Hi all, I'm building my new desktop at the end of this month. I'm planning to go for the Ryzen as it's clearly the best option at the moment. However RaceRoom is my favorite sim and I would like to know how well it runs on AMD vs. Intel CPU's. I'm planning to do all my racing in VR. Here's the other specs so far: - MSI RTX 2080 Ventus (not really interested in raytracing but got a good deal from a friend who's going 2080ti) - Corsair Vengeance LPX RAM 16gb @3600Mhz - Corsair Force MP300 SSD 120gb for the OS - Intel 660p SSD 2tb for main storage - Corsair RM850x modular powersupply - Acer Nitro VG240Y IPS monitor 2560 x 1440 @ 75hz
If you race on your 75hz monitor, it doesn't really matter. In VR I would chose the highest performing single-threaded CPU. That would be the 9700K/9900K and push it to 5.1ghz if possible. But its hopeless, because your framerate wont hold 90 in this game. Expect severe drops all the time. Three reasons for the 9900K. 1) you have a Nvidia card whose driver really dislikes ryzen on CPU bound games. 2) most games really like Intel, for whom most games were "optimized" in the last 10 years, which is the age of the game engines of you favorite sims. 3) 9900K overclocks much better. The 3900X though, is freaking amazing price/performance but it doesn't translate to the majority of today's games specially Sim racing. It also needs a lot of tweaking to make it match the stock 9900K, but again, not in all games.
I have a 9700K on 5 Ghz with an 2080 no drops under 90 Hz in my Oculus Rift. Even with 40 KI GT3 Cars at the start on Nordschleife VLN Variant. Settings as in the VR Tweaks Thread.
I'll have to see it to believe it mate. Its simply impossible on my Odyssey+ (openVR). Sure its not AWS?
Yes, 100 % sure. Could be, that Rift doesn't need that much power than a O+ Try it first with disabled Shadows and reflections on lowest. Other settings to medium. You can't see the differences in VR, but it helps well. At least I could enable shadows on low with the help of the mentioned thread. But try first without. The impact of those two settings is horrible.
They are both pretty close, but Intel is likely to give you slightly better performance due to its somewhat better single core performance, which is all that really matters in current sims, and you will likely be able to get even more from it with overclocking. Speaking of which, you could certainly save a noticeable amount of money by getting something like the 3700x instead of 3900x as far as simracing is concerned, because the performance should be pretty much identical. But since you're considering 3900x/9900k, I'm guessing price is not a real concern to you.
Thanks for the replies peeps! Seeing as the 3900x's single core speed is only about 4-5% slower than the 9900k's, would this really make a noticeable difference? I'm really leaning towards the 3900x because it's much more advanced technology-wise compared to the 9900k so if it's not a huge difference I'll be going with the 3900x. Especially since it's more future proof and future games will be designed with more emphasis on multi-core performance. It should also be noted I like to play other games and do a lot of combat flight sims as well. I'm currently playing R3E VR on a i7 7700/gtx1060 laptop which cant even hold a steady 45fps with ASW so I think I'll notice a HUGE improvement in my experience anyway. In my opinion the lack of competition has made Intel lazy and they definitely dropped the ball with this last gen of CPU's, this is why I'm a bit reluctant to give Intel my hard earned $$$
I think Intel´s complacency ended with series 7 and they have stepped up their game with serie 8 and will continue to do so with the next generations. The other battle taking place is between Radeon and Nvidia and this can only benefit us as buyers. I reckon it´s worth waiting to see how the battle develops over the next year as prices can only fall and specs can only improve. However, one could argue that the biggest work now is in the hands of game devs to optimise the use of these new chips. It´s amazing that in 2019 we are still being constrained by games based on older versions of DX and not using fully multi threading.
That is not really how math works I do agree on the RAM part though, can make a bigger difference than a CPU upgrade.
I've included the RAM, GPU and monitor I will be using in my original post, so read it a bit more carefully.
Why would I have 3200hz RAM and a worse CPU? Obviously I have the budget for better. Also, again, read the OP. I will be doing my racing in VR on Oculus CV1
Single core OC performance is only 5% better for the i9 9900k vs the Ryzen 9 3900x I don't see the relevance of the links you provided other than it proving that R3E is CPU hungry. I will NOT be gaming at 144Hz and will be using VR. I'm going to pair it with a RTX2080 gpu and not a gtx1070.
So far what I've seen from benchmarks of other games (also CPU hungry ones in there) the difference is only marginal and the Ryzen starts to pull ahead when resolution increases. IF someone could explain WHY I should go i9 except for the 5% better OC single core or why it's such a big difference, and please don't provide examples of older hardware like GTX1070's because obviously a RTX2080 is gonna act a lot different in combination with either of the CPU's.
I can't really say anything extra as a dev, as I'm not working on the rendering/engine stuff. But as you say there really is not that much difference even in single core performance. What I will say though, is that even with the best GPU you can gain a lot with better CPU/RAM performance in raceroom, as the old engine and workaround VR implementation are not efficient in terms of the cpu and gpu working in parallel, so a faster cpu will still result in lower frametimes, example is from my upgrade from my 4770k to a ryzen 3600: https://forum.sector3studios.com/in...other-computer-stuff.13248/page-2#post-183252 So if you just want the absolute best performance, get the 9900K with some extremely fast RAM kit, but ryzen will be basically just as good, An interesting thing to keep in mind is that AMD promised to support the AM4 platform for the next generation too, so you could upgrade to that when it comes out without a new motherboard, which would not be the case for intel. To cover the clock speed difference, intel might still have a big advantage in terms of clock speed, but it also matters hugely how much is done within every clock (IPC), and AMD is actually ahead in IPC, so the actual single core performance is quite close.
As I already mentioned clock speed isn't the whole story, while it is usually true that the same cpu, say a 9900k at 4.4GHz, would be 10% faster than that same 9900k at 4GHz, this is not the case when comparing different cpus. ryzen 3000 CPUs actually perform more operations in one clock cycle on average than intel, which means that even with the much lower clock speed the actual single-core performance difference is like 5-10%, which would be pretty much the same difference for 8-core loads, the difference in terms of % does not add up with more cores.
If by "act a lot different" you mean "be even more underutilized", then yes, you are absolutely correct. Otherwise I'm not exactly sure what you mean, why would a 2080 act differently to 1070?
I've read about 25 review pieces of the R9 3700X/3900X. All IPC claims made above are true. but oddly enough not in games except for 2 or 3 exceptions. After overclocking both intel and amd, no exception remains for the ryzen. Raceroom having the engine it has, the best bet is to buy a 9700K, disable 5 physical cores in the bios, and use the extra thermal headroom to push 5.1ghz, or 5.2ghz if you are lucky. Use the money saved (from not buying the 9900K or the 3900X) and buy yourself a samsung B-die kit (anything that is 3200 CAS14 should be B-die), and push those babies up to 4000mhz CAS 18. I am not contemplating racing against AI's in the above opinion. Purely Multiplayer.