Ryzen choice?

[steelrfan85]

Should I get the Ryzen 2600 or 2600x?

[Rudel_chw]

Neither, for DCS focus on single thread performance, the 2600x is 7% faster than the Ryzen 2600 ... but the intel 8600K is 25% faster, a much more worthwhile increase.

[steelrfan85]

I also fly FSX

[Pilotasso]

If you can wait until June, you can get one of the new Ryzen 3000 series cpu that will be on par with Intel on single core but have more of them and for cheaper. The choice will be a no Brainerd then.

[oboe]

If it were me, I think I'd go for the 2600X - its only $20 more at Microcenter right now, comes with a better air cooler (Wraith Spire vs Wraith Stealth) and has a better turbo boost speed (4.25GHz vs 3.9GHz).

 

The 'X' version does use more power though - 95W vs 65W.

 

Might be wise to wait and see what kind of price/performance the next generation of Ryzen offers, but if you need something right now the 2600X is a solid performer.

Edited February 12, 2019 by oboe

[Rudel_chw]

I also fly FSX

 

I’m not fully sure, but I believe that FSX is also a mostly single core simulator.

[Headwarp]

I also fly FSX

 

8600k will net you higher performance in DCS as well as FSX. It will most likely be able to OC to at least 4.7-4.9ghz as well. Current Ryzen chips just can't get that fast. Ryzen 5 3000x series will be able to however.

 

It boils down to Directx9 and Directx 11 being dependent on single threaded performance. I meant to mention the potential of newer i5's in your other thread. I got sidetracked by the thought of the upcoming ryzen chips.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Headwarp

[Pilotasso]

Neither, for DCS focus on single thread performance, the 2600x is 7% faster than the Ryzen 2600 ... but the intel 8600K is 25% faster, a much more worthwhile increase.

 

Where did you pull those figures from? I made the switch from a 2500k to an R7 1700x and it was faster with the same gtx970, 4.5ghz vs 3.8 GHz. About 14% faster.

 

Also AMD is cheaper so you can invest on a better gpu. So the benifit is two fold. When I replaced the gfx to a 1080ti I got another 68% increase, bear that in mind.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Pilotasso

[Headwarp]

Where did you pull those figures from? I made the switch from a 2500k to an R7 1700x and it was faster with the same gtx970, 4.5ghz vs 3.8 GHz. About 14% faster.

 

Also AMD is cheaper so you can invest on a better gpu. So the benifit is two fold.

 

Quick google search brings up plenty of posts of people struggling to break 4ghz with the ryzen 1700x.. I'm guessing the 4.5ghz was the 2500K? 8600k can get pretty fast. 4.5ghz on an 8th gen cpu is a bit faster than 4.5ghz on a 2500k.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Headwarp

[Pilotasso]

Edited last post, I have a thread about this

You cannot compare clocks on totally different cpu architecture. Mine went to 3.8 GHz but not that it matters anyway.

[Rudel_chw]

Where did you pull those figures from?

 

From the Passmark single thread benchmark ... most people focus just on the overall (multithread) score, that doesnt relate well to the real world performance you get with DCS.

[Headwarp]

Truth be told any chip within the last couple of years should be a huge upgrade for the OP. But the 8600k does have the potential to offer more performance in DCS than current gen ryzen, and is likely going to react more favorably to higher overclocks. As well as offer better single threaded performance out of the box.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Headwarp

[Headwarp]

Edited last post, I have a thread about this

You cannot compare clocks on totally different cpu architecture. Mine went to 3.8 GHz but not that it matters anyway.

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X/3941vs3915

 

any processor can be broken down into single threaded and multi-threaded performance. At stock speeds the 8600k is 27% faster. On average overclock speeds, it's also showing the 8600k as 34% faster. in single core speeds. The ryzen winning for multi-core.

 

Then you can scroll down and see on average 34% and 33% faster integer and float point processing. favoring 8600k vs 1700x

 

Ryzen 7 2700x

 

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-8600K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3941vs3958 12% single core speed advantage, 11 % faster quad core speed.

 

23% faster overclocks.

 

23 and 25% faster integer and floating point speeds in favor of the 8600k. Also looking at cost.. 2700x is still $310, you can get a 9600k for $259 USD. Although a z390 mobo will be at least $130USD. Ram prices shouldn't be any different between brands.

 

Until Ryzen 3000x comes along 8th/9th gen i5's are imo the stronger choice for DCS W. If the desire is for "right now"

Edited February 12, 2019 by Headwarp

[Pilotasso]

the 2600 would achieve the same perf as my 1700X. And thats 170$ with the boards going for another 60$.

 

benchmark results vary from game to game, so you cannot gauge the CPU potential in DCS by using a particular synthetic benchmark as an isolated example. You have to test it in-game. Fortunately I did:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185226&page=11

 

[steelrfan85]

I don’t intend on overclocking. I’m looking at a gtx 1070 video card as well. I don’t have a big budget though so my options are limited. I’m looking for motherboard CPU bundles.

[SVgamer72]

I am running a Ryzen 1700 @3.8 with a Vega64, and I net the same FPS on average (within @5%) as an 8700K @5Ghz with a 1080 based on what Intel users report on these forums.

 

Intel is faster, but it is not 34% faster in DCS (or any other game or workload).

[Pilotasso]

... not to mention you got more threads to fool around when Vulkan comes. Buying for single thread perf right now is a huge mistake taking in consideration that r5's will already play nice as is , and at considerable savings.

[Headwarp]

I don’t intend on overclocking. I’m looking at a gtx 1070 video card as well. I don’t have a big budget though so my options are limited. I’m looking for motherboard CPU bundles.

 

Based on that fact.. get your GPU first. See how things go.

 

If the ryzen 2600x is the best you can afford it will probably be a nice upgrade from your phenom II 1100T.

 

 

But the 9600k is a much stronger choice if you can manage the budget. Which not all parts need to be bought at once.

 

Pilotlasso we're not comparing it to an 2500k though. 8th gen and 9th gen intels are quite a big difference.

 

9600k vs 2500k - the difference is even bigger than vs your ryzen 1700

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-9600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-2500K/4031vs619

 

DCS cares about single threaded performance, and architecture by now has developed to where the 2500k is slower even at equal clock frequencies.

[Pilotasso]

I was comenting Rudel's post about the 2600K. 9600K is faster right now but it might not matter with Vulkan and at savings on top (6 physical threads VS 12 logical ones).

 

IMHO choosing a CPU for the next 4-5 years based on the current game engine state knowing Vulkan is coming is a mistake, though I respect your opinion. This is not a straightforward choice.

[steelrfan85]

Right now my computer is completely dead. I need to replace everything. Time is not on my side. With a limited budget I’m limited. I need a new motherboard, processor and video card. I’ve got 16gb ram in my current so I could just take that I’m hoping and put in a new mobo hopefully

[Headwarp]

Right now my computer is completely dead. I need to replace everything. Time is not on my side. With a limited budget I’m limited. I need a new motherboard, processor and video card. I’ve got 16gb ram in my current so I could just take that I’m hoping and put in a new mobo hopefully

 

 

You're going to need a new cpu motherboard AND ddr4 ram unfortunately. Your old machine is using ddr3.

 

I mean, $380 for a 9600+mobo.

 

$200 for a 2600x + maybe $70+ or more for the mobo.

 

$164 for 2600, same mobo cost as above.

 

any with your 1070 will probably do you well. the 9600k would perform the best.

 

Factor in another $100 or more for a minimum of 16GB of ram.

 

You know your budget. Get what you can afford. If you're still using HDD instead of SSD, you're going to want one of those as well. But you can get it later.

 

Make sure you at least meet the minimum requirements for PSU for that 1070, which is 500w.

 

 

I was comenting Rudel's post about the 2600K. 9600K is faster right now but it might not matter with Vulkan and at savings on top (6 physical threads VS 12 logical ones).

 

IMHO choosing a CPU for the next 4-5 years based on the current game engine state knowing Vulkan is coming is a mistake, though I respect your opinion. This is not a straightforward choice.

 

I think he was talking about the Ryzen 2600, as op was asking about R7 2600 and 2600x ( in fact said 2600x)

 

p.s. overclocking isn't that hard to do with efficient cooling and motherboard specific guides are all over the place.. It's budget performance at it's best, food for thought for later down the road.. but I'd want more than minimum PSU requirements to handle peak wattage load.

Edited February 12, 2019 by Headwarp

[Pilotasso]

is your current RAM DDR4 dual channel?

If not you might need to replace that as well regardless if you go AMD or Intel.

[steelrfan85]

Looking around 500-575 for everything. I found a gtx 1070 founders edition on eBay for around 270 and looked at a ryzen 2600 with MSI X470 gaming plus on amazon for 294

[Pilotasso]

that would be enough for sure but pay attention to the RAM issue we mentioned above. You might need to buy new sticks as well.

[SVgamer72]

If you are not interested in overclocking, you can drop down to a B450 board. You won't lose any performance. No point in spending more for features you won't use.