims will benefit from increased multicore performance, however 4 cores can be good enough if the single core performance is very good, and better single core performance will ensure that for older sims the CPU will be less of a bottleneck. I find ACC is very limited, while Raceroom isn't really an issue. Either ways why go with a 2600 when a much improved 3600 is not too much more expensive?
 
Which sims benefit from multicore performance?
Simply put - pretty much none. All of the current sims rely heavily on single-threaded performance, not on multithreaded. PCars 2 can make the best use of multiple threads, ACC kinda sorta can as well, but it still heavily relies on a single thread.

Raceroom, in particular, runs on two threads. That's it. It can't currently utilize more, and likely won't be able to as long as it stays on DX9.

I wouldn't go for an upgrade from 4670k to Ryzen 2600 (disclaimer: I currently own the 2600). It might actually turn out to be a downgrade. At least consider getting the 3600, but you might still find it not really worth the investment and hassle.

There's currently a nice thread to give people an idea on how the CPUs compare in regards to Raceroom performance on the S3 forums, you might want to look at the scores there:

https://forum.sector3studios.com/index.php?threads/directx-9-cpu-benchmark-thread.13473/
 

RasmusP

Premium
7,090
4,325
Germany
https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/9700k-vs-3700x.170846/#post-3006510

Second part of this post contains parts of a excel sheet I created some time ago.
Don't get the 2600! A 3600 will be a good upgrade though!
Best simracing CPUs are still 9600k (if overclocked) and even slightly better but a lot more expensive depending on your country, 9700k.

Question to you: do you limit your fps? I'm wondering that rF2 is not heavily cpu limited for you.
For me simply all Sims are cpu limited to around 60-75 fps when doing a race with a 24 cars grid.
Acc is there too, although my graphics card is at 100% around 65 fps so the limit swaps back and forth between cpu/gpu there.

Rf2 gpu load fluctuates between 30% and 100% spikes in shadowed, narrow places with some rain etc.
Mostly during a race my cpu limits the fps to about 65, while my gpu is between 30-60 %.

I7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz and a gtx 1070 @ 3440x1440.

At the cpu mark page you can compare cpu scores, single and multi thread performance.
For your cpu, the r5 2600 and r5 3600 it looks like this:
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compar...zen-5-2600-vs-Intel-i5-4670K/3481vs3243vs1921

Beware though that these tests are a mix of everyone who ran the test. So people with stock settings are mixed into the score and also people at 6 GHz on liquid nitrogen. It's a good comparison point though!
If you want to know your exact score, download the free demo (you can always run the benchmark even after the test period) and test your own specific cpu.

From the page:
4670k: st 2188, Mt 7635
3600: st 2831, Mt 20043
2600: st 2006, Mt 13507

So the 2600 will give you lower fps for a single thread application (rF2 loading screen, lol) and at some point higher fps for games like assassin's creed: odyssey.

Simracing titles, like Martin said are using between 2-4 threads. A good way to estimate the performance is to grab the st points and multiply them with the used threads.
Raceroom with 2 threads:
2x 2188 vs 2x 2006 vs 2x 2831.

You can now take the percentage differences, put in your current fps value and know what the new cpu will give you. It works more or less accurately.

Now for assassin's creed: odyssey you would take 7 threads. Fun fact: your cpu can only run 4 threads.
Calculation looks like this now:
4x 2188, 7x 2006, 7x 2831

Now you see why people say the older ryzen would be good for gaming. But for simracing it just isn't.

Here are the 9600k and 9700k performance numbers for you. Although you should give the 9600k 20% higher values because it's running a lot lower clocks at stock compared to the 9700k. You can easily overclock it to the same clocks though and then you only have 2 more cores.

9600k: st 2682, Mt 13582
9700k: st 2820, Mt 17202

Now keep in mind that the ryzen st score is too high. Even at 2 used threads the cpu won't boost as high anymore. Overclocking won't gain you anything.
On the other hand you can easily overclock the Intel CPUs and raise the boosting on all cores.

Conclusion: if you can be bothered to overclock your cpu and only want to simrace:
Best bang for the buck is the 9600k.

If you want the best bang for your buck overall and a nice simracing performance: 3600.

Hope that gave you some clarity about this subject :)
 
Going for a Ryzen 3600 would be a very good jump, but not because of the potential 20% single thread performance (FPS) jump, which in most cases is GPU limited anyway.
It would be a good jump because of the huge increase in cores and threads, which will allow you to have a much more stable system that wont stutter under OS loads and background programs (and streaming), a decrease in power consumption and temperatures, and availability of DDR4 RAM, which improves a little bit of every category really.
 
Ryzen 5 3600 from i7 3770k.
AC benchmark went from 26000 to 54000. Massive leap. AC is rock solid in VR
That doesn't sound right. I mean the 3600 is a nice improvement over the 2600, but I got 24400 in 1920x1200 with reasonable settings and framerates above 120 (on a 1660Ti). A score of 54000 on a 3600 sounds suspiciously high.

Besides, we don't really know the criteria the AC benchmark takes into consideration. I mean, GPU certainly plays a part in it, so that's one factor that should not be omitted, but who knows what else?

And I would seriously doubt your framerate actually doubled in the game following that kind of upgrade.
 
354
88
That doesn't sound right. I mean the 3600 is a nice improvement over the 2600, but I got 24400 in 1920x1200 with reasonable settings and framerates above 120 (on a 1660Ti). A score of 54000 on a 3600 sounds suspiciously high.

Besides, we don't really know the criteria the AC benchmark takes into consideration. I mean, GPU certainly plays a part in it, so that's one factor that should not be omitted, but who knows what else?

And I would seriously doubt your framerate actually doubled in the game following that kind of upgrade.

AC VERSION: 1.16.3 (x64)
POINTS: 53361
FPS: AVG=364 MIN=70 MAX=561 VARIANCE=33 CPU=88%

LOADING TIME: 16s
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6GB (1842x1036)
OS-Version: 6.2.9200 () 0x100-0x1
CPU CORES: 12
FULLSCREEN: ON
AA:4X AF:16X SHDW:-1 BLUR:12
WORLD DETAIL: 4 SMOKE:2
PP: QLT:3 HDR:0 FXAA:0 GLR:3 DOF:3 RAYS:1 HEAT:0
 
@magzire Well, you're running pretty low settings including having shadows completely disabled, so that's part of the answer.

But I got curious, because it still didn't make sense to me how you could have that high framerate and point score, and found out the answer - you're running the custom shaders patch, right? (And possibly more tweaks.) From the beginning, I was talking about plain AC without any special settings, because that's what I assume as a baseline when it's not specifically mentioned. So yeah, with custom shaders patch and your graphics config, I get close to 35000 points and around 250 fps on average, so I guess under those circumstances, 360 fps and 53000 points seems at least somewhat achievable.
 
Top