Gaming CPU needed

[Vandorlot]

28 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

What about the 1500X?

I also  tihnk the 2 extra cores wil help for stuff like background processes. I dont need high single cores because most new games that im playing are multicores.

[ARikozuM]

6 hours ago, Vandorlot said:

I also  tihnk the 2 extra cores wil help for stuff like background processes. I dont need high single cores because most new games that im playing are multicores.

Using multiple [cores] does not mean that programs are [fully] multi-threaded. Single-threaded functions will always be present since physics, such as trajectory and destruction, rely on sequential data inputs and outputs in sequence which multiple cores will not perform effectively as they would have to compile all possibilities against each other.

 

BF1 as an example, is heavily single-threaded, but can spread the load to multiple cores. 

[He_162]

On 6/1/2017 at 10:43 PM, tim11111111 said:

Arma 3 doesn't look to bad on an i5 5ghz oc.

Although the Ryzen 5 is great too even with 2133mhz ram.

Keep in mind setting might be different for each test

Try 100+ players on a multiplayer server. It will die.

 

21 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Using multiple [cores] does not mean that programs are [fully] multi-threaded. Single-threaded functions will always be present since physics, such as trajectory and destruction, rely on sequential data inputs and outputs in sequence which multiple cores will not perform effectively as they would have to compile all possibilities against each other.

 

BF1 as an example, is heavily single-threaded, but can spread the load to multiple cores. 

Good thing almost no games are single threaded anymore, no good ones anyway. Also a good thing Ryzen has good single thread performance and IPC.

Just because you can purchase a cut down i7 (i5) for the same price as a friggin 6 core does not mean you should buy the i5 for potentially better performance now if the other chip (Ryzen) is gonna last you a lot longer.

On 6/1/2017 at 11:48 PM, done12many2 said:

Are you saying that AMD has somehow figured out a way to distribute a single-threaded task across multiple cores?

No, I'm saying that the cores in a single CCX can all do single threaded tasks together in a more parallel way, keeping the data on the same cache, so the latency involved with running things across the CCX design doesn't hinder the single threaded task.

 

When it does that, it gets much higher IPC than on say cinebench, or other programs where its constantly moving the different instructions from core to core, and across the CCX.

When it runs the single threaded tasks on only one CCX, and across only those cores, it is on par with Skylake. (-3 to 4%)

[ARikozuM]

12 hours ago, He_162 said:

Good thing almost no games are single threaded anymore, no good ones anyway. Also a good thing Ryzen has good single thread performance and IPC.

Just because you can purchase a cut down i7 (i5) for the same price as a friggin 6 core does not mean you should buy the i5 for potentially better performance now if the other chip (Ryzen) is gonna last you a lot longer.

BF1 has a lot of single-threaded functions... Weather, fog, and explosions are all multi-threaded because their accuracy doesn't require the most precision (essentially a sphere with damage determined by distance and covers since there's no individual "shrapnel" to account for). 

 

You wouldn't calculate a bullet's trajectory at 100 to 101 meters if you haven't completed 5 to 6 meters would you? Multi-threaded vs single-threaded is something that everyone confuses and it seems that you are confused on it as well. Every bullet/shell/mortar/projectile is a single-threaded function as the path is sequential in nature. Unless you want penetration to never count when it comes to walls and such. 

 

Leveraging more cores does not indicate that an engine is multi-threaded but rather multi-cored. Cities: Skylines is able to leverage about 3 cores, but is multi-threaded since AI functions can be split to produce an approximation of events (have you seen a soldier in an FPS run forward only to turn around and run back? Those are multi-threaded and the AI decided on two outcomes with one being late) functions and thus can produce unwanted results unless something within the engine stops late calculations. 

 

Kerbal Space Program can use quite a few cores (if my 4790K was to be believed all eight logical cores can see 90% usage), but since every turbine, bolt, and shell uses precise, single-threaded physics calculations it comes to a screeching halt in frame-rate because there is simply too little in the frequency and IPC department regardless of number of cores. 

 

There is nothing that can spread single-threaded processes without adding latency and errors. Wanting the world to run on multi-threaded functions is just asking for Minesweeper to actually use a dodeca-core in the future. 

 

Edit: I'd also like to add that every core has multiple threads within itself. 

[Drak3]

On 6/1/2017 at 9:03 PM, ARikozuM said:

You can get Windows 10 for free by using the Assistive Features installer or a previous Win7/8.1 system. If you need to pay for it, go to Kinguin or dealscube for a volume key.

Bad advice on the Kinguin part. OP can run Windows 10 unactivated until they can save up for the version they want, or give consideration into running a Linux distro that is similar to Windows if their games are (mostly) Linux compatible for the time being. Either option is far better than a grey market OEM key.

[ARikozuM]

4 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Bad advice on the Kinguin part. 

I'm not joining the debate for or against the websites as I also sell my own unused retail keys. With each of those threads, I'm being labeled as a gray market seller with illegitimate keys even though I paid for them with my own money and it saddens me that people think it's all stolen.

 

Edit: No offense meant to you if it came off that way.

[done12many2]

12 hours ago, He_162 said:

No, I'm saying that the cores in a single CCX can all do single threaded tasks together in a more parallel way, keeping the data on the same cache, so the latency involved with running things across the CCX design doesn't hinder the single threaded task.

 

When it does that, it gets much higher IPC than on say cinebench, or other programs where its constantly moving the different instructions from core to core, and across the CCX.

When it runs the single threaded tasks on only one CCX, and across only those cores, it is on par with Skylake. (-3 to 4%)

 

Can you link me up so I can read up on this?  

 

I've been researching quite a bit on AMD's CCX, L1, L2 and L2 cache as I'm gearing up for the possibility of a Threadripper build along side my Skylake X build and haven't seen any mention of the ability to run a single-threaded task in parallel across multiple cores within a single CCX.

 

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm not joining the debate for or against the websites as I also sell my own unused retail keys. With each of those threads, I'm being labeled as a gray market seller with illegitimate keys even though I paid for them with my own money and it saddens me that people think it's all stolen.

 

Edit: No offense meant to you if it came off that way.

 

PM me when you sell.  I ain't judging.  

[Drak3]

5 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

With each of those threads, I'm being labeled as a gray market seller with illegitimate keys

You're grey market, absolutely. But reselling an unused retail key and license isn't an illegitimate practice, if you're not making a business out of it. Whereas sites like Kinguin are offering OEM keys, sans actual license that aren't legitimate.

 

If anything, recommending the MS Swap on Reddit would be somewhat better advice.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, done12many2 said:

single-threaded task in parallel across multiple cores within a single CCX.

You cannot run single-threaded tasks in parallel as it is only worked on by a single-thread. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(computer_architecture)

[He_162]

24 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

-snip-

Limiting single threaded functions that are closely related to each other to a single CCX so you don't have to send information across the CCX to the other cache is still a thing regardless of whether or not you think I don't understand single threaded functions, or their differences.

 

 

4 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

 

Can you link me up so I can read up on this?  

 

I've been researching quite a bit on AMD's CCX, L1, L2 and L2 cache as I'm gearing up for the possibility of a Threadripper build along side my Skylake X build and haven't seen any mention of the ability to run a single-threaded task in parallel across multiple cores within a single CCX.

 

 

PM me when you sell.  I ain't judging.  

The parallel running of single threaded tasks was assumed because of what someone else told me, I haven't seen it happen on my R5 1600.

However, I stand by the fact that Ryzen knows when and when not to send things across the CCX's cache to prevent unnecessary latency.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, He_162 said:

The parallel running of single threaded tasks was assumed because of what someone else told me, I haven't seen it happen on my R5 1600.

@ARikozuM and @done12many2 are correct. A single thread cannot be parallelized.

 

What you've described is the scheduler moving the thread between cores, likely as services and background programs demand more or less CPU time, and/or to artificially spread the load across cores.

[PCGuy_5960]

6 minutes ago, He_162 said:

The parallel running of single threaded tasks was assumed because of what someone else told me, I haven't seen it happen on my R5 1600.

Since you have an R5 1600 and you haven't seen it happen, why are you so sure that it happens because someone else told you?

[ARikozuM]

5 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

[those guys] are correct. A single thread cannot be parallelized.

Exactly! You can have multiple single-threaded functions on a single core, but you cannot do them at the same time.

 

[Drak3]

Just now, ARikozuM said:

Exactly! You can have multiple single-threaded functions on a single core, but you cannot do them at the same time.

 

Not entirely true. It depends on the nature of the thread and the resource implementation of a CPU. HTT and SMT both enable one core to do multiple tasks (2 per core on HTT, 2 per core on AMD's SMT, and 8 per core on IBM's SMT) by running two threads that do not require the same resources, or resources are setup so that partial use doesn't require absolute allocation. The obvious benefit is better multitasking, the not so obvious benefit is that is helps prevent thread locking.

[done12many2]

5 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

You cannot run single-threaded tasks in parallel as it is only worked on by a single-thread. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multithreading_(computer_architecture)

 

Thanks bud.   I did already know that, but I keep hearing claims of drastic improvements to single-threaded performance in Ryzen despite its architectural limitations.  I figured I'd start asking for sources whenever rumors or exaggerations pop up.  I'm trying to change my ways of directly calling people out.

 

I've been reading up on CCX and Infinity Fabric because I'm interested in a Threadripper rig as a second PC. Single-threaded performance is not important for the work it'll be doing.

[ARikozuM]

19 minutes ago, done12many2 said:

I've been reading up on CCX and Infinity Fabric because I'm interested in a Threadripper rig as a second PC. Single-threaded performance is not important for the work it'll be doing.

I wasn't singling you out, if that's how it seemed. 

 

I'm just tired of hearing that more cores equals better gaming performance in the future. Unless something happens to every AAA developer that makes them able to multi-thread and use every core imaginable, this isn't going to change. 

 

I have heard that inter-CCX communication is better, though. So, if you're doing something like rendering models or videos, doing protein folding simulations, or pathogen/IA spread via EEP or vector models (this has several names), Ryzen is a good choice unless you've got the cash for a Titan supercomputer. 

[done12many2]

15 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I wasn't singling you out, if that's how it seemed. 

 

Not at all.  My reply was more so to clarify that to others.  

 

Quote

I'm just tired of hearing that more cores equals better gaming performance in the future. Unless something happens to every AAA developer that makes them able to multi-thread and use every core imaginable, this isn't going to change. 

 

x2

 

I've got a very above average 5960x and 7700k.  I know for a fact which of the two is better for gaming.