7820x or 1920x?

[DarkSwordsman]

Hi all,

 

After finding great work, I plan to get a whole new PC anywhere from December 2018 to February 2019. I plan to use it with gaming and live streaming being the majority of the load on the system.

 

To note before getting into this: Money isn't really an issue, so I would prefer to get something that performs. However, with the weird price gap between the 7820x to the 7940x, it causes me to have a weird dilemma.

At the moment, I am bound between two systems. Same computers, just a 7820x vs 1920x. Prices are as of posting.

 

$2279 7820x build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/EnsignLedo/saved/mrn6sY

$2360 1920x build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/EnsignLedo/saved/97NzYJ

 

I understand that Intel is planning to release some new CPUs soon and that AMD is releasing TR2, but that is not the concern at the moment. I will go into hypotheticals, but not that far.

So the main concern here is that OBS seems to prefer more cores due to the H264 encoder while most games prefer stronger cores. So that begs two questions: Would context-switching on a faster-single-core 8 core processor be slow enough to justify the similarly priced build of the slower-single-core 12 core processor? As well as: Would the single-core-performance of the 7820x be fast enough to justify the time spent context-switching with a gaming and h264 load?
---
Getting into another level, assuming I just buy the system a couple weeks later, here are two more builds to consider: 

$2975 7940x build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/EnsignLedo/saved/DQHWD3

$2620 1950x build: https://pcpartpicker.com/user/EnsignLedo/saved/hv9Cbv

 

I would mention a 7900x instead of a 1920x and choose that, but the price of that is simply unjustifiable since the 7900x is $1000. Since the price difference between the 7900x and 7940x is so small, I would go for the 7940x at $1120 at that range, but then there's the competitor, the 1950x that would have a similar multi-core performance but for $350 cheaper (including the difference in motherboard price). The multi-core performance seems to be pretty equal at this stage and I would easily tip towards Intel for similar multi-core performance across all cores, but does that justify the $350+ increase?

 

Also to note, yes the 1950x would likely be the best price to performance build in these builds, but it's a thing to consider when the gaming performance of the 7820x would be vastly greater than the 1950x due to the single core performance and how most games don't really use more than 4 cores in the first place, depending on the game.

I would prefer to get the two latter builds simply because they would be just beasts that can handle nearly anything thrown at them, but I want to figure out if it's justified. 

 

 

I hope my position makes sense. The first two options are a similar price, but yield fairly different results, while the two other options are pretty fair in multi-core performance where the single core performance of one is better, but are very different in price.

[DrMacintosh]

Bruh, just get the 1950X

[DarkSwordsman]

3 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Bruh, just get the 1950X

Yes, very helpful. Thanks. My mind has been made up.

[nick name]

If you're not getting it until December then isn't this premature?  You'll be able to get better by then.  And the 2950X might be worth a look.  You may find a black friday deal on it in December. 

 

And congrats on the new job. 

[Taf the Ghost]

@DarkSwordsman

 

 

For some recent benchmarks. They've managed to solve many of the X299 gaming issues, but HEDT platforms still can have issues. Especially with those stock settings on X299.

 

Games don't really prefer stronger cores. It's not the IPC difference between AMD & Intel that's the limiting issue. It's Memory & Cache latencies. That's why some games are really responsive to higher single core frequency than others.

 

Generally, unless you have a workload that can use the much larger AVX2 & AVX512 units on the X299, the 1920X is the better buy. Especially if you can snag it for ~400 during Black Friday.

[Frenky]

Go for the 2950X, best bang for buck

[PlayStation 2]

Coming from someone who does CPU-based x264 encoding in OBS Studio with a 1700X, you'd most likely be better off with the 1920X build. It'd give your rig some extra leg room to run other shit. Just watch out for memory related shit.

[DarkSwordsman]

4 minutes ago, Taf the Ghost said:

@DarkSwordsman

 

 

For some recent benchmarks. They've managed to solve many of the X299 gaming issues, but HEDT platforms still can have issues. Especially with those stock settings on X299.

 

Games don't really prefer stronger cores. It's not the IPC difference between AMD & Intel that's the limiting issue. It's Memory & Cache latencies. That's why some games are really responsive to higher single core frequency than others.

 

Generally, unless you have a workload that can use the much larger AVX2 & AVX512 units on the X299, the 1920X is the better buy. Especially if you can snag it for ~400 during Black Friday.

That's a decent video but seems to play more into the fact that a 7820x generally beats out even the 2950x on most games (according to those results). The synthetic benchmarks are cool and help play out that more cores would generally be better for x264 video encoding, though it seems at least the 7900x beating out the 1920x also shows that the per-core performance (as well as memory and cache latencies as you mentioned) tells a different story.

These findings would point to the 7940x build, even though it's at nearly $3,000, would be the best balance between game performance and stream performance. I also believe that the x264 encoder that OBS uses may be able to take advantage of AVX2 and/or AVX512.

Also, to note, I have a i7-2600 system dedicated to streaming. With a hype cup at 720p60 @ 3,500 Kbps, it seems to hover around 60% usage. Adding StreamElements Kappagen completely bricks the performance and it struggles to push out 10 fps. That may be the technologies at play, I am not certain, as my brother with a 5820k system does okay with Kappagen at 1080p60 @ 6,000 Kbps. 

The current predicament is that 8 cores (7820x) may be enough to play a game well, but seeing the difference between 7800x, 7820x, and 7900x, as well as knowing that I may need at least 4 strong or 6 decent cores to push out 1080p60, makes me think that a 7940x system (including the $120 difference between 7900x to 7940x) would be the best, though it's the most expensive.

I should make it clearer that I would prefer something that performs than saving $600 for something that is okay, but won't be able to handle what I may within a couple years if that means going to a 1440p screen and possibly pushing out a 1440p stream if Twitch supports it eventually. 
 

[DarkSwordsman]

15 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

Coming from someone who does CPU-based x264 encoding in OBS Studio with a 1700X, you'd most likely be better off with the 1920X build. It'd give your rig some extra leg room to run other shit. Just watch out for memory related shit.

I see that. My main concern, though is if games would suffer significantly from OBS taking up a siginificant amount of cores, as well as from the single core performance being lower overall. The other thing is if the, while more, but weaker 1920x cores would be able to effectively handle Stream Elements overlays such as the Cup and Kappagen.

[nick name]

2 minutes ago, DarkSwordsman said:

That's a decent video but seems to play more into the fact that a 7820x generally beats out even the 2950x on most games (according to those results). The synthetic benchmarks are cool and help play out that more cores would generally be better for x264 video encoding, though it seems at least the 7900x beating out the 1920x also shows that the per-core performance (as well as memory and cache latencies as you mentioned) tells a different story.

These findings would point to the 7940x build, even though it's at nearly $3,000, would be the best balance between game performance and stream performance. I also believe that the x264 encoder that OBS uses may be able to take advantage of AVX2 and/or AVX512.

Also, to note, I have a i7-2600 system dedicated to streaming. With a hype cup at 720p60 @ 3,500 Kbps, it seems to hover around 60% usage. Adding StreamElements Kappagen completely bricks the performance and it struggles to push out 10 fps. That may be the technologies at play, I am not certain, as my brother with a 5820k system does okay with Kappagen at 1080p60 @ 6,000 Kbps. 

The current predicament is that 8 cores (7820x) may be enough to play a game well, but seeing the difference between 7800x, 7820x, and 7900x, as well as knowing that I may need at least 4 strong or 6 decent cores to push out 1080p60, makes me think that a 7940x system (including the $120 difference between 7900x to 7940x) would be the best, though it's the most expensive.

I should make it clearer that I would prefer something that performs than saving $600 for something that is okay, but won't be able to handle what I may within a couple years if that means going to a 1440p screen and possibly pushing out a 1440p stream if Twitch supports it eventually. 
 

I can do 1080p60 in OBS and still game with the 2700X.  I know it isn't something you're considering, but it may help knowing 8 cores gets the job done so perhaps finding something with 10 or 12 cores and higher frequencies may be a solution for you. 

[PlayStation 2]

2 minutes ago, DarkSwordsman said:

I see that. My main concern, though is if games would suffer significantly from OBS taking up a siginificant amount of cores, as well as from the single core performance being lower overall. The other thing is if the, while more, but weaker 1920x cores would be able to effectively handle Stream Elements overlays such as the Cup and Kappagen.

You can mess around with process affinity if that worries you. Also yes, OBS should be able to handle those fine; it scales fairly well to multiple cores, and remember, you can also play around with encoding settings in general (including using custom codecs) to push what's best for your system.

[DarkSwordsman]

Just now, nick name said:

I can do 1080p60 in OBS and still game with the 2700X.  I know it isn't something you're considering, but it may help knowing 8 cores gets the job done so perhaps finding something with 10 or 12 cores and higher frequencies may be a solution for you. 

That's definitely useful. It's first-hand experience and can play into the 12 core 1920x being perfect for what I need. Is that gaming on a 1080p monitor?

[DarkSwordsman]

17 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

You can mess around with process affinity if that worries you. Also yes, OBS should be able to handle those fine; it scales fairly well to multiple cores, and remember, you can also play around with encoding settings in general (including using custom codecs) to push what's best for your system.

Right. All of that I would've been messing around with anyway.

I don't know. The resources seem to show Intel being better with game performance, as well as the 10-core 7900x pulling ahead of the 1920x 12-core, makes me think that the stronger cores will really be the benefit.

That said, an 8-core 7820x may not be the best for what I need to stream with all the complex overlays (Kappagen and Cup and all) as well as maintaining decent performance hoping that OBS plays nice by sharing cores with a game (which may not be the case). That, with the 7900x being nearly the same price as a 7940x, I may stick it out and just get the 7940x system.

Of course, I will be watching and evaluating this with Intel's new line of CPUs and what AMD will offer with its new CPUs (not to mention the RTX release), and probably re-evaluate, but for now, this seems to be the goal.

I found this video, but it may not help since it's essentially Kabylake vs Skylake, as well as a very different amount of CPU cores: 

 

[nick name]

18 minutes ago, DarkSwordsman said:

That's definitely useful. It's first-hand experience and can play into the 12 core 1920x being perfect for what I need. Is that gaming on a 1080p monitor?

Actually it's gaming at 4k and broadcasting at 1080p.  

[nick name]

@DarkSwordsman If you're watching videos then GamersNexus did one on comparing the 8700K to the 2700X.  

 

 

[Taf the Ghost]

9 minutes ago, DarkSwordsman said:

Right. All of that I would've been messing around with anyway.

I don't know. The resources seem to show Intel being better with game performance, as well as the 10-core 7900x pulling ahead of the 1920x 12-core, makes me think that the stronger cores will really be the benefit.

That said, an 8-core 7820x may not be the best for what I need to stream with all the complex overlays (Kappagen and Cup and all) as well as maintaining decent performance hoping that OBS plays nice by sharing cores with a game (which may not be the case). That, with the 7900x being nearly the same price as a 7940x, I may stick it out and just get the 7940x system.

Of course, I will be watching and evaluating this with Intel's new line of CPUs and what AMD will offer with its new CPUs (not to mention the RTX release), and probably re-evaluate, but for now, this seems to be the goal.

I found this video, but it may not help since it's essentially Kabylake vs Skylake, as well as a very different amount of CPU cores: 

 

I still don't quite get what you're streaming that you think you need 14 cores for. You're well into the territory of "why don't you just buy two systems?". 

[Taf the Ghost]

37 minutes ago, DarkSwordsman said:

That's a decent video but seems to play more into the fact that a 7820x generally beats out even the 2950x on most games (according to those results). The synthetic benchmarks are cool and help play out that more cores would generally be better for x264 video encoding, though it seems at least the 7900x beating out the 1920x also shows that the per-core performance (as well as memory and cache latencies as you mentioned) tells a different story.

These findings would point to the 7940x build, even though it's at nearly $3,000, would be the best balance between game performance and stream performance. I also believe that the x264 encoder that OBS uses may be able to take advantage of AVX2 and/or AVX512.

Also, to note, I have a i7-2600 system dedicated to streaming. With a hype cup at 720p60 @ 3,500 Kbps, it seems to hover around 60% usage. Adding StreamElements Kappagen completely bricks the performance and it struggles to push out 10 fps. That may be the technologies at play, I am not certain, as my brother with a 5820k system does okay with Kappagen at 1080p60 @ 6,000 Kbps. 

The current predicament is that 8 cores (7820x) may be enough to play a game well, but seeing the difference between 7800x, 7820x, and 7900x, as well as knowing that I may need at least 4 strong or 6 decent cores to push out 1080p60, makes me think that a 7940x system (including the $120 difference between 7900x to 7940x) would be the best, though it's the most expensive.

I should make it clearer that I would prefer something that performs than saving $600 for something that is okay, but won't be able to handle what I may within a couple years if that means going to a 1440p screen and possibly pushing out a 1440p stream if Twitch supports it eventually. 
 

AVX2 accelerated workloads, which the modern x264 do, can be accelerated with the extra AVX2 units on the Skylake-X platform. Threadripper is functionally running at 1/2 clocks on some of that stuff, which is why it can't stretch the full 12 or 16 cores like it does in any of the rendering tasks. (Some of it is also Windows issues, but that's a completely separate debate.) I don't know what Kappagen is leveraging, so you would actually have to find some extensive information on it. Those types of loads suggest it's probably more I/O than CPU IPC that's at issue, but that would take extensive testing.

[DarkSwordsman]

Taf, it's not exactly that I need 14 cores (7940x) over 10 cores (7900x), it's the fact that this is the price spread:

 

8700k: $350 (6)

7800x: $360 (6)
7820x: $450 (8)
7900x: $1000 (10)
7920x: $1050 (12)
7940x: $1120 (14)

I just feel that the 7820x is a good chip, but the 7900x would be a good safety net. But at that point, the prices are so skewed that I may as well get a 7940x since it's only $120 more. If the 7900x was about $600, then I would certainly choose that over the 7820x, 1920x, and even 1950x builds. 

I think my mind is made up that I want to go Intel because the single core performance, from what I have read, seems to take precedence over the number of cores. However, because of the price, it's either that I get a 7820x or 7940x.

I was originally going to get a 7820x as it seemed sufficient for my needs, and if I needed more in a few years, I can probably scoop up a 7920x or 7940x for a decent price off a trusted eBay seller. That seems to be the likely option, but we will see as the days go on.

Since it seems many single-pc streamers do well with 8700ks, and even still with the 5820k, 5930k, and 6800k, I'm sure the 7820x is a good option. 

[DogKnight]

I was tossing up between some of these CPU's earlier this year. My use case is different but I went for the 7820x. It's a solid CPU and with a Corsair H115 cooler, I easily have it running at 4.6ghz on all cores. 

I mainly built mine for virtualisation.