Demhi Moss wrote:
My computer system is a DELL XPS 8500.
PROCESSOR: Intel i5-3450 CPU @3.10Ghz
8 Megs of RAG
64 Bit Win 7 OS.
Vid Card: AMD Radeon HD 7570 1 GB GDDR5 SDRAM
2 or 3 TB HD.
I bought my computer 4-2012 to play SKYRIM.
The game ran with no problems and I played the game for a long long
time exclusively. Then I got into Fall Out and I wanted to play
Fallout 4 but needed a better video card. I thought mine was great
till then.
I upgraded to an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 and it rocks with FO4. But I
also bought Witcher 3 when it came out and I can't play it because of
my CPU.
My system is great in everything else, I really can't complain. But
now it is about 5 years old, longer then I have ever had a system
without massive upgrades and I want to build a new system.
I was wondering how much faster I could make a new rig for about
$300-$500 for a new MB/CPU or am I going to have to spend a lot more
to make a new system that will blow the wheels off of what I have. I
mean I'll happily keep this system rather then spend $500 or more on a
system that is maybe a little faster. I'd prefer an Intel CPU but
wouldn't turn down AMD, but how much faster can I realistically expect
for this $$. It is not that I cannot spend more, more that I
shouldn't have to spend more because of Moore.
I use to be able to tell the faster chips but they make it so hard
now. And just because it is an i7 doesn't mean it is faster.
A bit rambling but if you have read this far and can offer any advice
or suggestions, then please do and thank you.
Demhi
And here's a reason why it's a pig.
http://physxinfo.com/news/11558/the-witcher-3-will-support-gpu-physx-now-officially/
"we will see simulated fur "all over the place",
applied not only to creatures, but also to character
clothing elements, such as "pelts and cloaks".
"
So it's not clods of dirt after all. They're modeling
the outside of characters (their cladding), using PhysX.
That's what happens when a game developer falls for some
bilge created in a lab at NVidia :-)
My guess is, that somehow the physx is leaking into the CPU
space as well. Maybe the sheer loading of data for physx
on the GPU, is causing a background I/O load ?
With the IOAPIC in hardware, it's possible for I/O load to
be "spread in time", over multiple CPUs. At least, I've done
experiments here before, where I see a "smooth and flat" background
load on all CPU cores. And my conclusion was, that was the servicing
of interrupts for interaction with hardware.
Maybe even if the PhysX is done in hardware (on the 970),
the simulations still have to be loaded up for it. It seems
like an awful lot of load though, if that's what is happening.
The load is probably approaching the OS cap limit for interrupt
rate.
*******
If you skim through the chart here, the Ryzen does pretty
well on price. Note that some of the prices on this
chart, are just "dead wrong". Like one of the Xeons for $600
which is actually $2000 a pop. Certainly some used Xeons
can be dirt cheap, but that's not an "official" price by
any means.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
AMD Ryzen 7 1800X 15,385 $499.99
Now, one of the problems with Ryzen, is it's a SOC (some of the
SATA ports are on the CPU). For such a high end processor
(8C 16T), it doesn't really have an excess of PCI Express lanes,
and cannot be considered "true gamer material". It just
happens to be something that might be good in a server.
Whereas Intel processors of this class use quad channel
memory, while AMD is running 8C 16T off dual channel memory.
On the plus side, it uses HyperTransport or similar on
the inside (shortest multi-hop route for core to core traffic).
Whereas the larger Intel CPUs use ring busses of some sort (makes
a 6C processor compute at a 5C rate, that's the potential loss).
I found a lack of consistent results in the reviews
on Ryzen, so you'll definitely want to spend a whole
afternoon comparing articles and comments, before even
considering spending $500 on it. It's not a "slamdunk".
Generally, the pricing you see on these things is
"rational", meaning a lot of thought went into
benchmarking at the factory, and they really think it's
only the equivalent of a $500 processor from the
competition. Some people think this price is an attempt
to "undercut" the competition, but that's not it at all.
I've found over the years, that there is a good deal
of rational thought, before a price is set. It's
not as predatory a pricing model as first thought.
The reason for that, is no company can afford to "give away"
profits. The price must be raised as high as physically
possible. However, if they charge $600 for it, and a
competing $500 product beats it consistently, they're
going to look pretty dumb. The price can neither be too high
nor too low. And right now, the uncertainty about how it really
performance, plus the $500 price, means I cannot
consider that for an "impulse buy". The fact it's
a SOC and a bit starved on I/O, is one of my concerns.
It's like a cheesy desktop design, with a whole
lot of cores whacked onto the side. It's not
"scaled in all dimensions". Think of it as a
weight lifter, who only worked on one muscle,
and now that muscle is all out of proportion
to the rest of his body.
AMD is coming out with a server product, which
will kick ass (it's a CPU/GPU complex, not just
a CPU style server). Up to 128 lanes of PCI Express. Maybe
8 channels of memory (dual socket, the equivalent of
two Ryzen inside each CPU package, for eight channels
of memory total). Now that one won't be starved,
but you can be assured that both you and I cannot
afford one. The pricing will be "astronomy class".
My guess is, maybe an outboard chip will do the
PCI Express or something (they are using yet another
bus standard on those CPUs, and they might be using
that to get to a "Northbridge" or something). Because
I don't see it being all that practical to put that
much PCI Express on one chip (like, 64 lanes per socket
is a lot).
*******
And if we're talking Intel products, I cannot give you
a real solution for your price range. I cannot give you
a "giant CPU" and even get remotely close to the
price you have in mind. The LGA2011 CPUs from Intel
now, are 8C 16T, but they're expensive.
6900K 8C 16T $1050 "on sale", needs $100 cooler, $300 mobo
And decent case cooling.
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117645
The INTC pricelist is here, if you want a copy for comparison.
It's a PDF. This is how you can check the MSRP on Intel.
https://www.intc.com/investor-relations/investor-education-and-news/cpu-price-list/default.aspx
https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_downloads/cpu_price/Mar_28_17_Recommended_Customer_Price_List.pdf
In the section with the 6900K, they've chosen to mix other sockets.
Only some of those are LGA2011 V3. And one of the "tricks"
with the LGA 2011 ones, is the "lowest" one in the group,
usually has fewer PCI Express lanes on it (only important
if you use more than one video card, or happen to have
other uses for the computer than gaming perhaps).
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
