I wish system requirements for games would be based on resolution + framerate estimations. Instead of "min" / "max".
Post automatically merged:
Last edited:
I wish system requirements for games would be based on resolution + framerate estimations. Instead of "min" / "max".
Post automatically merged:
That would be nice, but there's too much discrepancy between hardware configs to ever have that be reliable. What I'd like to see is are the specs for the test systems used by the devs, and the performance they received on those rigs. One at high specs, one middle range, and one at required specs.
Apart from a few titles, the 8700 is a better gaming CPU then the 3900X. If you want better gaming performance get a newer Intel.
I have an 8700k and looking to upgrade also. Thing is the diff vs 10900k isnt worth it.
Buy current intel or wait for new Zen/intel. 3900x is a downgrade for gaming.
I highly doubt it. No way 6 cores 12 threads can match 12 cores 24 threads for games which use proper parallelism (which all modern games should be doing already). Besides, frequency of i7 8700 (3.2 GHz - 4.6 GHz) doesn't look better than Ryzen 9 3900X to me (3.8 GHz - 4.6 GHz), it actually looks worse.
And it's not all about the number of threads or core frequency. Newer processors have a lot of other optimizations that older ones simply lack.
So get newest Ryzen with more cores if you want to squeeze more performance. Otherwise 3900X is a great upgrade.
Last edited:
That's actually arguing semantics in the face of meaning. AMD tech has, throughout their history, scored noticeably lower on "benchmarks"...while simultaneously showing exemplary, practical performance in-game.
Thus, while an AMD CPU or Radeon GPU might look relatively unimpressive on a benchmark...their actual delivery in-game is definitively (if negligibly, in some cases) higher than Intel / Nvidia while reviewing actual, in-app activity.
Hence...
AMD has quite regularly surpassed Intel / Nvidia in their raw, performance power...but that performance has never been consistent, fluctuating over generations. But, almost invariably, AMD has been the more economic option for equivalent or even superior processing power in actual day-to-day usage for most users.
On the flip-side, AMD has had significant issues in the past with compatibility. As they are the underdog on the market in a number of areas, there has been no end of hassle for the company when encountering problems with a given game title or software app. Whether those issues are derived from intentional sabaotage of AMD tech...or whether they are the result of AMD techniques being relatively unknown in the industry...AMD users tend to, inevitably, encounter the odd, exclusive issue here or there.
On the flip-flip side, the same can be said of Intel / Geforce tech. And I, personally, would argue that the issues are fairly flat, and either is negligible either way...but they will defintely be annoying if/when one encounters them.
Ultimately, my own experience has been thus:
1980s -- There was only IBM / Intel in the PC arena. (Amigas were never widely marketed or available in my region of the US. Never even heard of them until I was in university in the '90s.) My first experience trying to deal with computer hardware was making an "above-board memory" upgrade to a Commodore 64 around 1985.
1990s -- I used IBM / Intel CPUs, while flip-flopping between Glide (Monster3D) and DirectDraw (AMD) GPUs. Used exclusively x86 and Pentium CPU processors. AMD CPUs existed...but good, friggin' luck hearing about them through the fog of Intel marketing. In the US, computer tech was niche, nerdy, and extremely unpopular. AMD was fighting an uphill battle (at least in the States).
~2000-2010 -- The world had figured out that computer tech was actually going to be huge. Both Intel and AMD had become established competitors in the CPU market. Nvidia and Radeon GPUs were both well known. I experimented with all ranges of tech here. (For gaming! Again, still a niche market until the late 2000s.) Got into overclocking, and I managed to completely fry 3 systems that I can remember. (One, in 1999, resulted in a PSU fire which was as spectacular as it was expensive.) I'd say this was the time of greatest learning, as so much hardware was advancing so quickly.
Special note for 2004 -- I bought a Falcon Northwest Mark V system. Paid nearly $4,000 for just the tower. Let me put it this way: in 2011, after upgrading ONLY the GPU to a GTX 280, that system was still able to run Skyrim at release at Medium graphics, 40+ FPS. (Remember that 60 FPS was still a stretch-goal for 3D gaming at that point.)
2010-2015 -- I built numerous desktop systems and bought numerous "desktop replacement" laptops (primarily from the ASUS Republic of Gamers line). I can't even remember all the different combinations of Intel / AMD / Nvidia / Radeon hardware I used. This was great, though, because despite that confusion, I can 100% swear to the following, which holds true to this day:
NO system I built / bought ever suffered from massive issues.
NO system I built / bought was ever problem-free.
There is no "best" hardware. Intel and AMD all have their issues, and every system will invariably suffer from something weird. The major thing to consider when deciding on a new system config is the functionality you're looking for. If you're going for gaming performance, you want the highest CPU GHz you can get without overclocking, the best motherboard you can afford from a gaming line with the highest bus speeds, fast RAM built specifically for gaming (speed trumps GB -- 16 GB is plenty for future proofing), and a GPU that has been proven to work well with your other hardware. As of now, an AMD CPU will likely work best with an AMD-specifc mo-bo and GPU.
Aside from that, I guarantee, no matter how much money you spend, you will encounter the odd issue with your system. It's part and parcel for PC gaming. Comes with the purchase. It's a feature.
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice, I'll do some more research on it! My main aim is to get something that'll get more out of the RTX 3080 than what I have, so looking for a good CPU with PCIe Gen4. Sadly intel doesnt seem to have any fitting that bill yet
Post automatically merged:
In your opinion, would the jump from i7 8700 to Ryzen 9 3900X be worth it? I want to leverage the best from an RTX 3080 as soon as I can afford to, and I felt the 3900X was a good card to go for in terms of affordability and improvement over what I have, as well as PCIe Generation 4, something which Intel is still yet to implement. I'm happy sticking with the i7 8700 for a while yet but I want to make plans. I have no particular preference between AMD and Intel CPUs, albeit a fair preference towards Nvidia GPUs. I haven't heard anyone complain of issues with an AMD CPU and Nvidia GPU often, however.
At present I've got the 8700 in an ASUS TUF H310-Plus, which I want to upgrade from Soonish, while I intend to upgrade my 1080 to a 3080. I've got 32GB DDR4 2666Hz RAM and will have a 1440p 144hz monitor soon too.
Post automatically merged:
Thanks for that advice too! I'm definitely going to do more research on the matter to make an informed decision. I'm generally not concerned about getting the latest of latest stuff out there, and my aim for the 3900X was partly because it's in a more affordable price range now than newer Ryzen CPUs, along with having PCIe Gen4. When it comes to raw power it usually isnt an issue for me as I dont push things too hard. Sure, I want to put my cyberpunk settings to ultra all the way, but aside from gaming at that level in mostly singleplayer games or non-competitive shooters, I generally dont push a CPU to its limit, nor do I overclock (though I'm aware of the 3900X's automatic overclock feature). Would you say the 3900X is a wise upgrade given my desires for a new CPU? If I can run cyberpunk at ultra and make the most of my 3080 and 1440p 144hz monitor that'll make me more than happy
Last edited:
What @Triffid77 says is not without merit! The CPUs are only a generation apart. I was primarily responding to the dismissal of AMD tech based solely on its stats while glancing past its architecture and functionality. I'd look at game performance for a few key titles I'm interested in and make my comparison from there. If you look at benchmark software, it will look woefully underwhelming for the Ryzen line, but that's exactly the situation with AMD that I was discussing. It's hard to judge what an AMD processor will actually be able to deliver based on a benchmark.
On the whole, I would consider it primarily if I was sure I was getting a Radeon GPU as well. (For now.)
Here's another consideration, though. As GPUs advance, games are pulling away from the intrinsic need for CPU power. It's still a factor, but there is a lot of misconception about the impact one should expect from a given CPU. The main thing is GHz, as I mention, but the architecture of the card is also significant. For gaming, multi-core cards are not a problem...but they're also of little to no benefit to gamers. Most titles only use 1-2 cores in practice, with a few, rare titles utilizing more without any significant impact on performance or gameplay. When we start talking 8+ cores, we're really getting into productivity concerns (rendering video, compiling code, etc.) You will see either no benefit -- or in some cases a degradation of in-game performance -- as the 12-24 core CPUs sacrifice processing speed for multi-functionality. (Think of it as trading in your racing engine for a hauling engine made for a semi truck. It's bigger and just as shiny...it can pull literally tons more weight...but it has a top speed of 110 mph.)
Personally, I would agree that any upgrade from the 8700 at this point is going to be noticeable, but middling at best. However, if building a new system, it only makes sense to replace the processor, too. But I think the major performance gain is going to come from the upgrade to the 3080, regardless of the CPU you choose.
Let me put it this way: I'm still using an i7-4790K and a 980 ti. Performance across the board is still great. Can run all modern titles at Ultra settings. Though I'm seeing 45-60 FPS at 1440p with newer titles (Jedi Fallen Order, ARK, M&B Warband, Division 2...), it's still smooth, and the 144 Hz makes a huge difference in response time while playing things like Battlefront 2 or Sniper Elite. If I were to do a new build now, I would focus on >12 cores, as close to 5 GHz as I could get, and only buy Ryzen if I were going Radeon, as well.
Modern games scale to all cores. And it's not only the game engine itself that benefits from more cores. Consider also all the other underlying stack that goes into it. Something like shader compiler for instsance can directly scale based on the number of cores. Faster shader compilation = less potential stuttering. dxvk for example explicitly allocates worker threads proportionally to the the number of available cores (those handle Vulkan pipelines, bytecode translation from DXBC to SPIR-V and etc). So surely, more cores have benefits for gaming.
Right now? Probably not. If you're thinking of swapping to a Ryzen system wait for Zen 3. At worst you're going to have more information and options. At best you'll have similarly priced, superior products (Zen 3), cheaper old products (Zen 2) or cheaper, superior new products (Zen 3).
An 8700 is still a decent CPU. So even if you upgrade the GPU in your system you're probably not going to gain much by going from an 8700 to a 3900X. Even if you do, tough it out until Zen 3
. Unless you change your mind and opt to go with Skylake+++++++++++++++++++++++. Sorry, couldn't help it.....
I'd add to that, don't rush buying Nvidia 3080, and wait until AMD's RDNA 2 GPUs will come out and how they'll compare in prices, performance and power consumption.
One thing you could notice with latest Nvidia's release was increased power consumption for comparable class of previous generation cards. You'd think with all the architectural improvments, power consumption should only go down. Yet there is some power usage creep that happened in their release. May be they did it to show better numbers, but I hope AMD can do it without putting more tax on PSUs.
Which games do you play that use more cores? Almost everything I have I can track across 2 cores max. Occasionally, I'll see ARK jump into 4, and I know Warhammer Total War will use a few additional cores for busy battles, but I don't think I've ever seen a game use more than 4.
EDIT: Check that -- Elite: Dangerous uses all 8 -- just checked. Cool! (Still don't fully understand how the RAM usage is so freaking low for that game. Usually between 1-2 GB only.)
EDIT-EDIT: Okay, now, this is what I'm talking about. Minecraft uses one. (1.) One core. If there was ever a game that would benefit from multi-core processing, this is the one. All it does is stream data in real-time constantly...
Why is it not using multiple cores?
Last edited:
For me, all games I play through Wine+dxvk scale according to available cores, because dxvk itself scales according to what's available:
dxvk/dxvk_state_cache.cpp at master · doitsujin/dxvk
Vulkan-based implementation of D3D9, D3D10 and D3D11 for Linux / Wine - dxvk/dxvk_state_cache.cpp at master · doitsujin/dxvk
github.com
Ashes of the Singularity for instance uses all cores very effectively. If the game is only using 2 cores, it's an old or bad engine design.
Last edited:
Right now? Probably not. If you're thinking of swapping to a Ryzen system wait for Zen 3. At worst you're going to have more information and options. At best you'll have similarly priced, superior products (Zen 3), cheaper old products (Zen 2) or cheaper, superior new products (Zen 3).
An 8700 is still a decent CPU. So even if you upgrade the GPU in your system you're probably not going to gain much by going from an 8700 to a 3900X. Even if you do, tough it out until Zen 3
Thanks guys! I really appreciate all the input and following on from this I'll definitely do more digging and research to decide what's worth upgrading and to what, etc. My intention is to overhaul my PC, with a new monitor, GPU and case in the coming two months and with a new CPU and motherboard in the following 4 to 6 months. The only current pieces remaining will be the 32GB RAM I got recently and the 850W PSU I got many years ago! Like I said, this all helps a ton. I'm decent with computers but when it comes to the nitty gritty with components and the like, all advice is welcome because it isnt my strong suit!
EDIT-EDIT: Okay, now, this is what I'm talking about. Minecraft uses one. (1.) One core. If there was ever a game that would benefit from multi-core processing, this is the one. All it does is stream data in real-time constantly...
Probably because the engine was designed years ago, and they never tried to redesign it, thinking it's good enough. Implementing proper parallelism is a complicated task.
Last edited:
For me, all games I play through Wine+dxvk scale according to available cores, because dxvk itself scales according to what's available:
dxvk/dxvk_state_cache.cpp at master · doitsujin/dxvk
Vulkan-based implementation of D3D9, D3D10 and D3D11 for Linux / Wine - dxvk/dxvk_state_cache.cpp at master · doitsujin/dxvk
Ashes of the Singularity for instance uses all cores very effectively. If the game is only using 2 cores, it's an old or bad engine design.
I knew about that one, although the devs made a big deal about that as a feature. Having played around with it...I'm not sure exactly what the multi-threading offers. Better path-finding, I suppose. From what I could see, the AI was still mostly focused on the "Get'em!" tactic.
It can be overwhelming, but it's also really hard to go drastically wrong. If you're buying quality components, you'll get good performance. In practice, too, the numbers can be misleading. As I've mentioned over the years...I play TW3 with FPS locked at 48. I have had no shortage of people see the game and ask how in the world I get it to run so absolutely smooth. When I tell them, they often won't believe me. Gameplay performance is 100% psychological in the end. The numbers are often placebo.
What I always do when considering an upgrade or a new build is visit Falcon Northwest.
Go play around with the configurator for a Talon or Mach V. (Don't panic about the price, you're just there for info.) They are beyond expert at putting systems together, and will only offer hardwdare options that are intrinsically compatible after exhaustive testing. Sometimes, the options can seem surprisingly low-end. (This is a trick that ASUS RoG uses as well.) However, nothing gives better performance, especially in the long term, than hardware that blends together like melting butter. (The system I'm using now priced out at nearly $8,000 on Falcon-NW back in 2015. Built mine for around $2,100 by simply buying the parts directly and assembling it myself. The only things I altered were the CPU cooling tower and the case.)
I think units are controlled individually, and with so many moving parts, you need enough computational power to calculate how they all should move and operate. So they take full advantage of available CPU.
Using "more cores" doesn't necessarily mean using them all equally. At least, this is my understanding of it. In other words, you might have more threads/cores doing different things. Getting all of these things to be done in parallel equally may not be possible.
Some games allocate what's available, believe it or not. Everything allocated may not be "used" and everything used may not need to be used at any given time. So memory usage in monitoring (for both RAM and VRAM) can be misleading.
One point worth mentioning is Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000 series) is sensitive to memory configuration. The proverbial sweet spot is ram running at ~3200-3600mhz. Well, the easily achievably sweet spot. 3800mhz (or higher, provided infinity fabric/etc is synced up) would be better but chances are it either takes work to reach or isn't doable (limited by CPU memory controller). Likewise, the faster the better (timings). The refreshed XT chips might be a minor exception here. I think it has something to do with the chiplet design and latency considerations with the infinity fabric. Zen 3 might be similar in this regard.
If you were to switch from Intel -> AMD it may be important. Such a change might involve a memory upgrade as well. Otherwise you may be leaving considerable performance on the table.
Absolutely, but that still doesn't negate the fact that many games are simply coded for "dual-core" functionality and not full on multi-threading for 4+ cores.
I need to go play Ashes of the Singularity again and pay more attention to how the units are picking targets. Not a huge RTS fan, in the end (like them just fine, but they were never my absolute favorite), but one thing that always bugged me is when units would not prioritize the enemy units they were most effective against...they tend to just shoot at the "next-closest enemy". Having code that makes units try to fight more effectively autonomously could be subtle, but a game-changer, really.
As I'm well aware, but that still doesn't fully explain how a game as wildly complex as Elite only manages to soak up 2 GB of RAM. That's nutsy. Even though most of the universe data is hosted server-side...the flight modeling, weapons systems, and traffic alone, I would imagine, should be pushing 3-4 GB of RAM at least. I mean, jump into a hazardous combat zone and there can be literally 20-30 ships per side, and it still doesn't cap 2 GB. That's some crazy optimization right there, despite whatever the game's flaws.
If you have that amount of money already save.
Then keep saving and you will have more by the time the game even comes out. Any how the requirements are going to be shown before the release. Is better to wait for the requirements for Cyberpunk 2077, so go from there when they are shown.
That is what I am doing as well. As soon as you see the requirements from the game, the maximum, then go from those and build it. Not that hard.
Then keep saving and you will have more by the time the game even comes out. Any how the requirements are going to be shown before the release. Is better to wait for the requirements for Cyberpunk 2077, so go from there when they are shown.
That is what I am doing as well. As soon as you see the requirements from the game, the maximum, then go from those and build it. Not that hard.