Thread: Possible Build

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Karon View Post
    I just checked the german Amazon site there the difference is 1€ so yeah.

    On us Amazon it's 158, not 148.

    Please provide links instead of being a sassy c.
    I used the link the OP gave us.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    I just like to steer people towards ryzen as its the better overall product at the majority of price points.
    I can understand that, but pushing the wrong tool for the job is a disservice to everyone. Last time i had a "wow effect" in .. wow, was during cenarius progress when i upgraded from my e5-2680v3 to my current 6700k and saw my framerate go from thirties to sixties. Who would have guessed that gaming on a xeon was a bad idea?

    If you want to play the game at minimum settings, that is your choice and probably does not represent the way people actually play the game... Except when i had that darn xeon and was forced to play at minimum settings to get that couple more frames but that is not really a relevant scenario. There isn't really a reason to play at minimum settings, the graphics options mostly affect GPU load and that is not an issue in raids at least.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Then our results contradict each other. Whatever the case, your suggested solution is to buy the CPU that performs worse for the intended use, "because we wont be able to sit at stable 60FPS anyway". That is backwards thinking if you ask me.

    I might actually test the scaling per clocks again now to have up to date results, last time i tested it was in EN. I'm not expecting any surprises though.


    The funny thing is, a 10GHz i5 actually might, but a 10GHz i5 sadly does not exist.
    Because it doesn't perform worse, it performs the same. Actually, according to many reports, it looks smoother with the Ryzens, less stuttery. I linked a guys test a couple posts back from a Flight path and the Ryzen actually performed better. The intel performed worse. So who is suggesting to buy a CPU that performs worse in WoW?

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    I can understand that, but pushing the wrong tool for the job is a disservice to everyone. Last time i had a "wow effect" in .. wow, was during cenarius progress when i upgraded from my e5-2680v3 to my current 6700k and saw my framerate go from thirties to sixties. Who would have guessed that gaming on a xeon was a bad idea?

    If you want to play the game at minimum settings, that is your choice and probably does not represent the way people actually play the game... Except when i had that darn xeon and was forced to play at minimum settings to get that couple more frames but that is not really a relevant scenario. There isn't really a reason to play at minimum settings, the graphics options mostly affect GPU load and that is not an issue in raids at least.
    Lets say you are right for a second and WoW is going to scale perfectly with clock speeds, even in that scenario that does not exactly translate to a better experience. That is really what im trying to get across here. When WoW gets choppy/laggy whatever you wanna call it (if you played this game long enough you know what i mean, legion world bosses are a good example) that is 100% down to the game engine and will not be alleviated until we get a client that can handle draw calls better.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Lathais actually makes a good point, we dont have any conclusive benchmarks intel is performing better in WoW. Game is hard to benchmark and i get that, and even if we had numbers that does not tell the whole story.

    I will just leave it at this, a 5ghz kaby lake processor does not make you immune to the inevitable stutter that occurs in the spots in the game that typically produce that type of scenario. That alone is why i will suggest ryzen over intel for WoW, even when it seems counter intuitive at first to do so.
    Last edited by Fascinate; 2017-06-16 at 02:56 PM.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Flight path
    I stopped reading right there. CPU performance in the open world is largely irrelevant, in the outdoors GPU does most of the heavy lifting.

    Okay i didn't stop reading there. I went back and investigated the "flight path benchmark", 2 FPS difference is insignificant in a "flightpath test" that is not very controlled test to begin with. You will see 2 FPS differences from run to run in a flightpath test. Also almost certainly not a CPU issue, max settings in the world the GPU is doing most of the work, largely explaining the lack of meaningful difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    I will just leave it at this, a 5ghz kaby lake processor does not make you immune to the inevitable stutter that occurs in the spots in the game that typically produce that type of scenario.
    True, but a 5GHz kabylake vs 3.9GHz ryzen can make the difference of having 50 FPS at botanist instead of 40. Stutters like crazy aoe at skorpyron will happen no matter what.
    Last edited by Salty Maud; 2017-06-16 at 03:02 PM.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    I stopped reading right there. CPU performance in the open world is largely irrelevant, in the outdoors GPU does most of the heavy lifting.

    Okay i didn't stop reading there. I went back and investigated the "flight path benchmark", 2 FPS difference is insignificant in a "flightpath test" that is not very controlled test to begin with. You will see 2 FPS differences from run to run in a flightpath test. Also almost certainly not a CPU issue, max settings in the world the GPU is doing most of the work, largely explaining the lack of meaningful difference.


    True, but a 5GHz kabylake vs 3.9GHz ryzen can make the difference of having 50 FPS at botanist instead of 40. Stutters like crazy aoe at skorpyron will happen no matter what.
    Actually, flight paths, being so high up, with view distance up high, generates a whole lot of draw calls, pretty quickly since you are moving pretty fast. Notice both the systems on the flight path are under 60 FPS. GPUs don't cause FPS to drop below 60 in WoW, excessive draw calls do. It's also a consistency thing, since both tests are under the same exact circumstances. No real other way to do that in WoW. Flight Paths are absolutely a CPU bound situation due to the number of Draw Calls being made when moving at that speed with a decent view distance. A whole lot of terrain needs to be drawn, and faster than if you were on the ground running. Not as many as in a particle heavy fight during BL or anything, but it's still a large amount of draw calls being made pretty quickly. Yeah, it's far from conclusive, but it does go to show that these chips are not as far apart as people seem to think.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    I stopped reading right there. CPU performance in the open world is largely irrelevant, in the outdoors GPU does most of the heavy lifting.

    Okay i didn't stop reading there. I went back and investigated the "flight path benchmark", 2 FPS difference is insignificant in a "flightpath test" that is not very controlled test to begin with. You will see 2 FPS differences from run to run in a flightpath test. Also almost certainly not a CPU issue, max settings in the world the GPU is doing most of the work, largely explaining the lack of meaningful difference.


    True, but a 5GHz kabylake vs 3.9GHz ryzen can make the difference of having 50 FPS at botanist instead of 40. Stutters like crazy aoe at skorpyron will happen no matter what.
    So you agree, the spots in WoW where you would really want a fast CPU to help you out cant.

    As a WoW player these are the types of things i thought about before making my ryzen purchase, its just the better product overall especially once you realize even in worst case scenario games the competition isnt going to give you a better experience.

    The next i5 intel releases is going to be a 4c/8t cpu (or at minimum 6c6t), that should let you know what you should be purchasing today.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Flight Paths are absolutely a CPU bound situation due to the number of Draw Calls being made when moving at that speed with a decent view distance. A whole lot of terrain needs to be drawn, and faster than if you were on the ground running. Not as many as in a particle heavy fight during BL or anything, but it's still a large amount of draw calls being made pretty quickly.
    Replicated the dalaran to starsong refuge test on my own rig and was proven wrong actually. Same settings, same resolution, GTX1080 set to the same 2025MHz clocks. GPU usage hovered between 80 and 100% but one of my threads also peaked at 100%, the rest showing much less utilization (latter was expected). My 6700k produced the average of 94FPS @4600MHz and 84FPS @4000MHz. With my relatively heavy kit of addons and all. At least flying in the world seems to actually be somewhat CPU limited, but it wasn't far from making my GPU struggle as well, a lesser GPU would definitely become the bottleneck instead.

    What seems fishy is that PCBudgetSolutions testing resulted in 60-ish FPS.. was he running with VSync on maybe? Looking at my own results, i don't think i dipped below 60 once, but got pretty close few times. He probably tested with vanilla ui as well, i tested with my actual UI that is causing me 10-ish percent drop regardless of the situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fascinate View Post
    So you agree, the spots in WoW where you would really want a fast CPU to help you out cant.
    I agree on the fact that there is not a single CPU that can make wow run at stable 60. I don't agree that because there are still stutters somewhere, the better performance elsewhere is meaningless.
    Last edited by Salty Maud; 2017-06-16 at 04:04 PM.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Replicated the dalaran to starsong refuge test on my own rig and was proven wrong actually. Same settings, same resolution, GTX1080 set to the same 2025MHz clocks. GPU usage hovered between 80 and 100% but one of my threads also peaked at 100%, the rest showing much less utilization (latter was expected). My 6700k produced the average of 94FPS @4600MHz and 84FPS @4000MHz. With my relatively heavy kit of addons and all. At least flying in the world seems to actually be somewhat CPU limited, but it wasn't far from making my GPU struggle as well, a lesser GPU would definitely become the bottleneck instead.

    I agree on the fact that there is not a single CPU that can make wow run at stable 60. I don't agree that because there are still stutters somewhere, the better performance elsewhere is meaningless.
    For that you would have to prove you (or anyone) could reliably differentiate between 40 and 50 FPS (your example, not sure that is even true) in a scenario where the game is going to play terribly no matter what.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Replicated the dalaran to starsong refuge test on my own rig and was proven wrong actually. Same settings, same resolution, GTX1080 set to the same 2025MHz clocks. GPU usage hovered between 80 and 100% but one of my threads also peaked at 100%, the rest showing much less utilization (latter was expected). My 6700k produced the average of 94FPS @4600MHz and 84FPS @4000MHz. With my relatively heavy kit of addons and all. At least flying in the world seems to actually be somewhat CPU limited, but it wasn't far from making my GPU struggle as well, a lesser GPU would definitely become the bottleneck instead.

    Even if you did become GPU bottlenecked at that point, to show the differences in the CPUs you could lower the resolution or render scale. Same amount of draw calls will be made, so CPU will be used the same amount but GPU will have much less work to do, so you can easily see which CPU does better.

    In the case I linked, the R5 1600 did actually do better. Max FPS was 5 better and the Average FPS was right at 60 on the AMD with the intel being 2 FPS under 60. Yeah, far from conclusive, I agree, but as you proved yourself it is in fact a CPU bound situation and the two CPUs performed, realistically, nearly identically. He was also using a GTX 1080 FTW edition, so like you, was likely close to being GPU bound, but was not.

    If this, along with the other benchmarks I have given in this thread, do not prove that the Ryzen CPUs are very very close in gaming performance to intels, I don't know what will. They are slightly cheaper, perform better in any task that does utilize more cores/threads and are nearly identical, perhaps slightly behind in some games/situations, in tasks that don't utilize more cores/threads. It's really a no brainer. The Pentium is the only intel CPU worth it anymore. i3's are not worth it due to being nearly twice the price of the Pentiums for very little more performance. i5's are not worth it with the Ryzens out there nearly matching them in single core performance and handily beating them in anything that it multi-threaded and the i7's are beat on price alone by the Ryzens.

    As I've said before, the G4560 is the only intel CPU that is really worth it anymore, outside of some niche cases that make heavy use of AVX.

    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    What seems fishy is that PCBudgetSolutions testing resulted in 60-ish FPS.. was he running with VSync on maybe? Looking at my own results, i don't think i dipped below 60 once, but got pretty close few times. He probably tested with vanilla ui as well, i tested with my actual UI that is causing me 10-ish percent drop regardless of the situation.
    If you had a Ryzen CPU, with more cores and more threads to help handle those add-ons, do you think you would still suffer as much of a loss from the add-ons? Something to think about with the rest of the performance in a vanilla scenario being nearly identical.

    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post

    I agree on the fact that there is not a single CPU that can make wow run at stable 60. I don't agree that because there are still stutters somewhere, the better performance elsewhere is meaningless.
    And due to having more cores/threads free to handle background tasks, the Ryzen system can help to alleviate some(not all, but some) of those stutters, resulting in the smoother experience you hear a lot of Ryzen owners talking about.

  11. #51
    I was more interested in finding out whether or not you could CPU bottleneck yourself in the world in a typical scenario than actually producing useful data - i don't have a ryzen chip at hand anyway. Now i am starting to get a little bit confused, the PCBudgetSolutions results make no sense. How can the slower CPU outpace the faster one IF we concluded that there was a CPU bottleneck? Could my addons actually be causing enough performance loss to cause a CPU bottleneck in the flight path scenario? Was there actually any CPU bottleneck in the PCBudgetSolutions testing? Why was the PCBudgetSolutions testing producing significantly lower FPS than my rig?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    If you had a Ryzen CPU, with more cores and more threads to help handle those add-ons, do you think you would still suffer as much of a loss from the add-ons? Something to think about with the rest of the performance in a vanilla scenario being nearly identical.
    Yes i would actually, anything lua runs on the main game thread. That is basically why addons will cause a performance hit when the game was limited by it's main thread saturating the core it is running on in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    And due to having more cores/threads free to handle background tasks, the Ryzen system can help to alleviate some(not all, but some) of those stutters, resulting in the smoother experience you hear a lot of Ryzen owners talking about.
    Doesn't help when the issue is still the fat main thread. Even with a 4C8T i7 i am not getting even close to 100% utilization with wow, coming back to the issue that wow is not a very well multithreaded game. Plenty of free CPU time for background tasks.
    Last edited by Salty Maud; 2017-06-16 at 04:21 PM.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Yes i would actually, anything lua runs on the main game thread. That is basically why addons will cause a performance hit when the game was limited by it's main thread saturating the core it is running on in the first place.
    Interesting, have not really played WoW in years myself and have no knowledge of how add-ons actually work.

    As for why his test was lower, well, what were your settings? He was running Max Settings with 8 view distance/clutter and 4xMSAA at 1440p. Perhaps you are running with lower view distance/clutter? No MSAA? 1080p?

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    As for why his test was lower, well, did he state his settings? What were your settings?
    He did. Max settings with distance and clutter sliders at 8, 1440p, 4xMSAA. Tested with the same settings, even downclocked my GPU to the same clocks he tested although that still does not make the results comparable because addons and different CPUs. Still does not explain why his 7600k at 4.2GHz turbo did significantly worse than my 6700k downclocked to 4GHz.

    If anything, i managed to prove myself wrong in that the outside world can indeed cause a CPU bottleneck, but also that, well, it can cause a CPU bottleneck and higher clocks result in higher FPS (not a perfect bottleneck though, GPU was hitting 100% as well, that alone explains why no perfect scaling). We don't even have to debate that wow does not benefit from 12 threads anything more than it does from 4 i hope, i am in the understanding that that is common knowledge.
    Last edited by Salty Maud; 2017-06-16 at 04:40 PM.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    He did. Max settings with distance and clutter sliders at 8, 1440p, 4xMSAA. Tested with the same settings, even downclocked my GPU to the same clocks he tested although that still does not make the results comparable because addons and different CPUs. Still does not explain why his 7600k at 4.2GHz turbo did significantly worse than my 6700k downclocked to 4GHz.
    Yeah, I went and checked and edited my post. Perhaps it;s due to the background stuff he was running? He lists what he was running at about :45.

    HWMonitor
    GPU-Z
    Steam Client
    Chrome w/5 tabs open
    CPU-Z
    EVGA Precision
    Fraps(WoW Only)(I suspect this may be the culprit)

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Yeah, I went and checked and edited my post. Perhaps it;s due to the background stuff he was running? He lists what he was running at about :45.

    HWMonitor
    GPU-Z
    Steam Client
    Chrome w/5 tabs open
    CPU-Z
    EVGA Precision
    Fraps(WoW Only)(I suspect this may be the culprit)
    Lol, that is almost identical to what i am running. Also used fraps for recording the performance. Nope, that's not it. I still suspect accidental Vsync.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Lol, that is almost identical to what i am running. Also used fraps for recording the performance. Nope, that's not it. I still suspect accidental Vsync.
    Here's the thread he made about it over at the official forums, maybe you could ask him directly? Not having an active account I can't post there. If you do, please let me know the response. I am very interested.
    https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20754095651

    Here's where he did some further testing in other games with both chips OCed as well:
    https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20753975605

    With the exception of For Honor, every game tested was slightly better on the Ryzen. In For Honor, he mentioned that while the max FPS was higher on the intel, the min FPS was lower and it resulted in a choppier experience. So even though it gets "better" FPS, it still doesn't look as good.

  17. #57
    Just to be clear on this one, i dont believe that guys post lol.

    The argument shouldnt be which gets better FPS in WoW (clearly a 7600k is going to get higher FPS in WoW). The question should be are you really going to choose the inferior overall product for a 13 year old game in which it isnt even clear you are getting the expected benefits?

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Lathais View Post
    Here's the thread he made about it over at the official forums, maybe you could ask him directly? Not having an active account I can't post there. If you do, please let me know the response. I am very interested.
    https://us.battle.net/forums/en/wow/topic/20754095651
    Sadly not an option, EU player, can't post on the murican forums anymore (used to be able to post there on a trial account, they took away that possibility in this expansion).

    What we know is that there is a definitive CPU bottleneck at raiding, and apparently also in the world, given you have powerful enough GPU to cause one. CPU bottleneck being a single thread performance related one. 7600k vs r5 1600 stock the i5 pushes more numbers in a single thread test, the gap widening when both are overclocked. We know wow does not benefit from excess threads. We know higher clocks (and therefore higher per core perf as well) produce higher FPS. It should be pretty easy to conclude that 7600k would be the better CPU specifically for WoW, and anything else that is poorly multithreaded really.

    Whether or not ryzen makes sense for general gaming rig is a much more interesting question, there there is actually some competition and valid arguments for both sides. But this time the question is about wow and that should be a pretty easy one to answer. A few messages ago the idea that you would not be able to differentiate between 40 and 50FPS was suggested, but that is a whole another can of worms that i am not even going to touch, you can debate that if you want without me.

    I may still rerun my benchmarks on clocks and number of cores and threads (as much as i can test with my 6700k) and raiding later, but now i will go and play a round stellaris. I.e. don't expect me back anytime soon.
    | , chi torpedo specialist | Current PC setup | Join EuroRaid for new player friendly raids|

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Sadly not an option, EU player, can't post on the murican forums anymore (used to be able to post there on a trial account, they took away that possibility in this expansion).

    What we know is that there is a definitive CPU bottleneck at raiding, and apparently also in the world, given you have powerful enough GPU to cause one. CPU bottleneck being a single thread performance related one. 7600k vs r5 1600 stock the i5 pushes more numbers in a single thread test, the gap widening when both are overclocked. We know wow does not benefit from excess threads. We know higher clocks (and therefore higher per core perf as well) produce higher FPS. It should be pretty easy to conclude that 7600k would be the better CPU specifically for WoW, and anything else that is poorly multithreaded really.

    Whether or not ryzen makes sense for general gaming rig is a much more interesting question, there there is actually some competition and valid arguments for both sides. But this time the question is about wow and that should be a pretty easy one to answer. A few messages ago the idea that you would not be able to differentiate between 40 and 50FPS was suggested, but that is a whole another can of worms that i am not even going to touch, you can debate that if you want without me.

    I may still rerun my benchmarks on clocks and number of cores and threads (as much as i can test with my 6700k) and raiding later, but now i will go and play a round stellaris. I.e. don't expect me back anytime soon.
    Just out of curiosity, what speed is your RAM? He had his set at 2133 for both systems since his Ryzen Motherboard was dealing with the issue of not being able to go beyond that at the time. So if your RAM is clocked higher than that, could explain the difference.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by CPUzer0 View Post
    Sadly not an option, EU player, can't post on the murican forums anymore (used to be able to post there on a trial account, they took away that possibility in this expansion).

    What we know is that there is a definitive CPU bottleneck at raiding, and apparently also in the world, given you have powerful enough GPU to cause one. CPU bottleneck being a single thread performance related one. 7600k vs r5 1600 stock the i5 pushes more numbers in a single thread test, the gap widening when both are overclocked. We know wow does not benefit from excess threads. We know higher clocks (and therefore higher per core perf as well) produce higher FPS. It should be pretty easy to conclude that 7600k would be the better CPU specifically for WoW, and anything else that is poorly multithreaded really.

    Whether or not ryzen makes sense for general gaming rig is a much more interesting question, there there is actually some competition and valid arguments for both sides. But this time the question is about wow and that should be a pretty easy one to answer. A few messages ago the idea that you would not be able to differentiate between 40 and 50FPS was suggested, but that is a whole another can of worms that i am not even going to touch, you can debate that if you want without me.

    I may still rerun my benchmarks on clocks and number of cores and threads (as much as i can test with my 6700k) and raiding later, but now i will go and play a round stellaris. I.e. don't expect me back anytime soon.
    How is it a can of worms lol? Its something people should be considering, why gimp yourself with an overall inferior product if you cant experience tangible benefits from it?

    Anyone browsing this thread, TLDR: Dont buy an i5.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •