Post about latency issues with AMD 3000 series... what does it mean in practice?

[Windows95]

I saw this post and im having doubts again about waiting for 4xxx series or go on and update to 3900x (im on an old ass 10 year old intel q6600)

 

See:

 

Quote

It's expected to fix a lot of the latency issues plaguing the 3000 series right now due to their chiplet design.
Core 1 sharing resources with core 7 for example currently nearly quadruples latency compared to core 1 sharing with core 2, because they're in different chiplets.

Ryzen 3000 is also a tick, Ryzen 4000 will be the "tock" of Zen2. It's Zen2+ where all refinements are done before new architecture is expected and baby Zen2 is fantastic but it's not without its flaws. The flaws don't really matter for anything but gaming so if you don't care about 1% lows and gaming performance then buying Zen2 right now isn't going to be bad. What wouldn't be a bad idea would be buying a Ryzen 5 3600 and then going with a Zen2+ Ryzen 9 when they're out as your upgrade but honestly IMO and in my current position it's worth waiting to see how it plays out because it might be worth replacing your memory for Zen2+ as well because latencies and memory speed ideals may differ. In any case, buying cheap RAM for the 3600 today wouldn't make for bad spares down the road.

If you need a PC right now I'd buy but I wouldn't go HEDT or buy a Ryzen 9 just yet.

 

So yeah, im worried again. Im a bit of a Quake nerd so this "latency" talk sounds bad. How does this really affect in gaming performance?

 

Other than playing Quake Live and QuakeWorld I will be playing racing games with the steering wheel, then music and video editing. So yeah im struggling with q6600 at the moment, but im not sure if I should update now or get the 3900x and be done with it. I don't really want this intermediate bs of buying some cheaper core to then update again later.

[Jurrunio]

How latency affects performance isnt something you should care, we have game benchmarks already

[Enderman]

Just look at benchmarks, everything is fine.

[Sakkura]

Whoever wrote that doesn't know what they're talking about. Ryzen 3000 is a tock AND a tick.

[Windows95]

7 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Just look at benchmarks, everything is fine.

Im low IQ tbh. Does this mean any real world disavtange in terms of reaction time, like added ms to when you click mouse to fire a railgun?

[Atmos]

I just upgraded last month from a 4790k to a 3700x and could not be happier. Regardless of how theoretical latency affects the platform I'm on now, real-world performance gains have been beyond worth while in every workload I run.

 

Whether its streaming, editing and rendering videos in vegas and photoshop, its legitimately night and day. And regardless of those same theoretical latency issues, its a better value processor than anything intel makes by a huge margin. I mean.. the 3600 with a 10 second overclock is just a nuts deal at under 200$, and holding its own against intels 350$ mainstream i7.

[Atmos]

2 minutes ago, Windows95 said:

Im low IQ tbh. Does this mean any real world disavtange in terms of reaction time, like added ms to when you click mouse to fire a railgun?

None perceivable.

I hate bragging but I am very qualified to answer this in terms of FPS snap shooting and tracking. Its better than anything else I've used. I dont notice input lag outside of normal conditions at all, and the only thing that holds me back is my monitor because I wanted better visuals over lower gtg.

[Enderman]

Just now, Windows95 said:

Im low IQ tbh. Does this mean any real world disavtange in terms of reaction time, like added ms to when you click mouse to fire a railgun?

No, this is like microseconds, impossible to notice in anything except multithreaded heavy computation tasks.

[Sakkura]

Just now, Enderman said:

No, this is like microseconds, impossible to notice in anything except multithreaded heavy computation tasks.

Heck, it's nanoseconds. A CPU could do that hundreds of times every second and you'd never know it.

[Windows95]

16 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Heck, it's nanoseconds. A CPU could do that hundreds of times every second and you'd never know it.

So why is this guy even bringing it up?

[Sakkura]

1 minute ago, Windows95 said:

So why is this guy even bringing it up?

Good question. I think they misunderstood something.