Question Gaming: Ryzen 7 3800XT or i7-10700k?

[Dave3000]

I right now have an i7-4930k with a GTX 1080 ti but I want to see better performance in gaming and be prepared for FS2020. Should I go for the i7-10700k or the Ryzen 7 3800XT? I don't need more than 8 cores for gaming right now, so I see no point in a 3900X or 3950X (even though I can afford those) for just gaming right now or any time soon, especially since the upcoming PS5 and XBox Series X are going to have 8-core/16-thread CPUs.

 

[ondma]

When it comes to to 60hz gaming, it does more than narrow, it outright vanishes. I think the 3300X makes the best 60hz gaming CPU today, with a nice budget B450 and 16GB of 3600 Ram.

Maybe, but I would be very reluctant to go with a quad core gaming rig, unless I was certain I was not going to want to play AAA future titles after the new consoles come out.

 

[Arkaign]

Maybe, but I would be very reluctant to go with a quad core gaming rig, unless I was certain I was not going to want to play AAA future titles after the new consoles come out.

It's definitely a consideration. We honestly have no idea yet what it will entail. Devs actually had more motivation to optimize for mulitthreaded gaming for the 8th gen with 8 horrible Jaguar Cores between 1.6 to 2.3Ghz depending on model. Gen9 consoles will still have 8 Cores, but far far stronger. The thing that makes me not overly worried about CPU demands dramatically increasing is the balance with 10-12TF GPU and focus on 4K gaming, probably a mix of 30fps and 60fps for console gaming.

The thing about a 3300X, or a 3600, or a 10600K is that you're not stuck with it, you have upgrade paths should things get tough in a couple of years. If someone has a budget of say $1k, it could save them a considerable amount of money to put towards a better GPU, larger SSD, etc, which will pay off more today. Eg; a 3300X w/2070S and 1TB SSD would be better balanced than a 3800XT or 10700K w/1660S and 512GB SSD, but be similar in price (even down to the 3300x coming with a very workable stock HSF, and the K and XT CPUs come with no HSF at all).

It all comes down to budget and understanding what is likely to be necessary to upgrade first, priorities on resolution and favored titles/genres, etc.

 

[Kuiva maa]

That is, of course, true.

My point was, come 3080 Ti this fall and we might actually see more of a difference with these higher-core-count CPUs. There are already game engines that can take advantage of more than 16 threads, for example. And I'd rather have more cores @ stock than overclocking fewer ones leading to excessive power consumption, but that's just me.

View attachment 26587 View attachment 26588



Zen 3 is going to be worth the wait, if all of those leaks are true, imo.

Death stranding is using Decima engine which is Sony proprietary. It scales perfectly up to 16 threads at which point it plateaus. There is a bit more performance to be found going above 16 but it appears to be just the extra cores dealing with OS overhead and other tasks, leaving the 16 threads to deal with the game exclusively.This is the exact number of threads PS5 will have too. I can't help but think we are witnessing the precursor to next gen cpu behavior in cross platform AAA games. I suspect Sony engineers assisted with the PC port and used it as a stage for next year. I truly believe the 3700X will be the performance baseline for this kind of titles going forward.

 

[Arkaign]

Death Stranding is an interesting one. It is extremely optimized, and bodes very well for CPUs like the 3300X for sure. It becomes GPU limited extremely quickly, but even so offers outstanding performance on a variety of CPUs going way down the stack.

The PS5 and XSX have their Zen2 variants in the low 3Ghz range, and of course overhead from the OS reserving a fair amount of resources for their game streaming/chat/updates/etc background duties by necessity.

 

[ondma]

It's definitely a consideration. We honestly have no idea yet what it will entail. Devs actually had more motivation to optimize for mulitthreaded gaming for the 8th gen with 8 horrible Jaguar Cores between 1.6 to 2.3Ghz depending on model. Gen9 consoles will still have 8 Cores, but far far stronger. The thing that makes me not overly worried about CPU demands dramatically increasing is the balance with 10-12TF GPU and focus on 4K gaming, probably a mix of 30fps and 60fps for console gaming.

The thing about a 3300X, or a 3600, or a 10600K is that you're not stuck with it, you have upgrade paths should things get tough in a couple of years. If someone has a budget of say $1k, it could save them a considerable amount of money to put towards a better GPU, larger SSD, etc, which will pay off more today. Eg; a 3300X w/2070S and 1TB SSD would be better balanced than a 3800XT or 10700K w/1660S and 512GB SSD, but be similar in price (even down to the 3300x coming with a very workable stock HSF, and the K and XT CPUs come with no HSF at all).

It all comes down to budget and understanding what is likely to be necessary to upgrade first, priorities on resolution and favored titles/genres, etc.

True, they did need to optimize for all those weak Jaguar cores. But since those cores were so weak, it was easy for a des

It's definitely a consideration. We honestly have no idea yet what it will entail. Devs actually had more motivation to optimize for mulitthreaded gaming for the 8th gen with 8 horrible Jaguar Cores between 1.6 to 2.3Ghz depending on model. Gen9 consoles will still have 8 Cores, but far far stronger. The thing that makes me not overly worried about CPU demands dramatically increasing is the balance with 10-12TF GPU and focus on 4K gaming, probably a mix of 30fps and 60fps for console gaming.

The thing about a 3300X, or a 3600, or a 10600K is that you're not stuck with it, you have upgrade paths should things get tough in a couple of years. If someone has a budget of say $1k, it could save them a considerable amount of money to put towards a better GPU, larger SSD, etc, which will pay off more today. Eg; a 3300X w/2070S and 1TB SSD would be better balanced than a 3800XT or 10700K w/1660S and 512GB SSD, but be similar in price (even down to the 3300x coming with a very workable stock HSF, and the K and XT CPUs come with no HSF at all).

It all comes down to budget and understanding what is likely to be necessary to upgrade first, priorities on resolution and favored titles/genres, etc.

Agreed, it does come down to budget. You can buy a cheaper cpu now, add a better gpu, and upgrade the cpu later. This gives you better performance initially but the total cost and time expended is higher in the long run, especially if you dont use the old cpu in another system. Of course you can sell it, but that involves time and the amount you can recover is unknown.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

With my 3800X my avg dpc latency hovers between 79-90us, my X58 W3690 rig hovers between 40-49us. I'm really hoping the 4k series AMD chips "fix" this.

EDIT: if this does with Ryzen 4k chips, and both Intel and AMD chips are around equal in comparison with avg dpc latency you have to consider both sockets will be EOL anyways

 

[Makaveli]

With my 3800X my avg dpc latency hovers between 79-90us, my X58 W3690 rig hovers between 40-49us. I'm really hoping the 4k series AMD chips "fix" this.

EDIT: if this does with Ryzen 4k chips, and both Intel and AMD chips are around equal in comparison with avg dpc latency you have to consider both sockets will be EOL anyways

Was just checking this it didn't seem to bad on my current rig, and I still do have my X58 rig may check that also.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Was just checking this it didn't seem to bad on my current rig, and I still do have my X58 rig may check that also.

Try it with LatencyMon

 

[Makaveli]

Try it with LatencyMon

I just installed that actually how long should I let it run?

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I just installed that actually how long should I let it run?

Not long, the first 30 seconds should give you an idea... go to stats, and check the averages

 

[Makaveli]

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 47.10
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 3.984147

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 44.40
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 0.734276

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Highest measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 47.10
Average measured interrupt to process latency (µs): 3.984147

Highest measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 44.40
Average measured interrupt to DPC latency (µs): 0.734276

If you set Short running heterogeneous cores to Efficient Processors, + heterogeneous thread scheduling to Performant Processors you can get it down to ~59 dpc but your bios must have Cool N Quiet and C-States enabled, but that really adds on latency and is not recommended for gaming. Process latency also plays a factor too, you really want both as low as possible.


process latency 1.97
dpc latency 0.76

 

[Makaveli]

If you set Short running heterogeneous cores to Efficient Processors, + heterogeneous thread scheduling to Performant Processors you can get it down to ~59 dpc but your bios must have Cool N Quiet and C-States enabled, but that really adds on latency and is not recommended for gaming. Process latency also plays a factor too, you really want both as low as possible.


process latency 1.97
dpc latency 0.76

Cool N Quiet and C-states should be enabled bios is pretty much stock except for PBO and memory settings set from the Fast Profile on the Ryzen Dram calc.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Cool N Quiet and C-states should be enabled bios is pretty much stock except for PBO and memory settings set from the Fast Profile on the Ryzen Dram calc.

My results are without Cool N Quiet or C states, try it that way

 

[DrMrLordX]

I hear you, it sounds kind of crazy,

I haven't watched the whole vid, but the 1% lows on that 3600XT appear to be very good.

 

[Arkaign]

I haven't watched the whole vid, but the 1% lows on that 3600XT appear to be very good.

It's certainly the very best gaming CPU AMD has ever made on raw performance basis, and I believe it makes a solid if perhaps slightly expensive choice for someone who wants a single PC for mixed gaming and mixed workloads, and wishes to buy an AMD CPU.

I'm curious and hopeful for the new APUs of 6C/12T and 8C/16T as well. Being able to fall back to onboard graphics to get by while shopping for a GPU, RMA turnaround for a failed one, or to later repurpose the PC as a purely office, kids, or HTPC is a very real value add IMHO. The previous Ryzen G series was so low end that it was difficult to advise combining with a dGPU, but these new ones have the specs and expected performance, more mature dies and IF headroom etc to make them very reasonable and perhaps even excellent options.

I was excited about the XT only to be ultimately a bit let down with the modest improvement and painful price penalty. However, the normal 3600/3600X/3700/3700X SKUs seem to have notably improved over launch era samples, so the XT price may not be necessary, and better value is had by grabbing a bargain on a non XT.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

oh crap, wrong thread.. thought this was Ryzen 4000 speculation

 

[epsilon84]

Not really sure if I agree with you there. 8c+ Matisse @ 4.5 GHz + DDR4-3800 14-14-14-28 is not something to dismiss out-of-hand. There haven't been that many benches of a combo like that, especially since it is so hard to hit those clocks with anything but the 3800x/3800XT. Of course if you put the same effort into the Intel rig then things change. But stock? Nahhh.

RAM kits that can do 3800 at CL14 are super expensive uber binned kits, both my B-Die kits can't do CL14, the best kit does CL15 at 1.45V. I get your point about tight RAM timings though for AMD, as well as IF OC helping to bridge the gap.

Overall, assuming the same core count, Ryzen 3000 is still a bit behind Intel for strictly gaming. I've got a 3600 and 8700K so I've done the comparisons, both fully tuned in the best case the 3600 gets close and worst case it trails by 15 - 20% on non optimised titles like Far Cry. Still not a bad CPU for gaming, but yeah I'll be keen to see if Ryzen 4000 can finally overtake Intel once and for all for gaming.

 

[Markfw]

RAM kits that can do 3800 at CL14 are super expensive uber binned kits, both my B-Die kits can't do CL14, the best kit does CL15 at 1.45V. I get your point about tight RAM timings though for AMD, as well as IF OC helping to bridge the gap.

Overall, assuming the same core count, Ryzen 3000 is still a bit behind Intel for strictly gaming. I've got a 3600 and 8700K so I've done the comparisons, both fully tuned in the best case the 3600 gets close and worst case it trails by 15 - 20% on non optimised titles like Far Cry. Still not a bad CPU for gaming, but yeah I'll be keen to see if Ryzen 4000 can finally overtake Intel once and for all for gaming.

I have hundreds of gig of 3200 cl14 bdie, and they all do cl 14@1.35.

 

[epsilon84]

I have hundreds of gig of 3200 cl14 bdie, and they all do cl 14@1.35.

At 3800MHz? 14-14-14-28?! Sorry I'm calling BS on that. At 3200 maybe...

I'd love to ear crow and see screenshots of your uber 3200 B-Die kits that do 3800 CL14 1.35V though! Maybe I'm doing this all wrong

In all seriousness I already know you mean 3200 speeds Mark. Even my Hynix 2666 can do 3200 CL14, so yeah. Ryzen really does close the gap with highly tuned RAM, but spending an extra $100 for those 4000+ kits to gain 5% isn't really worth it IMO

 

[Markfw]

At 3800MHz? 14-14-14-28?! Sorry I'm calling BS on that. At 3200 maybe...

I'd love to ear crow and see screenshots of your uber 3200 B-Die kits that do 3800 CL14 1.35V though! Maybe I'm doing this all wrong

I didn't say @ 3800.. I guess I was not reading your post correctly. So you are expecting 3200 cl14 bdie to do 3800 ???

 

[epsilon84]

I didn't say @ 3800.. I guess I was not reading your post correctly. So you are expecting 3200 cl14 bdie to do 3800 ???

B die should almost all do 3800 speeds, even 3200 kits. At CL16 realistically. I think that's a sweet spot for Ryzen 3000 chips in terms of bandwidth vs latency. Also depends on how high you can get your IF of course. Might be better to run at 3600 tighter timings for some people.
Fwiw my kits are stock 3600 CL16 Gskills Trident Z's and Ripjaws

 

[beginner99]

What resolution monitor are you gaming on?

From most test results I see, the difference in FPS for similarly priced Intel and AMD cpus narrows as the resolution increases to 1440 then to 4k.

Exactly. If OP doesn't have a 120 or 144hz screen, CPU doesn't matter as either will easily put out 60hz.

 

[Makaveli]

This is what my 3200 B die kit does at 3600





And At 3800

 

[eek2121]

It's certainly the very best gaming CPU AMD has ever made on raw performance basis, and I believe it makes a solid if perhaps slightly expensive choice for someone who wants a single PC for mixed gaming and mixed workloads, and wishes to buy an AMD CPU.

I'm curious and hopeful for the new APUs of 6C/12T and 8C/16T as well. Being able to fall back to onboard graphics to get by while shopping for a GPU, RMA turnaround for a failed one, or to later repurpose the PC as a purely office, kids, or HTPC is a very real value add IMHO. The previous Ryzen G series was so low end that it was difficult to advise combining with a dGPU, but these new ones have the specs and expected performance, more mature dies and IF headroom etc to make them very reasonable and perhaps even excellent options.

I was excited about the XT only to be ultimately a bit let down with the modest improvement and painful price penalty. However, the normal 3600/3600X/3700/3700X SKUs seem to have notably improved over launch era samples, so the XT price may not be necessary, and better value is had by grabbing a bargain on a non XT.

I have an unopened one sitting on my desk. It is going into a Mini ITX build. Can’t wait to play with it. I have a 3900X in my main desktop, but the 3600XT intrigues me.