Hey,

I was planning an update of my cpu (I have a i5 7400 (3.0-3.3Ghz) right now) and was wondering what would be better between a Intel or AMD cpu because i see a lot of people not having the same opinion about this :
Using P3Dv4.5

Choice number 1 :
i5-9600KF (3.7-4.6Ghz) 240€=271$
ASUS TUF Z390 PLUS   170€ =191$
And a box for 44€=49$
For a total of 453€=511$ but i have a -85€=95$ offer so the total price would be 368€=415$

Choice number 2 :
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (3.8-4.4Ghz) 260€=293$
MSI B450M PRO M2 MAX 79€=89$
And same box
Total price : 382€ = 431$

For the moment, i'm thinking to take the amd, looking at the bench it seems to be a bit better.
What are your advices ?

Thanks

Thomas

Edited June 6, 20205 yr by thomas4planes

For value proposition, AMD surely beats Intel. Also, Z390 motherboards are rather garbage and they have no upgrade path. But if you are after high clock speeds and need to extract those last few FPS then Intel beats AMD there.

Currently using an AMD Ryzen 5 3600 with a Gigabyte X570 Aorus Elite WiFi currently priced about $350 for the bundle here in the US and I'm quite happy with it. 

4 hours ago, thomas4planes said:

What are your advices ?

If you are going to overclock, get the i5. I run a 9600k at 5ghz with just an air cooler and it works great.

If you are not going to overclock, the 3600X is probably the better choice.

For v5, the 3600X is better suited based on how v5 uses cores.

Lastly, if you are thinking Intel, I'd consider the 10600k. It will be the best of both worlds. Overclockable to 5ghz AND hyperthreading.

On 6/7/2020 at 12:03 PM, cwburnett said:

If you are going to overclock, get the i5. I run a 9600k at 5ghz with just an air cooler and it works great.

If you are not going to overclock, the 3600X is probably the better choice.

For v5, the 3600X is better suited based on how v5 uses cores.

Lastly, if you are thinking Intel, I'd consider the 10600k. It will be the best of both worlds. Overclockable to 5ghz AND hyperthreading.

I'm fairly sure the 10600K got the award for best gaming chip out of the bunch.

On 6/6/2020 at 11:48 PM, thomas4planes said:

Choice number 2 :
AMD Ryzen 5 3600X (3.8-4.4Ghz) 260€=293$

Wait 3 weeks. AMD is going to release a refresh of Ryzen2 CPU's with higher clock's. Series is called ...XT.

After that, I myself will go for the R5 3600XT (with MSI X570 Gaming Pro Carbon or ASUS X570 Strix E).

I had a 3800X running v4 and it stank. Switched to a stock 8700K and it was night and day. 

AMD for work, Intel for play. 

Just posted on TomsHardware.

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/ryzen-burnout-amd-board-power-cheats-may-shorten-cpu-lifespan

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by G-RFRY

On 6/7/2020 at 3:03 AM, cwburnett said:

 

For v5, the 3600X is better suited based on how v5 uses cores.

How does it use cores? 

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

I had a 3800X running v4 and it stank. Switched to a stock 8700K and it was night and day. 

AMD for work, Intel for play. 

This post is more or less pointless. I know a guy who went the other way around and was "impressed" by the performance gain. I wrote "impressed" because he had ~5 FPS less but the sim was fluid...which was enough for him to be impressed.

1 hour ago, G-RFRY said:

Just posted on TomsHardware.

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/ryzen-burnout-amd-board-power-cheats-may-shorten-cpu-lifespan

All MB manufacturer do push things. Just search reviews about the new Z490 MB and be amazed how MSI pushed voltages without interference from intel. Intel specifies an envelope exactly as AMD does. Articles are biased by their sponsors....

Zen3 IPC are going to beat Intel hands down plus it has much better multi-threading performance.

Never had the infamous Intel 2 second hang / long pause in P3D on either of my Ryzen CPUs.

I was running TE GB South before Orbx's update to improve performance. My 1700X didn't love me trying to fly over TE London, but it was flyable (20-22 FPS in the PMDG NGX).

With my 3700X, (externally locked to 30 FPS with NCP), I can get 28-30 FPS.





Close-up of OSD perf data:
https://i.imgur.com/s98Fvn2.jpg

My settings for TE GB over London (to prevent VRAM OOM):

https://i.imgur.com/3QRYxlm.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/089siOC.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/zR1GaTK.jpg

Overall, I love the Ryzen CPUs. Zen 3 is highly anticipated and for good reason.
 

Recently upgraded to a 3900x and could not be happier. With sims moving to new API's, the GPU is becoming more and more important with loads being taken off of the CPU. With that said I'd get the AMD for its multitasking capabilities as I think it will be the better investment in the long run. If you're running 4K than I would absolutely go with the AMD, as your GPU will be doing most of the work anyway.  

1 hour ago, GEKtheReaper said:

This post is more or less pointless. I know a guy who went the other way around and was "impressed" by the performance gain. I wrote "impressed" because he had ~5 FPS less but the sim was fluid...which was enough for him to be impressed.

So his sim was objectively worse but subjectively better by using AMD? Right. And you say my post is pointless? Do you want to do a poll, who's running intel vs. who's running AMD for flight simming, and their relative performance?

3 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

How does it use cores? 

The topic discussing this is lost in the ether of the first week or two after the v5 release, but basically in v5 there are two 'helper threads' that are dedicated to the third and fifth LPs exposed to P3D, so in a default situation cores 2 and 4; there was also a topic on the prepar3d.com forum and Beau chimed in which helped clarify things.  These threads appear to just assist the main thread in v5, whereas in 4.5 these would have been terrain loading threads. The result is that the sim is smoother, but there are now two fewer terrain loading threads.  So on my 9600k, core 0 is the usual main thread, core 1 I haven't quite figured out, but appears to to a mix of admin and terrain, but whereas in v4.5 cores 2-5 were all terrain loading threads, in v5 cores 2 and 4 are not loading terrain, but are rather scaling utilization based on core 0 utilization, leaving cores 1, 3 and 5 usually running at close to 100% when flying loading terrain.  So i long for just one or two more cores to help with terrain loading.  That said, I don't have any problems...I only notice it in really dense areas and/or when slewing.  So, my takeaway is that unlike in v4.5, where I was often CPU limited in my performance, I have yet to be CPU limited in terms of framerate in v5, which leads me to believe that a well setup CPU with similar clock speeds but more threads would actually benefit v5, whereas in v4.5 THE most important part of a smooth experience was Core 0 speed (which is why I chose the 9600k in the first place, because it was the easiest current gen CPU [at the time] to get to 5Ghz).  This is what I and bunch of others were seeing in that thread:

The moral of the story for me is that if I were building a new machine today, I'd be building an i5-10600k with a 5GHZ OC and HT on, with an AM dedicating a full core to each of the first and second threads, and letting P3D have all the LPs on cores 2-5; basically the same that I'd be doing with a 9900k without the two extra cores.  But I think a 3600X or 3600XT with a similar AM setup would provide excellent performance in v5.