I have Ryzen 1700 atm and I was thinking about upgrading my PC because 1700 isn’t enough for single core performance.
I am a bit confused though because Zbrush is mostly multi-threaded app but when I turn off 8 threads on my 16 thread CPU I see NO difference in perfromance at all.
New AMD bioses and mobos are having problems and aren’t 100% stable. Intel’s platform is a lot stable and older/more mature.
Can higher single core perfromance influence my overall zbrush performance/snappiness/smoothness?
Can someone explain it to me, what’s going on? Is it even worth to buy 3900x that has lower single core performance but has more threads (24) than intel? What is more worth it?
Has anyone benchmarked i9 9900k in zbrush/blender/unity?
I also stream, play video games and do video editing/rendering as well.
I have no idea about ZBrush but I do know Unity will benefit massively in some tasks (eg lightmapping) from very high core counts and for those tasks the 3900X will dominate the 9900K.
For the record the difference in single core performance is almost negligible. In the majority of workstation benchmarks it is almost within the range of a round error. You won’t be able to see the difference outside of benchmarks.
I dont know which benchmarks you refer to the 3900 is on par with the 9900 in many benchmarks, like linus,
I’m waiting for the 3950 (Since I have the 8 core 2700x and would like to double those), but If I bought today I would go with the 3900x over the 9900k
Have you seen the compiling benchmarks that have been getting attention because some of the demanding stages fit into the massive cache of the 3900X? I happened to find out about it last night through this video.
Nice; yeah, the new cache is a big stepup from the 2xxx series. I’m just skeptical that memory bandwidth on the AM4 is enough to drive 16 cores 32 threads. Will wait until benchmarks arrive.
The only problem with 3900x for me is how unstable it is. (3000 series)
If you go to amd reddit all you can see is complaints how idle temps are high, how vcore is high (1.4-1.5) how boost clock isn’t what they advertised (should be 4.6ghz but is 4.3.-4.4 max) and so on and on. Some people can’t post (boost their PC) or have blue screen errors all the time.
This is THE ONLY thing that prevents me from buying 3900x. Not sure what to do. I want to build a new PC in 2-3 weeks tiem from now… I don’t want to wait 6 months for those things to be fixed etc.
One major problem with reddit is that there usually isn’t sufficient information to determine if the problem truly is the fault of the manufacturers or if it’s the fault of the person building the computer. That said I don’t buy a processor as soon as it’s launched for the simple fact that the firmware hasn’t had time to mature.
They told it might takes weeks to update bioses to fix these issues. So, these problems aren’t “fake”. They are legit problems many people are having. They’ve been confirmed by AMD.
I don’t render with my CPU but with my GPUs. I don’t bake lightmaps with CPU but with GPU as well.
I am not sure how important is for me to have these 4 extra cores.
One more thing, 3900x cpus will be available in my country in 1-2 months. Nobody is selling them atm - no stock.
If you need a processor now then the 9900K is an immediate and substantial performance increase over the 1700, but keep in mind you will need a new motherboard with that processor. Alternatively you could jump to a 2700X and then jump to a 3000 series processor once it’s stable.
That motherboard is more expensive than that 2700X, and once the 3900X is stable the cost will still be nearly identical to the 9900K which means that the cost of both paths is basically identical.
This doesn’t make much sense. Everyone isn’t having these problems, and a BIOS update implies an issue with a specific motherboard, not the processor. AMD would be unlikely to even confirm such an issue themselves, instead punt it to the actual responsible party (motherboard manufacturer).
Rather than focusing on what you’re not doing, look at the multithreaded workloads you are doing. If they would benefit from the additional cores, then they may actually be important.
It is not unstable
Idle temps high is almost certainly a mounting issue. It isn’t AMD’s fault if you don’t install your CPU heatsink properly. Remember that any moron can post on reddit.
Vcore high from all accounts appears to be caused by background applications keeping the CPU from going into an idle state, which just means you’ll use a bit more power at low load than necessary, but otherwise shouldn’t be any problem. Stop/disable the background apps which are waking up the CPU, or ignore it. Maybe AMD can issue a chipset driver update for this, but I wouldn’t worry about it.
Having watched quite a few benchmark videos the boost is still far superior to that of Intel, but regardless of whether it’s high or low the benchmarks and how it performs in the real world are what matter. Getting a high clock rate doesn’t mean much of anything these days. That obscene cache size is having a far greater impact than a couple hundred MHz would.
Exactly. The actual clock speed matters far less than real world performance.
The AMD 3000 series CPUs manage their clock speeds similar to how modern graphics cards manage their clock speeds. There are curves regarding input power, thermals, etc. It is jarring for some people because it feels different, but it is a solid way to deliver performance, power, and thermal goals.
I’ve been very impressed with AMD’s recent releases which on paper and in plenty of benchmarks look pretty awesome vs the cost of Intel. So much so that I felt like my next PC would use one ( and probably still will), but at the back of my mind I always wondered just how much of a benefit more cores would have for Unity in terms of building or just general Editor usage ( e.g. importing assets ).
However judging by your results it sadly seems to be ‘not that much’ of a benefit with more cores for building, probably even worse for me since most of my client work takes in the order of a few minutes maximum to build compared to your hour.
I already have a 6 core/12 thread 5930K so its kept up pretty well and while i’d certainly see some boost in core clock speeds, i’d likely need to jump to 8 or 12 cores to get a big improvement in other apps and that will add additional cost.
Shame really, I wonder if there is more work Unity could do here to make the editor and build use more cores? I tried looking for some official documentation on whether Unity utilizes more cores for importing/building but couldn’t find anything at the time. Also wish all these benchmarking video’s would include a Unity benchmark, something like building one of Unity’s own projects.
I own two similar PCs, one with an AMD 3900X and the other with an Intel i9-9900K. Both systems are fast. The Intel benchmarks slightly faster in some games, but the AMD definitely feels faster when I am working. And even when a specific application is not actively using all 12 cores, the OS still finds other work to do with those other cores. The AMD system feels very responsive all of the time.
Remember that both the latest Intel and AMD systems will be a noticeable performance boost for you. Your i7-5930K is Haswell based 2013/2014 technology. Those older Intel CPUs took some real performance hits after the Spectre/Meltdown patches for the OS. My AMD rig actually replaced my old i7-4770k workstation, which was also Haswell based. The difference between the Intel i7-4770K and the AMD 3900X was absolutely massive on the same workloads.
