AMD Ryzen For Simracing?

[Terry Rock]

I bought a B450 board a couple of months ago, do I regret it? Not very much. The X570 boards are twice more expensive and have nothing I need, plus most of them include the annoying chipset fan. If I ever want to upgrade to Ryzen 4, I can buy a B550 board and still probably end up saving money compared to having bought an X570 board. AMD could have avoided this though by not delaying B550 release by almost a year.

Yours, is exactly how I feel about the whole issue.
I actually bought the X470 Gaming Plus first...along with an R5 2600x.
When the 3000 series was released, I purchased the 3600x and decided to use the 2600x for an entertainment PC.
Not wanting to deal with active chipset cooling fans was my biggest decision to stick with the 400 series of motherboard.
I certainly did not need PCI-e 4.0 support.
I purchased the B450 Gaming Pro Carbon AC about two months ago because of the better VRMs, built-in Bluetooth and wireless.
I do not regret purchasing it one bit...as I got the board at $119 shipped.
Had I paid the usual $165-175...then maybe I'd see things a bit differently.

 

[Bob Gnarley]

.

 

[Case_]

Anyone who's currently on Zen 2 and 3xx or 4xx boards just has to upgrade their motherboards at some point without having to upgrade the CPU or RAM. That gives them access to Zen 3 further down the road, when they feel like it.

Still a pretty convenient and affordable upgrade path.

 

[Bob Gnarley]

.

 

[Case_]

Well, it might've been "decided by some faceless suit in a boardroom", or there might be more to it. We really don't know. It kinda sounds a bit too personal when you phrase it like that.

But like I said, I get why people are annoyed by the decision. It is not the best move and/or it wasn't handled great, I fully agree with that. I just think the outcry has often been way too extreme, and it's still a much better option than what Intel has been doing for years now, swapping sockets with every little refresh/update.

But then again I guess that kinda is how people tend to respond lately to most things, everything seems to be either black or white.

And honestly, if it's really true that people who have been aware about the decision have still been pushing 4xx boards as a good upgrade path recently (which I know nothing about and don't feel like investigating more), then I would probably be more upset at them than at AMD, if I was one of the people who invested in the platform based on such recommendations (even though I still think it was kinda obvious that buying a two years old platform in 2020 when its support was more or less supposed to end anyway is not exactly future-proof).

 

[Bob Gnarley]

.

 

[Durge Driven]

B450/3200G and X570/3900X/RTX2080 got to last long long long time ....still saving, Royal Enfield by Christmas is the plan
Can't make my mind up

 

[Terry Rock]

AMD has now reversed course on not supporting any B450 and X470 motherboard use with Zen3 CPUs.
The statement indicates that some boards will allow it with BETA bios.
Those allowed will need to flash for use only with the new CPUs and cannot be reverted for any earlier CPUs.

 

[Durge Driven]

So with stock 3900X on my 2560 Gsync I lose 7 fps .......... what will I do ! lol
Here $200 dearer for Intel

Intel Core i9-10900K processor review

We review the new Core i9-10900K processor from Intel. It has been a long wait, but finally, we can share you specifications, performance metrics and benchmarks of the new 10th generation Intel Core d... Performance - dGPU - Game performance 1440p

www.guru3d.com

Why do they persist in doing 720p 1080p when it should be 1440p 4K and VR
you can see how much AMD closes the gap on 1440p ( compare to the 720p runs )

Who in their right mind would want to run those res with $1,000 CPU, yes they are $999AU here
and even more what does the larger Intel gap at lower res even matter

 

[Case_]

They persist in doing 720p 1080p to remove/reduce GPU bottleneck and show the actual CPU performance difference.

Edit: Now I see it's even explained right there at the 720p page.

 

[Durge Driven]

They persist in doing 720p 1080p to remove/reduce GPU bottleneck and show the actual CPU performance difference.

Edit: Now I see it's even explained right there at the 720p page.

Exactly

and what is that performance difference worth to a simmer or gamer buys $1,000 CPU and GPU

Nothing

4K and VR is more relevant

 

[Case_]

I would expect knowing the theoretical limits of a specific CPU is quite useful and/or interesting, and also one of the main points of a CPU review/benchmark. I'd actually go as far as to say doing those 1440p tests is much less interesting, because they basically only tell us even a 2080Ti is a bottleneck at that point, which is nice to know, but kinda pointless to spend time on in a CPU benchmark/review.

It kinda sounds like you are actually interested in a game benchmark on specific hardware, not in a CPU benchmark. It's not really the benchmark's fault it measures something else than what you are interested in (as long as it uses proper methodology, which it does).

 

[Durge Driven]

I add the % of 1080p users is still high, I know that but percentage of those also use fastest cpu/gpu would be non existent so how much what beats which at 720p is pointless and you talk about wasting time lol

So in the big scheme of things 1440p and higher are simply more relevant ...imho

I came by that on weekly browse for drivers ( sorry for wasting more time lol )

 

[RobertR1]

I add the % of 1080p users is still high, I know that but percentage of those also use fastest cpu/gpu would be non existent so how much what beats which at 720p is pointless and you talk about wasting time lol

So in the big scheme of things 1440p and higher are simply more relevant ...imho

I came by that on weekly browse for drivers ( sorry for wasting more time lol )

Since no one mainstream tests sims or vr, the low resolution cpu scaling tests can be a good abstraction for our hobby.

Both VR and esp sims scale well with very high frequency and tight mem timings rather than number of cores so the platforms that can deliver those generally will give you the best performance in VR and sims. Esp if you're going for 120fps in VR.

At the end of the days it's about use cases that apply to *you*

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

Yeah, 1440p is pointless for a CPU review as you will get the same result no matter what the CPU tested. Wouldn't it indeed be nice if at least one of those review sites actually tested with something CPU demanding like gaming in VR? But no, we get to see the same AAA titles tested again and again, which all add so much visual bling that they'll never be CPU limited. Interestingly some sites like Gamer's Nexus rely on F1 2019 a lot for CPU comparisons, at least that's a title that scales relatively well with CPU performance, even though we are talking about 200+ FPS.

 

[Case_]

I add the % of 1080p users is still high, I know that but percentage of those also use fastest cpu/gpu would be non existent so how much what beats which at 720p is pointless and you talk about wasting time lol

I still think you don't get the point of a CPU review/benchmark. What you want to see would not be a CPU benchmark. You want to see a game benchmark in a common resolution, and instead you are looking at a CPU benchmark and complaining that it isn't that.

The percentage of people using or not using the resolution tested is pretty much irrelevant in a CPU benchmark. (Though I'd bet you also underestimate how many people game at 1080p.)

 

[robt100]

I would like to see a review where someone tests some AAA titles using a various array of CPU and GPU combos at 'normal' resolutions.
For example:
R5 3600/R9 3950X/10900k/10600k + 5700XT
R5 3600/R9 3950X/10900k/10600k + 1660super
R5 3600/R9 3950X/10900k/10600k + 2080super
At 1080p and 1440p and VR. Just to see what real world performance would be.

At the same time, its understandable why they wouldn't, as with differences so small on some 1080p high or 1440p settings, you could save a LOT of money going lower end for a small difference in performance. So manafacturers wouldn't have reviewers singing the praises of how good their expensive flagship CPU is and how its worth buying therefore making the company more money etc.

 

[Durge Driven]

I would rather know what 4K and VR does with specific hardware then a resolution means basically nothing
I simply want to know what FPS they will get at usable resolutions
I think that would be way more useful to prospective gamers
Maybe they are scared to compare tiny gaps cost $100s more

But hey everyone here have told me countless times if you want to game at highest settings get a INTEL been told that i don't know how many times

But now you tell me there is no difference at gaming resolutions lol

Techpowerup does it https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-9900k/15.html

I am not interested in the GAP just the high score and from Techpowerup results I can clearly see what i should expect

 

[Durge Driven]

Like telling people to overclock memory i heard 10 fps + mentioned where do you get that from then ?

When all CPU are blockade what i tweak ram and add another 10 fps

So all these memory gains are also at lower resolutions no one would use with such expensive hardware

doing tests at 720 and you got the nerve to say i waste my time

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

But hey everyone here have told me countless times if you want to game at highest settings get a INTEL been told that i don't know how many times

Then you've been getting crappy advice. CPU usage is pretty much constant in games no matter what the graphic settings are, higher graphic settings will only make the GPU work harder. So if you run latest AAA titles at ultra settings you are only loading your GPU, making the CPU not matter much unless it's an AMD FX from 2012.

However, if you want the absolute maximum FPS, then go for Intel, this still applies. People who are serious with esports usually turn their settings down to almost minimum and then suddenly CPU becomes the bottleneck. In these kind of scenarios Intel can provide now up to 15% more FPS with the latest (small) generational bump.

This is nothing against AMD, I bought a Ryzen 3600 since it was the best price/performance product available, but it doesn't change the fact that Intel is better at games thanks to higher frequency and lower latencies. 4th gen Ryzen will apparently allow more cores inside the same CCX, so I reckon with the next Ryzen release Intel should be caught up in gaming as well.