AMD Ryzen For Simracing?

[RasmusP]

I think I'm getting close to getting this board. It comes up top when querying best b450 boards.
I just need another long hard and then unnecessarily long internal debate about whether or not the strix or the carbon. Basically there is a difference in price between the boards, carbon is RM715 vs the Strix at RM520
Basically RM195 diff or about £37 or €42...

Over here the Asus is basically exactly the same price. Interestingly, according to these google sheets:
Crazy massive knock yourself out sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...fiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

and
Little Sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MvYeCLI5ZbIpnq5fyiWD4NCkkU/edit#gid=229691480

The Asus is listed as:
Little sheet: "lower end" with 4 phase VRM
Crazy sheet: 1x 8-pin, 4x CPU, 2x SoC
and 6x ; "8x" ; [4] + [2x2]

The MSI is listed as:
Little sheet: "midrange" with 4x2 phase VRM
Crazy sheet: 1x 8-pin + 1x 4-pin, 1x CPU, 2x SoC, 3x CPU
and 6x ; "10x" ; [4x2]+[2]

Not really sure what that all means but apparently the MSI just has "more of everything"

 

[Alex Townsend]

Over here the Asus is basically exactly the same price. Interestingly, according to these google sheets:
Crazy massive knock yourself out sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...fiDZnKCjaXyzd1o/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true

and
Little Sheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...MvYeCLI5ZbIpnq5fyiWD4NCkkU/edit#gid=229691480

The Asus is listed as:
Little sheet: "lower end" with 4 phase VRM
Crazy sheet: 1x 8-pin, 4x CPU, 2x SoC
and 6x ; "8x" ; [4] + [2x2]

The MSI is listed as:
Little sheet: "midrange" with 4x2 phase VRM
Crazy sheet: 1x 8-pin + 1x 4-pin, 1x CPU, 2x SoC, 3x CPU
and 6x ; "10x" ; [4x2]+[2]

Not really sure what that all means but apparently the MSI just has "more of everything"

In that case... more of a good thing is always better!
Go big or go home.
I'll order the MSI Carbs

 

[Bob Gnarley]

The Carbon also has the same vrm as the MSI X470 Gaming Plus so...

 

[Alex Townsend]

The Carbon also has the same vrm as the MSI X470 Gaming Plus so...

Hmmmm

Cause now it's looking like the Carbon may be sold out here...
I may have to look at another board...
So
Answers on a postcard gents...
If you had to choose a board and you had the selection below or knew of better what would ya pick?
1.) MSI B450 Tomahawk
2.) ASRock B450 Steel Legend
3.) Asus B450 Strix-F
4.) Gigabyte Aorus B450 Elite or anything in that Aorus line up
5.) X470 that could be better than any of them for a similar price range...

Thanks in advance chaps and chapesses

 

[robt100]

From most things I've read/watched, if you want B450 go for MSI, if you want anything else, don't go for MSI

 

[Case_]

I'm going to be repeating myself, but I'd say it doesn't matter in the slightest which one you choose, all are solid boards. Just pick the one you like best.

 

[Durge Driven]

Board and CPU arrives, motherboard box is crushed and easy to tell been opened

Not Happy Jan ! lol

Not sure about this flashback here goes nothing lol

 

[Durge Driven]

Flash seemed to finish
I think I use the stock cooler to setup then change to water
Is there any reason to use 12 pins ( 8+ 4 ) to CPU ? I not O/Cing
You can see damage to motherboard box

Nightmare lol

 

[Alex Townsend]

Flash seemed to finish
I think I use the stock cooler to setup then change to water
Is there any reason to use 12 pins ( 8+ 4 ) to CPU ? I not O/Cing
You can see damage to motherboard box

Nightmare lol

I'll take a picture of my box if it ever arrives... hopefully will be intact.
Did you flash the board for the 3000 series CPU? Did you flash with the CPU in the socket?
Not sure about the 12 pins for the CPU, I'll need to read up on that as will need to know hopefully in a few days time.

 

[Durge Driven]

The board has flash bios button you do with no other hardware
Scroll down a little
https://www.msi.com/blog/the-latest-bios-for-amd-300-400-series-motherboard

Seemed to work as they show but till I put together won't know...that is why I thought better to use the stock cooler till I work it all out and at least get first trial OS running on a spare drive

Never had so much wiring in a case lol

Yes when you RMA they say put 1 inch padding etc but send me board and CPU on top and just put tight black plastic ...too tight ... and no second boxes or filling to protect them ...FAIL !

I usually use another store which always use lots of padding and extra boxes

 

[Bob Gnarley]

As you say, just the 8 pin.

I think what people are missing with the R9's is that they are ideal for a long term build. With the extra cores, that thing will still be relevant beyond next-gen consoles. My six core will likely go the way of the quad, but I'll wait for the 3000's end of life for the best price and drop in something to cover the next few years.

A bit of shrink wrap is p... poor, hope all works ok!

 

[RasmusP]

R9's is that they are ideal for a long term build

You might be right but I won't recommend taking this risky gamble...

They might suffer the same fate like my old i7 2600k:
Still basically no game using it to 100% CPU load but the single thread performance limits my fps in every, single, damn, game

So my new strategy is to only buy 1-2 more cores than you currently need and then rather upgrade again with a cheap build.
If you don't need the processing power for other stuff than gaming, then going with 3600 and in a few years 5600 will give you a lot higher "average fps" compared to 3900x and then sitting on it in a few years, making you longing for an upgrade again...

 

[Dan Costa]

I agree, but the 3900x only costs 499$. If its a gamble, its not a very expensive one!

 

[Bob Gnarley]

You have a good point there. I guess with the lower end sku's priced so competitively it could well work out cheaper to upgrade later.

I take my view because when I got this 1600 its main competitor was the 7600k which, though a bit more expensive, did beat the 1600 by a couple of percent in most titles. That was a couple of years ago. Hardware Unboxed did a retest of two a few weeks ago, but using the latest titles. And now that titles are utilising more cores, the results were opposite with the ryzen coming out ahead.

It would be interesting to see a retest between the 9900k & 3900x in a couple of years time when titles will be making good use of 8 cores. Those extra cores may come in to their own.

 

[RasmusP]

I agree, but the 3900x only costs 499$. If its a gamble, its not a very expensive one!

Well for me in Germany it's 209€ for the 3600 and 529€ for the 3900x. You don't get that many more fps for most games.. Especially since you, for now, have to lock the games to one die to even get a real advantage at all.
And don't forget the more expensive mobo needed.
3600, 209€ + MSI Tomahawk B450, 100€ = 309€
3900x, 529€ + AsRock x470 Taichi, 200€ = 729€

 

[RasmusP]

You have a good point there. I guess with the lower end sku's priced so competitively it could well work out cheaper to upgrade later.

I take my view because when I got this 1600 its main competitor was the 7600k which, though a bit more expensive, did beat the 1600 by a couple of percent in most titles. That was a couple of years ago. Hardware Unboxed did a retest of two a few weeks ago, but using the latest titles. And now that titles are utilising more cores, the results were opposite with the ryzen coming out ahead.

It would be interesting to see a retest between the 9900k & 3900x in a couple of years time when titles will be making good use of 8 cores. Those extra cores may come in to their own.

Don't forget that we are in a simracing forum and all these titles can barely make use of a 4 core cpu, even ACC. Simulation physics are very difficult to split into multiple threads and it's mostly a small team working on that part so I highly doubt we'll see a maxed out 6c/6t cpu like the 9600k maxed out within the next 3-5 years for simracing titles.
Also the i5 with 6 cores now it 1.5x the core count. One might think "yeah 2 cores more that's not much for modern games". And that's totally right.
Assassin's Creed and Battlefield eat cores alive but simracing titles would need to make 1.5x the effort to split their physics.
I'll happily be proven wrong though, don't get me wrong!

And I'm also very glad that I bought 4c/8t back then and not the i5 2500k. But it was only 40€ back then and not like it is now:
9600k = 219€
9700k = 374€

But back then it was 4 threads vs 8 threads. That's 4 threads or 2.0x the thread count.
Now it's only 6 cores vs 8 cores. That's 2 threads or 1.33 the thread count.

I totally see the other side of the story though and if one plays modern triple AAA games, the more cores the better!
For simracing though...
It's just that the relations changed so heavily!

2011/12: 2.0x thread count = 20% higher price
2019: 1.3-1.5x thread count = 250% higher price

 

[Case_]

With the extra cores, that thing will still be relevant beyond next-gen consoles.

Again, that's what people been saying about multicore gaming for years now, and look where we're at. Handful of games that can kinda sorta take advantage of current hardware, but most basically stuck years in the past behind where the CPUs currently are.

And relevant beyond next-gen consoles? Even if I ignore the "beyond" part, you mean the consoles that are still at least a year or two away, and will likely take several more years to influence the market in such a significant way, especially given the development time of an average AAA game these days. So we're likely talking about close to 4-5 years. If you're currently buying a CPU hoping it will be able to show its full potential 5 years down the road, you're not spending your money wisely in my opinion.

(And then there's also the fact we're talking about simracing with its specifics, as Rasmus pointed out, so a lot of cores/threads might be even less relevant here.)

But obviously it's your money, and I can obviously also be wrong and it might take less time. I would certainly love to be wrong.

 

[RasmusP]

Again, that's what people been saying about multicore gaming for years now, and look where we're at.

And relevant beyond next-gen consoles? Even if I ignore the "beyond" part, you mean the consoles that are still at least a year or two away, and will likely take several more years to influence the market in such a significant way, especially given the development time of an average AAA game these days. So we're likely talking about close to 4-5 years. If you're currently buying a CPU hoping it will be able to show its full potential 5 years down the road, you're not spending your money wisely in my opinion.

(And then there's also the fact we're talking about simracing with its specifics, as Rasmus pointed out, so a lot of cores might be even less relevant here.)

But obviously it's your money, and I can obviously also be wrong and it might take less time.

Additionally:
Our most loved simracing titles aren't on console anyway...
rF2 won't get ported anytime soon, ACC isn't announced yet, AC is garbage on consoles, Raceroom isn't planned for consoles..
AMS 2.0 no idea, GTR3 isn't even really alive for PC yet.

I'm yet to see how the consoles influence simracing titles

 

[Case_]

I'm yet to see how the consoles influence simracing titles

Just look at the UI in the more current ones

 

[Bob Gnarley]

I'm yet to see how the consoles influence simracing titles

Well, for me the AMS pack is pretty awesome in rf2 but perhaps they went with something a bit more con$ole friendly for AMS2. Who knows?