I’m considering a CPU upgrade and am deciding between these two options. They are roughly the same price in my place and both come with their own benefits. What I want to know also is how important is the CPU when using the Pimax 8K, is single threaded performance as important? The reason I’m considering these CPUs is I’m also doing 3D work at the same time which needs all the multi-threaded performance possible.
The threadripper is newer, has the ability to be overclocked with faster single core but switching between the modes can be annoying. The Xeon has better multi-threaded capabilities comparing both at stock speeds but has weaker single threaded performance. The 1950x can outperform the 2696 v4 after OC but only slightly. I also have a mobo compatible with the Xeon so going with 1950x means a board upgrade as well. What’s your take on this?
At present Single core still seems to be the thing for gaming.
I would recommend doing a search Amd 1950c vs E5 2696 v4 & see what Game Debate & cpu boss says.
With Threadripper being newer might be the better purchase. In VR from my understanding cpu is important for pos tracking & working with gpu to not bound.
Amd threadripper probably has optimizations for Liquidvr. Could be a tough call.
Thanks for the info. Futuremark seems to favor faster cores. The only thing I’m worried about the Threadripper is the latency which may affect in game performance since it has 2 dies. I can imagine switching to the optimized game mode which requires a restart can be bothersome. This decision is especially hard since no one has benchmarked the 2696/2699 v4 against the 1950x in game.
Your welcome. Might be a nuisance to switch … However pc generally boot fast these days save at times waiting for windows lol
I would reccommend checking out a few reviews on each to see if any problems identified. Even see if there are VR specific reviews. Though with Ryzen still being newish might not be taking full benefit of capabilities.
@LordExx I will tell you a few things hope they help. 1. I have always been a fanboy for Intel and loved their processors but after long long research I decided to go with The Treadripper 1900x this time(best I could afford, most bang for the buck) It is by a long run, A LONG RUN the best chip I have ever used… I game (also have a 1080Ti.) at 4k ultra settings with more frames than I will ever need with ever game I have thrown at it. Steam library of about 1600 games here. All while have dozens of chrome windows open and doing other stuff in the back ground. 2. Not once have I ever even felt the need to switch cpu into game mode, ever. I don’t know if it will make a difference or not but but when getting 100+ frames a second with ultra settings a 4k what is the need? so I can not tell you what chip to get only you can decide that but I can tell you I would hands down by another Threadripper if I need another computer. Also I have a rift and where as it is no where as powerful as I hope the Pimax 8k is going to be I game on it with settings maxed out also with no issues or frame drops what so ever.
Thanks for your point view. Threadripper at the price is definitely the best for value, no argument needed. The only competitor I found for the 1950x was the OEM Xeon 2696 v4 which is more than 3x cheaper than the rip-off 2699 v4 retail version from Intel. If I was building a PC from scratch, I would not consider Intel. BTW have you seen Intel’s latest Xeon? It’s actually ridiculous at $13000, that’s 3x the premium from last gen. However, I went with the 2696 v4 just because my current board supports it and I can just plug and play. I could find no gaming reviews on this chip so I guess I’ll do that myself when I get it. If the worst comes, the eBay seller has a lenient return policy which means I’ll just go to Threadripper.
FWIW I have been evaluating the situation and considering the upgrade since the summer holiday. Main reason was gaming and also my interest to get into VR. Originally I was quite motivated by Ryzen (1700 in particular), but more info I got more I got confused and at the end I decided to pass on Ryzen (first gen at least).
Do not take me wrong, Ryzen is a great arch, and Ryzen 7 are good chips for almost everything except the gaming. For gaming (and even more for VR gaming) you need:
High IPC
High single-threaded perf (even if the games can utilize more threads/cores, the distribution of the tasks is never symmetric, so one thread is always kind of “master”).
High mem perf.
For 1) and 2) Intel offerings were better (comparing to i7-7700(K) at the time) and for 3) one must overclock the memory to 3200 to get comparable memory perf from Ryzen. Unfortunately memory overclocking on X370 turned out to be a nightmare where no one was able to tell, which motherboard with which DDRAM will be able to do it.
So I decided to skip Ryzen. Then Intel came out with Kaby Lake refresh (i7-8700) which was basically only improving on all aspects. The only problem with i7-8700 is it needs a new chipset Z370, which seems to be only interim solution which should be replaced soon by Z390 next year.
Then Pimax arrived with its 8K HMD and I said to myself it would be probably easier to simply wait it out, by using Pimax as an excuse. So I will build my new PC (for games and VR) only after I got the headset. I hope until then the things will get sorted out. Maybe z390 will arrive, or Ryzen 2nd gen with better memory controller…
I admit I never considered Threadripper, because of a) price, b) I never saw any advantage of Threadripper over Intel standard consumer line for my particular use case. Since you are shopping for Threadripper or Xeon, I guess your main usage is not gaming (or VR gaming) but some “serious work”, so I guess then Threadripper is the way to go (factoring in perf per dollar).
For VR however, I hope, either Intel fixes their consumer platform with more PCIe lanes (hopefully in z390) or AMD fixes their memory arch (in Ryzen 2nd gen) and either will come early enough so I could use it for my new build for Pimax headset. Adding Volta on top
Waiting it out seems to be the better choice for you indeed. For gaming alone Intel still wins but that’s as far as goes. If Intel dosent lower the prices of their Core i9 line I doubt I’ll ever consider them again since now even their latest Xeons have separated from the consumer line while increasing in price dramatically.
Interesting thread. I moved to Intel with an i7-7700HQ but that was due to me going mobile and AMD had nothing in the same package as Intel, yet. Coupled with a next gen eGPU over Thunderbolt I should hold ok for Pimax 8K.
For the question of cores vs single core speed, it depends on the API used for the games you are playing. My old CPU in my desktop was a AMD FX8350, whilst not a powerhouse in single thread performance I did find that with DX12/Vulcan titles, it did a very good job as its 8 cores were getting worked. In DX11 titles, not so good as CPU single core performance limitations really came in to play here.
Personally I support AMD as I prefer their business practices but, going mobile at this point in time was not so great for that. With the Thread Rippers, I would think the 1900 would be a good compromise between cores vs single core performance. The more cores you throw into the mix, the lower the performance of each core so the 1950 will have more cores but they are slower to the 1900 cores.
Would not touch Intel in the Server/Work Station area. Much better package with the Thread Ripper and coupled with fast ram, it really performs. Maybe hold out till the Pimax 8k’s are shipped and look at what system to build around it then. There might be refreashes in components on both sides of the fence.
For gaming with the 8K: i8700k.
It reaches 5ghz and while being only 6 cores it will blow the threadripper out of the water in games. It is hard to code for so many cores when 90% have a 4 core CPU.
@blitze For the laptops I guess the situation is similarly unclear . In “i7-7700HQ” market it seems it would be better to wait for 8700HQ counterpart (if it arrives). In ultrabook market Ryzen 2700U looks like very good overall choice, except it is still not available in many ultrabooks.
For the gaming on the laptop however, it seems GTX 1070 is as good as it gets, nothing beats it at the moment.
For what concerns the number of cores, it is good to see finally the shift to more scalable DX12/Vulcan. Though it seems to me to that for the gaming (and for VR in particular) the overall execution latency is still a hair better on Intel. But I am definitely looking forward Ryzen 1 refresh.
@LordEww I agree with you that the GPU performance is much more important in the VR. So there go my hopes for Volta. But considering the current situation i8700(K) + GTX 1080Ti it seems that i8700 is able to feed 1080Ti in general quite well, except when it needs to do something else as well. And while this usually does not impact much the regular gaming, it hampers the VR experience. So in an attempt to smooth this out, I will shoot for the fastest CPU available even if it might seem as an overkill for the regular use.
I know there is always the wait factor in deciding and maybe the i8700HQ brings more than a little refresh to Intels Mobile lineup. Fact is though I decided not to wait and went out and purchased a Gigabyte Aero 15X which is a great package for what I wanted.
Portability for work and music and power for gaming with the ability to run a eGPU down the track if the 1070 Max-Q doesn’t cut it with VR.
Undervolting the CPU a little .130v keeps the temps in the mid 70’s degrees C when playing Witcher and cooler with Destiny 2. The 1070 seems to run things quite well given the screen rate only doing 1080p at 60Hz. It will be interesting to see how that changes with my 1440p 27Inch monitor that is capable of double the frequency. Pity though Nvidia does not do freesync. One of the reasons I am not a Nvidia fan, I don’t like lockin and price extortion by companies for it. Not saying the Tech they do is not decent. Same with Intel (not to mention back doors they have).
C’est la vie. I think AMD with their approach to multicores will allow them better core ramping in the future compared to Intel. Cheaper for us as well. I might still build a workstation down the track but hold off to see what the refresh brings.
Interesting times but keen on Pimax 8k for my Simulation use, Il2 Battle of Stalingrad series and Assetto Corsa. Fun Fun. I know on the old AMD with a 390, Assetto Corsa screamed.
what ppl usually get completely wrong is that first and foremost for VR you don’t want to see frame rate drops at all cost. The other end of the spectrum of peak performance is rather irrelevant in comparison. Even more so with the higher resolutions that a Pimax needs.
In addition to simple gaming the CPU in VR needs to calculate 6DoF positioning, immersive audio, hand tracking and intra frame warping when the GPUs are not up to the task, and uh… you name it.
The trends in recent reviews of CPUs and GPUs - even for recent DX11 titles - show that for a stable minimum FPS you need 8 full cores, 6 cores is OKish but can already cause more frame drops, and this is without the additional threads of a VR system.
A good video to consider for the general trend … adapt it to VR requirements and draw your own conclusions…
IMHO 6 cores is already a no-go for new investments in VR. By all means, get a CPU that has at least 8 real cores, look for more MHz just as a secondary aspect.
For a specific game or game engine get a CPU that can handle the FPS target you’re after and for Pimax VR we are talking 90FPS tops at 5k resolution. For generic game reviews look for the minimum FPS a CPU can hold at very high res, but bear in mind these reviews just show general trends and come without additional VR threads.
Given that - a Threadripper is more on the safe side for VR than anything Intel has to offer below that price range, most likely even until the Pimax 8k arrives and that socket should see some faster MHz CPUs in 2018 too. For Intel I’m not so sure what will come in the next months. So I’d rather wait or put my money on the TR 1920x today since it should have stable FPS and the TR4 platform is expected to have good upgradeability with sufficient PCIe lanes.
The caveat with the Threadripper is however that the developers have to bear in mind the modules and thread alignment to not face a performance penalty. So in case you prefer indie titles in VR you’d better go with a cheaper 8 core of Intel or AMD although my expectation is that such issues should be history a few months down the road. In case you’re in doubt there is i7-7820X and Ryzen 1800X to the rescue today.
You need to check direct comparisons. No matter if ryzen or even threadripper. Nothing beats a i8700k. I am talking about framedrops. Lowest FPS and average FPS. I searched a lot and there is litteraly no game I could find where a Ryzen has an advantage in framdrops or average FPS. This is why a 5 Ghz i8700K is the way to go. This might be different in two years but I highly doubt it.
Again Threadripper is worth nothing as long the threads are not used. Do not be fooled by seeing threads being used by a simple wrapper. That actually adds latency. You can see this when decativating hyperthreading wich often gains performance. More threads only help if the game dev has actively coded for it - this does not happen right now.
If they code for 6 or 8 threads the game wont run smooth on any 4 core CPU = 95% of the user base.
While I basically agree with you, I would like to dispute this point. You can code for 8 threads and run them smoothly on 4 core arch. Operating system alone runs tens to hundreds of threads and runs them smoothly. The deciding factor is the overall throughput. If 8 threads uses only so much resources that 4 core system can supply, it is fine and the threads are multiplexed over the cores.
On the other hand if the CPU does not provide enough throughput you can have as many threads as you want and as many cores as well and the app will still not run smoothly.
I feel that at the moment the most critical part for VR is the latency, which cannot be parallelized, so the high single thread IPC is still more important. But once it is solved the more scaleable parallelized architecture will become more important and also more powerful - if the developers find an easy way to code for it.
I too am slightly interested in the Threadripper, as a jack-of-all-trades programmer/3D Artist and a gamer. Currently I have separate machines for work, render and play which is a pain to move between them but it isolates them. My gaming machine is more likely to die or get infected than my work machine so it has been a tradeoff I accepted.
From my experience, gaming is about single threaded performance and a $340 intel chip beats the 1950X if your games are DX11. DX12 makes use of multi threading better so newer games could run faster if you have more cores. The tomshardware review breaks this down quite well AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X Review - Tom's Hardware | Tom's Hardware That is still to say this cpu is no slouch. Although some games are reported to run badly on it, I hope that can be fixed at the driver rather than expect game devs to support this chip directly, which is less likely.
Rebooting to change the CPU mode is something I would not bother with. Not unless I was playing competitively, which these days hardly happens. Oh the clan days of Quake CTF, how I miss you!
From a creators point of view, rendering on the CPU is where this chip is the dogs bollox. Many colleagues have started switching over to GPU rendering as it is faster than CPU by a huge amount unless you have heavy scenes or use a lot of volumetrics. However, the CPU is much more stable for rendering so this would be a great price/performance purchase for the freelancer or indy, even if used as a render node. and the fact many engines let you render with cpu+gpus at the same time these days you could build a single rendering machine that rips through work at a tiny cost, even with the energy overheads.
As an intel/NVidia guy (stability reasons) I must admit that AMD have now reappeared on my radar.
I can definitely see how GPU rendering can take over CPUs eventually especially for people with limited resources and budget (aka most people). As it stands now, the VRAM limitations are still imminent and may take a while to catch up. Threadripper without a doubt offers the best balance of performance/value and with high resolution gaming, I doubt the difference would be too dramatic against something like the 8700K.
Yes, thats why the NVidia pro cards have huge amounts of vram, 16GB upwards. Real time render engines used to crash when VRAM ran out but we are starting to see updates that fallback to using system ram when this happens. That is much slower but at least the image completes the render without crashing and some renders can take many hours for a single frame. AMD’s Pro Render which is in its early days does this when rendering on the GPU. Strangely though it does not support Mac Pro’s D700’s cards yet.
