Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#4391843 - 11/29/17 04:26 AM Hardware Recommendations  
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 152
Kodiak80 Offline
Member
Kodiak80  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 152
I'm looking at updating my hardware with an eye toward VR or triple display configuration for those titles that aren't VR friendly. It's been at least 6 years since I last built a machine or paid much attention to the state of hardware. Any recommendations? Should I definitely go with the current gen i7? Does an i5 suffice? NVidia 1070 seems to be well regarded, is it sufficient? Are dual-GPU SLI configurations relevant to current sims? Appreciate any thoughts.

Kodika80

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4391856 - 11/29/17 07:12 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
I7 s still have great performance......AMD throwing good multi-core chips into the mix but certainly for gaming its still Intel hands down.

GTX 1070 a great card but if you're going VR go for the 1080 or 1080ti if you can afford it for higher frame rates and much longer before you would need to entertain an upgrade.

AMD Vega chips hugely disappointing and nowhere near the performance they were initially claiming, and they're not offering bang for buck either.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4391868 - 11/29/17 11:27 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Allen Offline
Hotshot
Allen  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Ohio USA
FWIW, in AMD tests using Steam VR benchmark, AMD RX Vega 56 and 64 did show better VR performance than 1070 Ti and 1080 (Vega 56 beat 1080 by 15%). So, get a 1080Ti to be sure to beat Vega 56 or 64 in VR (according to Steam benchmark). RX Vega 56 and 64 also perform very well in DX12 and Vulcan driver games (i.e. newer games).

RX Vega is very competitive at list price or less. But, the price is high above list because the Cryptocurrency miners are driving the prices up -- Vega has very good "compute" ability in addition to gaming graphics. I'm waiting for the price to come down to buy one (an AMD fan). I may be waiting until March/April when the Ryzen and Vega 12nm refreshes are said to be coming.

Still, for the games on the shelf today, a high end Intel CPU running over 4GHz per core all the time and 1080Ti graphics are the "top" (an AMD fan saying this). If one wants a cost-effective rig to last through several years as new games are released, the answer may be different now and different again 4 or 5 months from now.


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro
#4391939 - 11/29/17 10:13 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
What exactly does an i7 bring to the table that the i5 does not? I thought VR was more about GPU and not so much about CPU?


- Ice
#4392753 - 12/02/17 07:50 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 490
Fuzzy Offline
Member
Fuzzy  Offline
Member

Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 490
B.C.,Canada
That's a good question Ice.
Any thoughts Allen? (anybody)?

Fuzzy

#4392776 - 12/02/17 10:00 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Allen Offline
Hotshot
Allen  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Ohio USA
I don't know about VR in particular -- since I don't own a VR setup.

Based on general knowledge, I'm guessing I5 and I7 CPUs running the same core count and same CPU frequency give graphics results too similar to "see the difference". In fact, I5 sometimes beats I7 in that situation (according to test reports).

Often, the CPU does not mean much to graphics FPS performance. The differences between two "good" higher end CPUs are too small to perceive ("measure" but not perceive while playing). CPUs only matter in certain games and simulations that are truly CPU limited -- I've only run across a few -- even then, the difference was only measurable, and rarely perceivable while playing.

That may change some now that CPUs are going from a standard core count of 4 to a standard core count of 6 to 8 -- and games are programmed to expect more CPU horsepower. But, I don't expect it to be a real big deal in the next couple years.


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro
#4392879 - 12/03/17 01:56 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice
What exactly does an i7 bring to the table that the i5 does not? I thought VR was more about GPU and not so much about CPU?


Hyper threading. This can make a big difference in many programs such as video editing or anything CPU intensive. Games have lagged behind but a number are starting to use more than four threads. Battlefield 3/4/1/Hardline, and any other future EA title (since they all use Frostbite) will take advantage of them. Some other new games such as Assassin's Creed Origins apparently will see a notable jump as well. In other words, AMD Ryzen will age better than an i5. Also keep in mind the higher the resolution the less of a difference CPUs make.

If money is no object, get the new 6 core 12 thread i7s, but they are a lot more pricey than AMD especially when accounting for the motherboard prices. In second place would probably be Intels 6 core i5s.

Here is an example. The higher IPC/clocks make the Intel offering better than AMD's in AC Origins, but the lack of threads hurts the 4 core 4 thread i5 (7600K). So much so that the Ryzen 5 1600 (6 core 12 thread) comes out on top even though it has inferior IPC and lower clocks.

[Linked Image]

Did I mention the Ryzen 1600 can be had for $220 or less on sale? And comes with a cooler that is more than sufficient to keep the CPU cool? It is a good bargain! But if money is no object, again, get the high end Intel because you will have the cores/threads and IPC/raw GHZ.

I'd give the nod to the 8600K if gaming is your only concern due to the 6 cores and higher IPC, but AMD's offering does have hyper threading and last time I checked will come in about $100 less overall. Which makes it great if you're on a budget.

Edit: Of course, keep in mind as we move up to 1440P, the differences between the CPUs will shrink.

#4392883 - 12/03/17 02:06 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Originally Posted by - Ice
What exactly does an i7 bring to the table that the i5 does not? I thought VR was more about GPU and not so much about CPU?


Hyper threading. This can make a big difference in many programs such as video editing or anything CPU intensive. Games have lagged behind but a number are starting to use more than four threads. Battlefield 3/4/1/Hardline, and any other future EA title (since they all use Frostbite) will take advantage of them. Some other new games such as Assassin's Creed Origins apparently will see a notable jump as well. In other words, AMD Ryzen will age better than an i5. Also keep in mind the higher the resolution the less of a difference CPUs make.

If money is no object, get the new 6 core 12 thread i7s, but they are a lot more pricey than AMD especially when accounting for the motherboard prices. In second place would probably be Intels 6 core i5s.

Yes, I am aware of hyperthreading.... I was asking what an i7 brings to the table over an i5 in the context of VR games and programs. smile


- Ice
#4392906 - 12/03/17 05:41 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Originally Posted by - Ice
What exactly does an i7 bring to the table that the i5 does not? I thought VR was more about GPU and not so much about CPU?


Hyper threading. This can make a big difference in many programs such as video editing or anything CPU intensive. Games have lagged behind but a number are starting to use more than four threads. Battlefield 3/4/1/Hardline, and any other future EA title (since they all use Frostbite) will take advantage of them. Some other new games such as Assassin's Creed Origins apparently will see a notable jump as well. In other words, AMD Ryzen will age better than an i5. Also keep in mind the higher the resolution the less of a difference CPUs make.

If money is no object, get the new 6 core 12 thread i7s, but they are a lot more pricey than AMD especially when accounting for the motherboard prices. In second place would probably be Intels 6 core i5s.

Yes, I am aware of hyperthreading.... I was asking what an i7 brings to the table over an i5 in the context of VR games and programs. smile


It brings more frame rates in a few recent titles, I did provide one example...

But now with i5s coming with 6 cores that point may become less relevant.

#4392917 - 12/03/17 09:58 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
As Flogger says you generally get slightly better performance with a hyper-threaded CPU however this is usually only a few % as games are still not optimised for multi core (and multiple 'logical core' cpus)

The advantages of hyper-threading are emphasized outside of gaming in media, photo/video editing and virtualisation where the logical cores can be utilised, so like anything, it comes down to a cost/performance exercise in how you will utilise your own environment.

Hopefully it's in the very near future that we'll see game developers really trying to support multi-core cpus from AMD and Intel properly. There has been very little impetus in PC gaming so far due to the raw speed of single cores, the importance loaded onto GPUs and the overall landscape of console gaming but recent years have indicated that we are more than ready for change.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4393050 - 12/03/17 11:57 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
It brings more frame rates in a few recent titles, I did provide one example...

Again --- what does it bring in the context of VR games and programs??

Yes, it does bring more fps in a few select games. However, I doubt AC Origins is played in VR...


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
But now with i5s coming with 6 cores that point may become less relevant.

Majority of current games do not tax a quad-core CPU so the question is --- is the extra cost of a 6-core CPU and motherboard a better investment compared to a better GPU?

How many years now have we had quad-cores? Yet they're not yet used to the max.... so I doubt we'll be taxxing 6-cores anytime soon. Anyone who buys a 6-core CPU now for future proofing won't really see much in the lifespan of that CPU.... by the time 6-core CPUs are utilized effectively, I bet 8-core CPUs will be the norm.


- Ice
#4393134 - 12/04/17 11:15 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Allen Offline
Hotshot
Allen  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,839
Ohio USA
Investment wise (for a gamer): GPU first, CPU a relatively distant second. Memory speed is usually not a consideration -- except Ryzen wants 2.7GHz or better to be at its best (you won't see the difference, just measure it).

When calculating "what's really needed" to make one's game-day better consider: For most folks, a 10 percent difference in FPS will not be perceivable and probably 20 percent will be hard to perceive (the bottom 5 percent FPS is more important than the average FPS -- the CPU can affect the bottom of the FPS spectrum in some games -- particularly simulations). So, don't pay a big price premium for that last 10 to 20 percent (a small premium is okay to pay).

But, if one has the cash and its fun to spend the money for "having the best", then buy the fastest of both GPU and CPU and enjoy smile

Just opinions based on how my eyes work and some tests I've run over the years -- and how I occasionally spend my money smile

Again, this is not based on VR tests. There may be something "different" about the way VR handles things (for example, two images have to be calculated -- that may be more CPU and core intensive).


Sapphire Pulse RX7900XTX, 3 monitors = 23P (1080p) + SAMSUNG 32" Odyssey Neo G7 1000R curve (4K/2160p) + 23P (1080p), AMD R9-7950X (ARCTIC Liquid Freezer II 420), 64GB RAM@6.0GHz, Gigabyte X670E AORUS MASTER MB, (4x M.2 SSD + 2xSSD + 2xHD) = ~52TB storage, EVGA 1600W PSU, Phanteks Enthoo Pro Full Tower, ASUS RT-AX89X 6000Mbps WiFi router, VKB Gladiator WW2 Stick, Pedals, G.Skill RGB KB, AORUS Thunder M7 Mouse, W11 Pro
#4393507 - 12/06/17 08:29 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
It brings more frame rates in a few recent titles, I did provide one example...

Again --- what does it bring in the context of VR games and programs??

Yes, it does bring more fps in a few select games. However, I doubt AC Origins is played in VR...


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
But now with i5s coming with 6 cores that point may become less relevant.

Majority of current games do not tax a quad-core CPU so the question is --- is the extra cost of a 6-core CPU and motherboard a better investment compared to a better GPU?

How many years now have we had quad-cores? Yet they're not yet used to the max.... so I doubt we'll be taxxing 6-cores anytime soon. Anyone who buys a 6-core CPU now for future proofing won't really see much in the lifespan of that CPU.... by the time 6-core CPUs are utilized effectively, I bet 8-core CPUs will be the norm.


For VR it probably will not scale as well due to the higher resolutions. The gains would certainly be diminished. The number of games that can support more threads is growing. With more Frostbite, UE4 and other new engines becoming common it will certainly be worthwhile to look into more cores. In general, the extra cores/threads may not give you much higher frame rates but will also increase your minimums which is also important.

As for CPUs you will likely never see near 100% utilization across all cores because (as it was explained to me) that is not how games are written and execute when running. So while it certainly will be increasing in the coming months/years I wouldn't expect massive gains outside of a select few titles. Ironically some of the games that may in theory benefit the most from extra cores, DCS, ArmA, FSX - are all single threaded.

The good news is 6 core CPUs are no longer expensive. You can easily get one for under $200 from AMD, and you can get Intel's offering for around $250. I know you are talking strictly about games, but it is safe to assume a number of people will use their computers for some other tasks alongside gaming. Unless you are on a very tight budget, you're not going to save a lot of money but opting for a 4 core / 4 thread CPU. So I'd recommend one regardless. You can squeeze just as much GHZ out of the 6 core parts as you can the 4 core parts, so there will be no GHZ or IPC disadvantage. You'll see it take advantage of more games in the coming years, the resale value will be better and it will perform better outside of games. To me, that is well worth an extra $50 or so.

VR wise, outside of a few flight sims or racing sims, most VR games are trash anyways. I wouldn't get too worried about what performs well in VR until VR becomes a worthwhile experience outside of a select few titles.

#4393530 - 12/07/17 12:47 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
For VR it probably will not scale as well due to the higher resolutions. The gains would certainly be diminished. The number of games that can support more threads is growing. With more Frostbite, UE4 and other new engines becoming common it will certainly be worthwhile to look into more cores. In general, the extra cores/threads may not give you much higher frame rates but will also increase your minimums which is also important.

I see what you're saying especially with minimum fps.... but how many VR games are developed under "new engines" that are VR? Are there any tests/reviews to back up your statements and tie the general concept you've mentioned to VR specifically?

Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Ironically some of the games that may in theory benefit the most from extra cores, DCS, ArmA, FSX - are all single threaded.

I don't have the data for this but if what you say is true, then at least for us simming folk, then 6-core CPUs are just luxury items. Much like M.2 NVMe drives compared to SSDs. In BMS, I know that it benefits more from higher clock speeds, so in theory a 2-core higher clock can beat a 4-core or 6-core lower clock.... the only benefit more cores is the ability to run other programs (YAME, TS, Helios, etc.) and not have them affect the base simulation, so 4-core CPUs are more than enough.....

Originally Posted by Flogger23m
The good news is 6 core CPUs are no longer expensive. You can easily get one for under $200 from AMD, and you can get Intel's offering for around $250. I know you are talking strictly about games, but it is safe to assume a number of people will use their computers for some other tasks alongside gaming. Unless you are on a very tight budget, you're not going to save a lot of money but opting for a 4 core / 4 thread CPU. So I'd recommend one regardless. You can squeeze just as much GHZ out of the 6 core parts as you can the 4 core parts, so there will be no GHZ or IPC disadvantage. You'll see it take advantage of more games in the coming years, the resale value will be better and it will perform better outside of games. To me, that is well worth an extra $50 or so.

I've since learned that this is very subjective and regional prices for items can vary greatly. If you can get a 6-core CPU and the needed motherboard for $50-100 more than a 4-core setup, then maybe it will be worth it..... but at this stage, we need to consider the bigger picture. Is that $50-100 better spent elsewhere? This then goes to discussion about GPU choice and price variations, SSDs, etc.

Originally Posted by Flogger23m
VR wise, outside of a few flight sims or racing sims, most VR games are trash anyways. I wouldn't get too worried about what performs well in VR until VR becomes a worthwhile experience outside of a select few titles.

I really don't like it when people say "most VR games are trash".... really high-and-mighty there. I'm sure if we looked at the amount of PC games (looking at Steam Greenlight for example), the ratio might be the same.... it's just that with a bigger pool, we get distracted by SO MANY good PC games but with a smaller pool for VR, it's easier to come across the bad VR games. I do agree with the essence of your statement..... but also remember that VR is still growing, still finding it's feet, and for what the good VR games bring to the table, I would not make such a disparaging remark.


- Ice
#4393535 - 12/07/17 02:14 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice

I see what you're saying especially with minimum fps.... but how many VR games are developed under "new engines" that are VR? Are there any tests/reviews to back up your statements and tie the general concept you've mentioned to VR specifically?


Probably more over time will be developed on these. Seeing that UE4 is fairly popular among small projects, which VR titles seem to be for the most part, I think there is a good chance there will be more VR UE4 games in the pipeline. Now seeing as most of these titles are hackjobs, "tongue in cheek games" and people just cashing in on a few fad I can't imagine they will be optimized well in any case. As for minimum frame rates, you can view just about any CPU related benchmark site (I like hardocp, tech power up). Although with G-Sync and Free Sync becoming popular, even this isn't as necessary anymore because we don't need a solid 60 frame rates to prevent tearing via G Sync. I have a G-Sync monitor myself, and while I do prefer 60+ frame rates I no longer have to worry about minimums dropping to 54 or so every now and then.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I don't have the data for this but if what you say is true, then at least for us simming folk, then 6-core CPUs are just luxury items. Much like M.2 NVMe drives compared to SSDs. In BMS, I know that it benefits more from higher clock speeds, so in theory a 2-core higher clock can beat a 4-core or 6-core lower clock.... the only benefit more cores is the ability to run other programs (YAME, TS, Helios, etc.) and not have them affect the base simulation, so 4-core CPUs are more than enough.....


That is true, but most of us who play these kinds of games also run virus scans, maybe play other AAA games that do support multi threading, or do something else that may benefit from it. Also keep in mind that the mainstream socket CPUs all OC about the same. I think Intel still offers 2 core i3 CPUs on the desktop, but I don't think they will reach the clockings of the 4 or 6 core parts as they are low end parts. Last I recall the i3s always had lower clocks and no unlocked models. So while in theory a higher clocked 2 core will be better if it had higher clocks / IPC, such a product doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I've since learned that this is very subjective and regional prices for items can vary greatly. If you can get a 6-core CPU and the needed motherboard for $50-100 more than a 4-core setup, then maybe it will be worth it..... but at this stage, we need to consider the bigger picture. Is that $50-100 better spent elsewhere? This then goes to discussion about GPU choice and price variations, SSDs, etc.


AMD and Intel offer 6 cores in their standard desktop socket. The motherboard costs are the same regardless of using 4 core, 6 core or in AMD's case, 8 cores. I'm not sure how much pricing will vary outside of the US. But it seems like in Europe the pricing difference is roughly on par with that of the US. You can probably do a quick check at your preferred retailer and see what the differences are.

Originally Posted by - Ice

I really don't like it when people say "most VR games are trash".... really high-and-mighty there. I'm sure if we looked at the amount of PC games (looking at Steam Greenlight for example), the ratio might be the same.... it's just that with a bigger pool, we get distracted by SO MANY good PC games but with a smaller pool for VR, it's easier to come across the bad VR games. I do agree with the essence of your statement..... but also remember that VR is still growing, still finding it's feet, and for what the good VR games bring to the table, I would not make such a disparaging remark.


VR can be great, but most games so far have been trash. Not just from a gameplay, but a technical perspective. People just like to jump on new fads without thinking. VR is great for a flight sim, but it will not make a 3rd person story driven action adventure game like Mass Effect any better. And games like Mass Effect are what gamers want to play. VR should supplement a game, such as replacing a switch on your HOTAS or your Track IR for looking around a cockpit in a realistic manner. But some VR games I've seen control human movement by tilting your head back and fourth. That makes zero sense, and really isn't any more fluid or realistic than using a mouse/keyboard. Again, poor implementation to cash in on a new fad.

When the dust settles maybe some good games that are actually fun to play will come out for VR. But that is the biggest hurdle for VR right now. Perhaps the second is the realization that VR isn't for every type of game (again, refer to a title such as Mass Effect). But until such a change happens I will say that most VR games are trash. I do understand that is highly opinionated so you can always disagree with that!

#4393699 - 12/07/17 11:34 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Flogger23m]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Probably more over time will be developed on these.

So no test/reviews to back up your statement then.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
As for minimum frame rates, you can view just about any CPU related benchmark site (I like hardocp, tech power up).

For the umpteenth time, are those for VR? The effect on regular gaming monitors are known, no need to rehash that info; I was asking about VR.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
That is true, but most of us who play these kinds of games also run virus scans,

You run a virus scan while gaming????


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
So while in theory a higher clocked 2 core will be better if it had higher clocks / IPC, such a product doesn't exist.

Um, yeah.... that's why the phrase "in theory" is in the sentence.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
AMD and Intel offer 6 cores in their standard desktop socket. The motherboard costs are the same regardless of using 4 core, 6 core or in AMD's case, 8 cores. I'm not sure how much pricing will vary outside of the US. But it seems like in Europe the pricing difference is roughly on par with that of the US. You can probably do a quick check at your preferred retailer and see what the differences are.

8700K is £398 while a 7700K is £308.... 8600K is £259 while a 7600K is £212....
Picking a specific mobo with a 370 and 270 version, prices can vary from a £20 difference onwards....

If strapped for cash, that money can easily be spent on other items with a more tangible effect.... having a min-max fps of 66-92 on a 7700K or spending £90 more to get min-max of 71-94 on a 8700K... an additional 5 fps on your min and 2 fps on your max for £90? So we go to Allen's wisdom where all that extra cash spent won't really be giving a noticeable difference.

If money is no object, however, then any argument I make is moot. Go get the enthusiast version, gold plated motherboards, and do a quad-SLI setup on 3x 4K screens smile


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
VR can be great, but most games so far have been trash. Not just from a gameplay, but a technical perspective.

Such as??? Anyway, who forced you to buy trash games? Why are we talking as if the VR owners will buy trash games?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
People just like to jump on new fads without thinking. VR is great for a flight sim, but it will not make a 3rd person story driven action adventure game like Mass Effect any better. And games like Mass Effect are what gamers want to play. VR should supplement a game, such as replacing a switch on your HOTAS or your Track IR for looking around a cockpit in a realistic manner. But some VR games I've seen control human movement by tilting your head back and fourth. That makes zero sense, and really isn't any more fluid or realistic than using a mouse/keyboard. Again, poor implementation to cash in on a new fad.

True, some VR games are poor.... but the same can be said for PC games.... at least VR is a new tech that is just feeling it's way around. Nobody has a good handle on what it can do yet, everyone is experimenting with what can be brought to the table with VR. Expecting miracles this early is just unrealistic.

Also using Mass Effect is a poor excuse. Might as well use Starcraft. Some games play better on a console or on a gamepad (Super Mario), some games play better on a PC or on a keyboard/mouse (shooter games), some games play better on a PC and a HOTAS/wheel (flight sims, racing sims).... VR is simply a display solution.... so while it may work awesome for flight/racing sims, space sims, or first-person shooters, it's not the same for games such as side-scrollers or 3rd-person shooters or RTS.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
When the dust settles maybe some good games that are actually fun to play will come out for VR. But that is the biggest hurdle for VR right now. Perhaps the second is the realization that VR isn't for every type of game (again, refer to a title such as Mass Effect). But until such a change happens I will say that most VR games are trash. I do understand that is highly opinionated so you can always disagree with that!

I hope someday you realize the significance of an INFORMED opinion with evidence to support that opinion.

Just because most games on VR is not fun for YOU does not mean most VR games are trash. Go watch reviews for VR games and buy those that aren't trash, that way you'll enjoy VR. Or go buy something like the Brookhaven Experiment, get your buddies or your wife to play it, and enjoy as they squeal in fright and duck an incoming zombie swipe. Some games are fun to play, some games are fun watching other people play them. If none of them do it for you, then fine, maybe VR as it exists today and games for it as they are now are not for you.... but to say they are trash is just silly.

Take a look at VR games such as Audioshield, the Brookhaven Experiment, Final Approach, Google Earth VR, Subnautica, theBlu, Tilt Brush, and Vanishing Realms for a few good VR games.... not to mention DCS, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, and IL2. I will agree with you that there are a lot of trash games and maybe some of them are indeed just riding this fad and jumping on the bandwagon, but to judge VR by these titles is unfair to VR. Take a look at those games I mentioned and you'll see the fun games available..... if you insist on still spending time on the trashy VR games instead of the good VR games, then that's no longer the fault of VR.


- Ice
#4393760 - 12/08/17 06:20 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by - Ice
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Probably more over time will be developed on these.

So no test/reviews to back up your statement then.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
As for minimum frame rates, you can view just about any CPU related benchmark site (I like hardocp, tech power up).

For the umpteenth time, are those for VR? The effect on regular gaming monitors are known, no need to rehash that info; I was asking about VR.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
That is true, but most of us who play these kinds of games also run virus scans,

You run a virus scan while gaming????


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
So while in theory a higher clocked 2 core will be better if it had higher clocks / IPC, such a product doesn't exist.

Um, yeah.... that's why the phrase "in theory" is in the sentence.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
AMD and Intel offer 6 cores in their standard desktop socket. The motherboard costs are the same regardless of using 4 core, 6 core or in AMD's case, 8 cores. I'm not sure how much pricing will vary outside of the US. But it seems like in Europe the pricing difference is roughly on par with that of the US. You can probably do a quick check at your preferred retailer and see what the differences are.

8700K is £398 while a 7700K is £308.... 8600K is £259 while a 7600K is £212....
Picking a specific mobo with a 370 and 270 version, prices can vary from a £20 difference onwards....

If strapped for cash, that money can easily be spent on other items with a more tangible effect.... having a min-max fps of 66-92 on a 7700K or spending £90 more to get min-max of 71-94 on a 8700K... an additional 5 fps on your min and 2 fps on your max for £90? So we go to Allen's wisdom where all that extra cash spent won't really be giving a noticeable difference.

If money is no object, however, then any argument I make is moot. Go get the enthusiast version, gold plated motherboards, and do a quad-SLI setup on 3x 4K screens smile


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
VR can be great, but most games so far have been trash. Not just from a gameplay, but a technical perspective.

Such as??? Anyway, who forced you to buy trash games? Why are we talking as if the VR owners will buy trash games?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
People just like to jump on new fads without thinking. VR is great for a flight sim, but it will not make a 3rd person story driven action adventure game like Mass Effect any better. And games like Mass Effect are what gamers want to play. VR should supplement a game, such as replacing a switch on your HOTAS or your Track IR for looking around a cockpit in a realistic manner. But some VR games I've seen control human movement by tilting your head back and fourth. That makes zero sense, and really isn't any more fluid or realistic than using a mouse/keyboard. Again, poor implementation to cash in on a new fad.

True, some VR games are poor.... but the same can be said for PC games.... at least VR is a new tech that is just feeling it's way around. Nobody has a good handle on what it can do yet, everyone is experimenting with what can be brought to the table with VR. Expecting miracles this early is just unrealistic.

Also using Mass Effect is a poor excuse. Might as well use Starcraft. Some games play better on a console or on a gamepad (Super Mario), some games play better on a PC or on a keyboard/mouse (shooter games), some games play better on a PC and a HOTAS/wheel (flight sims, racing sims).... VR is simply a display solution.... so while it may work awesome for flight/racing sims, space sims, or first-person shooters, it's not the same for games such as side-scrollers or 3rd-person shooters or RTS.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
When the dust settles maybe some good games that are actually fun to play will come out for VR. But that is the biggest hurdle for VR right now. Perhaps the second is the realization that VR isn't for every type of game (again, refer to a title such as Mass Effect). But until such a change happens I will say that most VR games are trash. I do understand that is highly opinionated so you can always disagree with that!

I hope someday you realize the significance of an INFORMED opinion with evidence to support that opinion.

Just because most games on VR is not fun for YOU does not mean most VR games are trash. Go watch reviews for VR games and buy those that aren't trash, that way you'll enjoy VR. Or go buy something like the Brookhaven Experiment, get your buddies or your wife to play it, and enjoy as they squeal in fright and duck an incoming zombie swipe. Some games are fun to play, some games are fun watching other people play them. If none of them do it for you, then fine, maybe VR as it exists today and games for it as they are now are not for you.... but to say they are trash is just silly.

Take a look at VR games such as Audioshield, the Brookhaven Experiment, Final Approach, Google Earth VR, Subnautica, theBlu, Tilt Brush, and Vanishing Realms for a few good VR games.... not to mention DCS, Elite Dangerous, Project Cars, and IL2. I will agree with you that there are a lot of trash games and maybe some of them are indeed just riding this fad and jumping on the bandwagon, but to judge VR by these titles is unfair to VR. Take a look at those games I mentioned and you'll see the fun games available..... if you insist on still spending time on the trashy VR games instead of the good VR games, then that's no longer the fault of VR.


I believe you're having a different discussion than I am. While I did originally quote you what I wrote was in context of the OP. He wasn't only including VR, he was also talking about triple screens and gaming in general. Regardless of VR or not, extra threads are certainly worth investing in. Had you asked 5-7 years ago most would agree, the i7 would have been near useless for gaming and an i5 made much more sense. Now days it is foolish to not get at least a 4 core 8 thread CPU, even for gaming. We have already established that a number of big titles can take advantage of more than 4 threads and that list will expand.

You can get a 6 core 6 thread CPU for fairly cheap:
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...;cm_re=intel_8400-_-19-117-824-_-Product

You're not going to save much money by opting for a 4 core CPU. The same can be said for AMD's offerings.

Also keep in mind, CPUs behave just the same for VR titles as they do non-VR titles. What matters is the resolution. The higher the resolution, the less relevant the CPU is. And VR does run at a higher resolution. In other words, all of these points are equally valid for VR. CPUs are less relevant (especially IPC differences are minimized) at higher resolutions, regardless of what type of screen you use, curved, multiple, or VR.

Over here there is really no reason to get a 4 core 4 thread CPU anymore, because the potential cost savings are so small. AMD's 4 core 4 thread offering as an example is $130, their 4 core 8 thread is $170 and you can get a 6 core 12 thread for $$199. The CPU will age better as more developers for games utilize the extra cores, and outside of games the gains will be significant. Same situation with Intel. Even VR games in time will take better advantage of the extra threads/cores. You can make the point that, as of today, the few VR titles worth playing cannot take advantage of VR and that it is worth saving the extra money. But the difference really isn't that large. If you are investing in VR (an expensive peripheral, with little support, which requires a high end GPU) the extra cost likely is not a problem. If you are cash strapped and $30-80 means a lot to you then you probably cannot afford a decent VR setup in the first place.

I also skimmed Amazon.UK CPU prices and the difference was not that large from what I would pay at major retailers.

And I didn't say people run virus scans while playing games... I merely pointed out that a 6 core CPU is better for other non-gaming programs that even most gamers occasionally run. An example being scanning for viruses. Even if you bought the PC with gaming in mind, you likely will find a use for the extra threads/cores if the games you currently play do not use them. If you're on a tight budget, it is well worth paying $30-40 more to get that Ryzen 1600 6 core / 12 thread CPU.


#4393764 - 12/08/17 07:47 AM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Kodiak80]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
Paradaz Offline
Senior Member
Paradaz  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,922
UK
I’ll also add that whilst games (VR or otherwise) may not utilise the full amount of physical or logical cores any recent operating system will........at the end of the day a hyperthreaded CPU will have less utilisation across the cores/threads than the same game which doesn’t support it and all our games sit on these Microsoft resource hogging operating systems.

Although in some cases we may only be talking about 5-8fps it still could be 10% of the overall frame rate assuming that 60fps on a monitor is standard and when VR can be so sensitive around the 45/90fps mark for async reprojection the individual has to determine whether the difference in cost is worth it. As everyone is aware, aiming for 90fps in a 1440p headset takes some serious hardware and small percentages for some people can mean the difference between hitting that target for the best possible experience.

My personal thought is that anyone with a VR headset has already shelled out a decent amount of cash and will have something along the lines of a 970 GPU to drive it as a minimum. For anyone looking at buying a new CPU why wouldn’t you look to pair a hyperthreaded CPU with it if it even if it may only give you a chance of a minimal frame rate increase?......it could make a noticeable difference when the margins are so tight.

Moving forward and looking ahead to optimised games and DX12 the performance differences are much bigger, you only need to look at ‘Ashes of Singularity’ and AMD’s noise about multiple cores in their benchmarks to see the difference that hyperthreading and high core count makes. Whilst DX12 games are still few and far between it’s another indicator that the quicker it becomes the norm the more performance we will be able to extract from our hardware.


On the Eighth day God created Paratroopers and the Devil stood to attention.
#4393885 - 12/08/17 08:39 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
Flogger23m Online smile
Senior Member
Flogger23m  Online Smile
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,168
US
Originally Posted by Paradaz
I’ll also add that whilst games (VR or otherwise) may not utilise the full amount of physical or logical cores any recent operating system will........at the end of the day a hyperthreaded CPU will have less utilisation across the cores/threads than the same game which doesn’t support it and all our games sit on these Microsoft resource hogging operating systems.

Although in some cases we may only be talking about 5-8fps it still could be 10% of the overall frame rate assuming that 60fps on a monitor is standard and when VR can be so sensitive around the 45/90fps mark for async reprojection the individual has to determine whether the difference in cost is worth it. As everyone is aware, aiming for 90fps in a 1440p headset takes some serious hardware and small percentages for some people can mean the difference between hitting that target for the best possible experience.

My personal thought is that anyone with a VR headset has already shelled out a decent amount of cash and will have something along the lines of a 970 GPU to drive it as a minimum. For anyone looking at buying a new CPU why wouldn’t you look to pair a hyperthreaded CPU with it if it even if it may only give you a chance of a minimal frame rate increase?......it could make a noticeable difference when the margins are so tight.

Moving forward and looking ahead to optimised games and DX12 the performance differences are much bigger, you only need to look at ‘Ashes of Singularity’ and AMD’s noise about multiple cores in their benchmarks to see the difference that hyperthreading and high core count makes. Whilst DX12 games are still few and far between it’s another indicator that the quicker it becomes the norm the more performance we will be able to extract from our hardware.


Wholly agreed with this post. Especially since you need to keep the minimum FPS high in VR.

#4393917 - 12/08/17 10:27 PM Re: Hardware Recommendations [Re: Paradaz]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted by Flogger23m
I believe you're having a different discussion than I am. While I did originally quote you what I wrote was in context of the OP. He wasn't only including VR, he was also talking about triple screens and gaming in general.

True, the OP asked about VR and triple-screen gaming. However, my questions were directly in regards to VR. You quoted my post and talked about hyperthreading and video editing, etc., and again, I asked directly in relation to VR. You seem to struggle with the concept of "in relation to VR" as you keep citing points that I would not contest in a monitor display setup but I am asking about VR.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Regardless of VR or not, extra threads are certainly worth investing in. Had you asked 5-7 years ago most would agree, the i7 would have been near useless for gaming and an i5 made much more sense. Now days it is foolish to not get at least a 4 core 8 thread CPU, even for gaming. We have already established that a number of big titles can take advantage of more than 4 threads and that list will expand.

"Worth investing in" is a very relative term. As I said before, this is under the assumption that we are operating under a budget and every improvement must make sense in terms of performance gains in comparison to money spent. I've already shown the price differences between Coffee Lake and Kaby Lake for UK prices. On newegg, an 8700K is $404 while a 7700K is $340 ($64), a 8600K is $300 while a 7600K is $240 ($60).

We've already established that there are no tests on framerates under VR. With the price differences of around $60 (Coffee vs Kaby) to $100 (Coffee i7 vs Coffee i5) for a gain of 2-5fps, the end user will have to make a decision whether that gain is worth the extra cost.... or if the money is better spent elsewhere, maybe an SSD that would greatly improve performance and give a tangible effect during program startup, game loading, and system boot.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
You're not going to save much money by opting for a 4 core CPU. The same can be said for AMD's offerings.

Yes, get at least a 4-core... the issue I am presenting is that any more cores doesn't really give the performance improvement given the higher price.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Also keep in mind, CPUs behave just the same for VR titles as they do non-VR titles. What matters is the resolution. The higher the resolution, the less relevant the CPU is. And VR does run at a higher resolution. In other words, all of these points are equally valid for VR. CPUs are less relevant (especially IPC differences are minimized) at higher resolutions, regardless of what type of screen you use, curved, multiple, or VR.

Exactly what I said on my first post here.


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
And I didn't say people run virus scans while playing games... I merely pointed out that a 6 core CPU is better for other non-gaming programs that even most gamers occasionally run.

Well, I was talking about other programs that I would run to complement my gaming/simming experience... and then you mentioned virus scanning, so I took it along that line of the conversation.

As for 6-core CPUs, again it is better, yes, but is it worth the extra cost?


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
An example being scanning for viruses.

I would wager that if you're scanning for viruses intentionally, you wouldn't really be in the mood for playing games smile


Originally Posted by Flogger23m
Even if you bought the PC with gaming in mind, you likely will find a use for the extra threads/cores if the games you currently play do not use them. If you're on a tight budget, it is well worth paying $30-40 more to get that Ryzen 1600 6 core / 12 thread CPU.

Sigh.... again, only a minimal amount of games makes use of more cores/threads so unless your favorite game(s) takes full advantage of more cores/threads, it will boil down to whether the performance boost is worth the extra cash. It is not about whether you have an extra $60 or £90 or whatever the amount is.... it is whether that amount is worth the 2-5fps you will gain on a SELECT FEW games. Even in your example above, an 8700K ($404) got the same numbers as an 8600K ($300) and both are only 1fps higher on average framerates compared to an 8400 ($200).

Never really paid much attention to AMD offerings so I could be totally wrong in that area.


Originally Posted by Paradaz
My personal thought is that anyone with a VR headset has already shelled out a decent amount of cash and will have something along the lines of a 970 GPU to drive it as a minimum. For anyone looking at buying a new CPU why wouldn’t you look to pair a hyperthreaded CPU with it if it even if it may only give you a chance of a minimal frame rate increase?......it could make a noticeable difference when the margins are so tight.

This is exactly why I was asking if there was a comparison article between i5 and i7 CPU performance specifically under VR.


Originally Posted by Paradaz
Moving forward and looking ahead to optimised games and DX12 the performance differences are much bigger, you only need to look at ‘Ashes of Singularity’ and AMD’s noise about multiple cores in their benchmarks to see the difference that hyperthreading and high core count makes. Whilst DX12 games are still few and far between it’s another indicator that the quicker it becomes the norm the more performance we will be able to extract from our hardware.

Yes, if Ashes is your main game or if your main game is known/proven to benefit from DirectX or i7s over i5s, then that is a strong reason to spend the extra cash. However, my counter is that by the time DX12 games become the norm, we'll be at least 3-4 years from today and you'll be looking to upgrade your Coffee/Kaby Lake CPU at that point, so buying an i7 Coffee/Kaby CPU at this point in time for a "maybe" in 3-4 years does not really make sense even if you consider future-proofing..... unless your upgrade cycle is 5 years or more.


- Ice
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0