Jump to content
Red2112

Computex 2019 and AMD

Recommended Posts

We got one hell of a year ahead :)

 

 

Still on the fence with my purchase of a Vega 64, Radeon VII.  Bad time for a new build, cought me with my pants down as I already have the chip set and mother board (Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro / i7 8700k)... Darn it!

 

Mike

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don´t know I don´t run it.  All I know is that competition is healthy, aside that, just trying to informe those who are in doubt, and/or have no Idea what´s going on tech wise.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug,

Well it does sound like some very exciting news for we flightsim flyers. I like the way that Linus explained things in a manner that non geeks like me could understand. Now it is a wait and see mode to separate hype from performance impact for us. Competition can only benefit us all. Thanks for sharing this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2019 at 6:17 PM, lawrence aldrich said:

No problem....just seems like a lot of it is AMD related.:)

 

Despite fewer cores and lower clock speeds than 'expected' for this new gen of Zen CPUs contained in the 'leaked details' from a few months ago (fake news, who'd have guessed?), the released details are plenty to get excited about. More so than anything from Intel.

The 3700X was going to be the CPU I was going to get this year. To future-proof against P3D v5 possibly splitting its workload better across multiple cores, it looks I'm probably going to have to go for the 3900X as it'll give 12 cores to use with SMT off (a.k.a. hyperthreading, but in AMD speak). Means pushing back my purchase to next year as a new motherboard is highly recommended to take advantage of the new CPUs' capabilities.

That said, significantly lower TDPs, overall better performance with the added benefit of being much, much, much cheaper than the benchmarked Intel chips - even if overclocked speeds are still a bit shy of Intel's.

This is all excellent news for anyone in the market for a new build or an upgrade. Prices will be coming down across the board.

 

On 5/27/2019 at 12:08 PM, Red2112 said:

We got one hell of a year ahead :)

 

Yes. Yes, we do. And we haven't even gotten onto discussing AMD's new GPUs!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F737NG said:

That said, significantly lower TDPs, overall better performance with the added benefit of being much, much, much cheaper than the benchmarked Intel chips - even if overclocked speeds are still a bit shy of Intel's.

 

And it's starting to become apparent these days that Ryzen's slightly lower clock speeds do not translate into lower performance abilities, even in single thread apps, it's more about new technology and efficiency. AMD is still holding back, there is much more coming, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12-16 core Ryzen CPU breaking the 5ghz mark in the near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The number of cores makes absolutely no difference for either FSX or P3D. It's all about speed and single-thread performance. Until those numbers are available everything else is pure speculation. Flame-proof suit on......................Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2 minutes ago, W2DR said:

The number of cores makes absolutely no difference for either FSX or P3D. It's all about speed and single-thread performance. Until those numbers are available everything else is pure speculation. Flame-proof suit on......................Doug


We have been given those numbers now, Doug.

COMPUTEX_KEYNOTE_DRAFT_FOR_PREBRIEF.26.0

 

50 minutes ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

And it's starting to become apparent these days that Ryzen's slightly lower clock speeds do not translate into lower performance abilities, even in single thread apps, it's more about new technology and efficiency.

 

My current overclocked 3.8 GHz CPU seems to punch well above its weight, but it can struggle in demanding situations - TrueEarth near a big city, payware user aircraft, payware airport plus minimal AI and no weather.

I'd like to be able to get out of the mid-teens and up to 20 FPS in such situations. Based on a theoretical and unscientific improvement of 21% on my current CPU, I should be able to get that. I would be extremely happy with such a result.

 

50 minutes ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

AMD is still holding back, there is much more coming, so I wouldn't be surprised to see a 12-16 core Ryzen CPU breaking the 5ghz mark in the near future.


In much the same way we did not see a 2800X, I don't think we are getting 16 core CPUs in this generation of Ryzen (Threadripper equivalent aside). AMD need to keep something in reserve in case Intel pulls something interesting out of the bag.
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, F737NG said:

 

 


We have been given those numbers now, Doug.

COMPUTEX_KEYNOTE_DRAFT_FOR_PREBRIEF.26.0

 

 

My current overclocked 3.8 GHz CPU seems to punch well above its weight, but it can struggle in demanding situations - TrueEarth near a big city, payware user aircraft, payware airport plus minimal AI and no weather.

I'd like to be able to get out of the mid-teens and up to 20 FPS in such situations. Based on a theoretical and unscientific improvement of 21% on my current CPU, I should be able to get that. I would be extremely happy with such a result.

 


In much the same way we did not see a 2800X, I don't think we are getting 16 core CPUs in this generation of Ryzen (Threadripper equivalent aside). AMD need to keep something in reserve in case Intel pulls something interesting out of the bag.
 

 

Thanks for that. But what I'm looking for are the benchmarks as compared to Intel. Particularly the 4790K. I'm just not yet convinced that it's worth the money to upgrade to anything else.............Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many benchmarks comparing the existing 2nd generation Ryzen to the 4790K, AMD has already matched and surpassed the single thread performance of the 4790K. And the 3rd generation Ryzen are now out performing the 9900K (as shown in the chart above) in single thread performance, and I think the 9900K is fair bit ahead of the 4790K...

 

 

This is my 2700X, the 4790K is too low on the list to show.

 

1797417399_MyPCST.PNG.403f9e15c2a2c0c28809543fc10399cf.PNG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Doug. But all that tells me is that there is really no reason to upgrade now. The 4790K does everything I need it to do so I guess I'll just wait for the 120000K.......Doug

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another point is that, to me, these performance differences are not really devastating.....in my case the OC 8700k I have runs my sims very well.

When I see a really big  jump is when the wallet opens.....everything else is marketing .

I'm just another curmudgeon ……...

Bear with me.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, lawrence aldrich said:

Another point is that, to me, these performance differences are not really devastating.....in my case the OC 8700k I have runs my sims very well.

When I see a really big  jump is when the wallet opens.....everything else is marketing .

I'm just another curmudgeon ……...

Bear with me.

 

That's entirely understandable. This conversation is aimed at people who want to buy a new PC or upgrade from a CPU that doesn't perform as well as yours.

 

It gives people an informed choice, unlike a thread (not a million miles away from here) in which the guy buying a new PC was convinced by everyone that  the i9-9900 was the only option.

 

There are plenty of AMD CPUs about to hit the market that are comparable or better than what's already available, for a lot less cash. Intel will have to lower their prices to match - consumers win.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any doubt about boredom nudging me onward to build another new "state of the art" PC .

I'm also pretty sure that I'll give AMD a whirl, based on the good things I'm seeing.

Like trying another flavor of kool aid …………………B)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 11:28 PM, F737NG said:

It gives people an informed choice, unlike a thread (not a million miles away from here) in which the guy buying a new PC was convinced by everyone that  the i9-9900 was the only option.

 

If you are referring to me F737NG then I did consider the AMD products including their GPUs and I made the best decision for me at the time with the information available. Choosing hardware for a flightsim set-up is rather difficult process considering how little information is out there regarding our specific application. I do hope AMD becomes more competitive in the Desktop market which it sounds like it's on track to do giving us all more options in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 10:16 PM, F737NG said:

 

...
The 3700X was going to be the CPU I was going to get this year. To future-proof against P3D v5 possibly splitting its workload better across multiple cores, it looks I'm probably going to have to go for the 3900X as it'll give 12 cores to use with SMT off (a.k.a. hyperthreading, but in AMD speak). Means pushing back my purchase to next year as a new motherboard is highly recommended to take advantage of the new CPUs' capabilities.

That said, significantly lower TDPs, overall better performance with the added benefit of being much, much, much cheaper than the benchmarked Intel chips - even if overclocked speeds are still a bit shy of Intel's.

....

 

 

Many don't know that P3D already splits the load well to multiple cores. Have a look -

https://imgur.com/a/LuU1ruC

 

Stutter, more than ultimate framerates is the big bogey with simming, especially when landing.

For me, smoothness reigns supreme for my sim experience, and more cores smooths out and reduces stutter in P3dv4.

 

If you have fewer cores for P3D, you'll get more stutter, and this is where Intel chips fail, unless you have a 9900K. I've seen water cooled 5 GHz 8700K stutter to as low as a momentary 4 fps while the guy was crowing about his 60 fps. He'd got so used to the stutter he didn't see it.

 

I run my now ancient and cheap R1700 at just 3.4 GHz, but have fps set to a synced 30fps and don't get the Intel Stutter, even though I run a 4K screen with all sliders maxed. The Intel guys turn the sliders down to smooth out their sim.

 

16 threads does wonders in P3Dv4 if you get over the 'gotta have 5 GHz and 120 fps' stuff.

I painfully held off with getting a 2700X, but soon will get a 3900X 0n X570 to enjoy even more performance from 24 threads.

Edited by ozboater
Addition
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 2:36 AM, W2DR said:

The number of cores makes absolutely no difference for either FSX or P3D. It's all about speed and single-thread performance. Until those numbers are available everything else is pure speculation. Flame-proof suit on......................Doug

 

Doug, you are quite wrong for P3Dv4, which already multithreads very well. Have a look here -

https://imgur.com/a/LuU1ruC

 

High single thread performance will let you get higher ultimate fps, but you get stutter with less cores.

More cores smooths out the sim greatly, and lets you run more detail, which for me is where the value is.

 

Personally, I'd rather have max detail, smoothly, all the time, and just 3.4 GHz with pretty average IPC does that very well for me at 4K synced.

You just don't need high IPC 5 GHz for simming anymore.

 

For FSX, P3Dv3 and X-Plane 11 you are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly don't agree and all the available evidence points otherwise. But, as always, all mileage is variable..........Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, W2DR said:

Well, I certainly don't agree and all the available evidence points otherwise. But, as always, all mileage is variable..........Doug

 

Hi Doug,

You are correct for all the sims of the past.

XP11, FSX, P3D v2 and v3 - these don't multithread, so high GHz and IPC matters..

 

P3Dv4 does multithread well, and now it is no longer required to have high GHz and IPC for great P3Dv4 performance, if you have enough threads.

 

Heck, I run just 3.4 GHz with a pretty average IPC, but sim performance is great, with always maxed sliders (detail). I can get 100fps, but don't need it as just 30 fps synced gives me super smooth performance, as P3Dv4 works ALL my 16 threads to give super smooth performance. Just 3.4 GHz...

 

Things have changed, and not everyone has caught up yet.

 

Cheers, Ashley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Doug Sawatzky  Apologies,   I did not mean to direct my response toward you. You already know, however...

 

@W2DR  When you say " and all the available evidence points otherwise ", you are now behind the 8 ball when it comes to P3Dv4 performance. All the evidence now shows that more cores/threads not only smooths out the sim, it reduces the need for high GHz and high IPC. Even modest cpus like my old R1700 do very well in P3Dv4 because ALL 16 threads get flogged. This is 2 year old tech and not even a Ti card. See the Imgur pics linked above a few posts.

 

You are correct, however, if you are referencing old sims like FSX, P3Dv2 and v3, and even current XP11 (which gives me a disappointing stuttery performance).

But P3Dv4 - welcome to the New World.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, ozboater said:

 

Hi Doug,

You are correct for all the sims of the past.

XP11, FSX, P3D v2 and v3 - these don't multithread, so high GHz and IPC matters..

 

P3Dv4 does multithread well, and now it is no longer required to have high GHz and IPC for great P3Dv4 performance, if you have enough threads.

 

Heck, I run just 3.4 GHz with a pretty average IPC, but sim performance is great, with always maxed sliders (detail). I can get 100fps, but don't need it as just 30 fps synced gives me super smooth performance, as P3Dv4 works ALL my 16 threads to give super smooth performance. Just 3.4 GHz...

 

Things have changed, and not everyone has caught up yet.

 

Cheers, Ashley.

 

As I said.....all mileage is variable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AMD is becoming very interesting and even though I just completed a new Intel build I am liking what I see from these guys! So many good things are coming to computers these days, this gives all of us great choices and a better price. Thank goodness we finally have some competition between Red and Blue, things are looking better for the consumer! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing making this a little bit bitter is the fact that yes, with the 3700X you get a very capable CPU faster than the 9900K in many scenarios, but if you buy a novel X570 mainboard along with it and you select a good mainboard, the price advantage of the CPU is eliminated by the ridiculously high price tags of good X570 mainboards... And no, you do not want to put your brand new Ryzen on a cheap B450 mainboard as "advertised" in the video...

 

And sorry, Doug, this video shows simply that the 8700K (an almost 2 year old CPU) is faster in 28 out of the 30 tested games with stock rates, most of us using the 8700K overclocked and the 3600X has very little headroom for overclocking. I do not know how one can possibly come to the conclusion that the 3600X is a "new" king, I would reserve this title for the 3700X, which is seriously a nice CPU. Furthermore, the video is an absolute joke in regard of the selected components:

 

- the 8700K runs on a 200$ Z390 mainboard with a NH-U14S, one of the most expensive air coolers and he takes this to get his 650$ bill together

- the Ryzen is put on one of the cheapest B450 mainboards for 100$ and equipped with the stock cooler

 

As mentioned above, add another 100$ for a solid X570 mainboard and the same NH-U14S, and then the Ryzen build is not 300$ cheaper but only about 100$... This video is just a wonderful yet ridiculous example of how you should not make such videos if being objective is something you are interested in... More BIAS is almost impossible...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turns out I can run the Ryzen 9 3950X in my X370 mobo. So there will be many more options than you think. Also, the 8700K is fully matured and optimized and has unfortunately no where to go but down with continuous security patches....while the Ryzen lineup has nowhere to go but up with windows and bios optimizations.

 

Keep in mind, the 3600X does not need the more expensive cooler or mobo as it does not create the heat or power draw the 8700k does @5ghz and was not required for the testing. AMD measure their TDP at boost clock, Intel measure theirs at stock clock.... the whole idea behind the new 7nm tech is far more efficient performance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 8700K is definitely aging, and battling depression.

It feels inadequate beside the intergalactic superiority of the Ryzen, and is aware that "resistance is futile".

Please let us both die peacefully.

:DeadHorse:

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FILOU said:


Thanks for the evidence, very useful!

dxtYfCf.jpg

I didn't see it when scan reading, did Comptoir du Hardware benchmark the Intel CPUs at their max OC of ~5.0Ghz with the Ryzens at their max GHz with PBO?

As it stands, it appears that I could get at least an 11 FPS boost from going to a 3700X from my Zen 1st gen CPU.
To go better than that would cost me at least an extra £60 for the CPU plus another £160 for a motherboard change. So an extra £220 to change to Intel (£540 total).

The take away is: If you're on any of these Intel CPUs already, stay where you are.
The gain is only justifiable if you're looking at moving from an I9-7xxx series to an I9-9xxx series or a 1000 series Ryzen to a 3000 series Ryzen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MZee1960 said:


IF that's true, and we all saw just how wrong the advance leaks over Zen 2 were, I'll throw my AMD into the bin now.

The I5-10600K looks the best value to performance CPU and the I7-10700K would be the go to CPU for simming.
The I9-10xxx are all very marginal clock improvements for more money, despite the two extra cores.

The pricing seems off - a quick look sees the current top I9-9900K still at over $500 for most retailers and nothing less than $480.
Right now, I'd take that chart with a huge mound of salt.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, F737NG said:


IF that's true, and we all saw just how wrong the advance leaks over Zen 2 were, I'll throw my AMD into the bin now.

The I5-10600K looks the best value to performance CPU and the I7-10700K would be the go to CPU for simming.
The I9-10xxx are all very marginal clock improvements for more money, despite the two extra cores.

The pricing seems off - a quick look sees the current top I9-9900K still at over $500 for most retailers and nothing less than $480.
Right now, I'd take that chart with a huge mound of salt.

 

 

Competition is good. Sometimes, however,  too many cooks in the kitchen can spoil the cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I heard, the Intel 9x00K processor runs just some seconds with full turbo clock, after that time, it reduces clock frequency to keep it's power budget.

The full turbo seems to be usable in a permanent way only if the mainboard manufacturer sets a very high power limit meaning "overclock by manufacturer", results in the processor's getting very hot.

 

Will this getting even worse with some 10xxxK ?

5.2 GHz on all cores and forever (meaning: for the whole flight) only with the help of dry ice or liquid nitrogen cooling ?

(OK, it means you just don't see HD clouds on your monitor but have them in your flat, real immersion ! ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Achmed said:

5.2 GHz on all cores and forever (meaning: for the whole flight) only with the help of dry ice or liquid nitrogen cooling ?

(OK, it means you just don't see HD clouds on your monitor but have them in your flat, real immersion ! ;)

 

Well, I am running an i9-9900K that I have personally overclocked (very easily I might add) and have running stable and around 70 degrees Celsius at full load at 5.2 Ghz. Stays at 5.2 Ghz all through my flights in P3D 4.5. No dry ice or nitrogen cooling required. I am using a Fractal Design AIO (all in one cooler), but one that I have had for over a year and has worked great without issue. So, it's definitely possible and plausible without having to do custom liquid cooling or nitrogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 6:48 PM, MZee1960 said:

 

Unfortunately, this has been confirmed as fake news..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...