HT AMD vs Intel

nakshabandy · Aug 30, 2018

hey, well i have been digging a lot lately for the universal debate amd vs intel, still i got some empty voids i need to fill, first let me say i use my desktop for gaming and browsing (chrome) only, i have 2400 mhz Ram, 60 hz monitor, GT730 dddr5, my head was swimming among hell of reviews about the notorious i5 8400 vs budget contenders R5 1600/x and slightly more expensive 2600/x, here's what i got so far, 8400/8600 beats 1600/x & 2600/x every time in game reviews and benchmarks, still ryzen got some credit for the multi tasking, yet for me the most of multi threading i can use is opening chrome to search for games' walk-through whilst playing, or playing a video while in the middle of a game, so i dont know whether this needs hyper threading or not, 8400 beats ryzen in terms of Fps by a remarkable shot, but since i got 60 hz monitor i think i wont notice the difference?? still that leaves another question, what if in the future some game was pretty demanding and i got fps below 60 then 8400 wins, also so far i know that volt and temp are the two factors affecting cpu lifespan, since i never overclock my cpu, volt is not a concern for me, yet for temperature i noticed in some game tests 8400 getting a little higher temp above the 1600 (whist 1600x is more hot than both) still many say that the 8400 stock cooler is pretty reliable (meanwhile ryzen x needs water cooler for which i have no budget) so in terms of longevity regarding temp, i dont know which shall survive more? also talking about ryzens's stock 3.2 or 3.4 Ghz hyperthreading getting beaten by just 2.8?? i still dont know how is this working... , some claim that ryzen architecture is pretty lousy for gaming when compared to intel, but will the clock difference will be some how prominent during desktop usage (in terms of copying and moving files, playing videos & browsing) ? then i go to the games of demanding nature (future proof), speaking of assassin's creed origins (the cpu slayer) for the first time i saw 100% of the 8400 drained, meanwhile ryzen didnt reach 90% and at some point at ultra setting both were giving the same fps,this is where i was totally lost, does 100% cpu usage affect its lifespan? was asssassin creed origin just a passing by anomaly or it is just a beginning for new gen of games focusing on cpu? and what really matters to me was the confusion, in the mean time according to most games tests intel usage percent is almost double that of ryzen, many addressed it as a more efficient gaming cpu, while others claimed it shall shorten the cpu lifespan?? i dont know which is true!! some claim that games dont tell the difference between physical and logical cores! others say that new generation of games that utilize hyperthreading more efficiently is yet to come, all i see is just an intel cpu with double the usage of the ryzen and i dont know if it is the same or not according to the hyperthreading system in terms of GAMING and LIFESPAN, please correct me in any of the above since i m in need for a reference, also i have 450 watt PSU and i dont know if it can support any of the cpus i mentioned above or not, Thnx in advance for your time

Eximo · Aug 30, 2018

1) For your use case HT or SMT are not strictly necessary, there are plenty of cores on either platform to handle it. Single threaded performance is still most important to games, which is why Intel tends to do better with its higher frequencies and IPC.

2) For almost all the gaming you can do with a GT730 it will be the bottleneck, so a new CPU isn't going to gain you anything without a GPU upgrade

3) Both Ryzen and Intel CPUs can be cooled easily with air coolers when not overclocking, in the $20-30 range. Both AMD and Intel have recognized that with X and K series parts, people replace the cooler anyway, so they stopped coming with them. You pay a premium for an unlocked multiplier on Intel and a slightly better binning with AMD.

4) 100% CPU usage would mean more heat and the CPU running at the top of its voltage range, so yes. However, CPU lifespan can be measured in decades under normal operating conditions, so don't worry about it.

5) HT and SMT offer about 50% the performance of a "Real" core. In your case the i5 has 6 fast cores, Ryzen 5 has 6 cores and 12 threads, so it has more throughput.

6) 450W is more than enough for a single CPU and up to a mid-range GPU. High end GPUs would need 500W power supplies or more.

nakshabandy · Aug 30, 2018

Eximo :

hey, thnx for your quick, sharp and organized answer, but i still need to make sure of one thing, will or wont i notice the better intel gaming performance vs ryzen with 60 hz monitor? (even in the future)

regarding that i will never overclock which do you recommend for gaming desktop with a slight browsing in addition as a the only form of multi-tasking , 1600/x, 2600/x, 8500 or 8400?

if i shall have a bottleneck (even with medium settings) what is the minimum gpu you recommend to overcome it and a maximum one without going out the 450 watt boundaries?

you got me totally confused

at first you mentioned single threading it still important to games (but in the near future it wont?) then later you say that ryzen 12 thread has more throughtput, do you mean that such higher throughput is useless for a gaming desktop?? thnx..

Eximo · Aug 30, 2018

As it sits now, your GPU is the limit. In the future, games will get more difficult to run with either CPU, many would argue that the Ryzen chip has the better longevity, however, by the time you reach the point you can't run something, both will likely be considered fairly low end offerings. For gaming and browsing only I would recommend the i5-8400.

Ryzen may have more longevity in the socket and offers more potential future upgrades. We are at the second generation release of Ryzen and there is expected to be a 3rd before AMD is forced to switch sockets. Likely in favor of PCIe 4.0 or DDR5 (or both)

The maximum GPU for 1080p 60hz for recent triple A titles would be the GTX1060 6GB with a 450W power supply. GTX1050Ti would secure you the medium settings performance in most titles. RX570 and RX580 are quite a bit more power hungry than Nvidia's mid-range offerings, so I would not use those with a 450W.

Most games still rely on a single main thread, so per core performance is important (logical or physical, with physical always being better), even if the application is multi-threaded. Something has to coordinate all the other processed data after all. There are a few recent exceptions where 7 or so threads is superior (Battlefield 1, and V, and other Frostbite titles) But six cores is more than enough to get the job done. (As are most quad cores)

Newer games should start taking advantage of Direct X 12 and more multi-threaded programming. However, it is also important to note that game developers target the lowest common denominator. People that recently upgraded to quad/hex+ cores would be on the cutting edge. Dual cores and dual cores with hyperthreading are your budget gamers, and they will start moving into quad cores and quad cores with hyperthreading in the next few years. A six core CPU is nicely right in the middle. The consoles made a decent change in the gaming industry since they are essentially high thread count PCs.

Higher throughput is not useless on a gaming machine, it is just that most games can't take advantage of it being there. We are back to the single main thread problem. Maximum FPS at low resolution is usually governed by the CPUs single thread performance. When the GPU is setting the maximum possible frame rate, it doesn't really matter.

When you have the extra threads and cores you can then multi-task. But for your use case, it doesn't really matter. You can probably leave a decent amount of browsing tabs open and not suffer too much performance loss. (Though RAM is another story entirely)

Eximo · Aug 30, 2018

I should add that without overclocking Ryzen CPUs are not as good as Intel in general. The larger Ryzen CPUs are made with two separate CPU dies connected via 'Infinity Fabric'. This fabric communicates at the speed of the system memory, so faster memory is better so that data can be transferred between the two CPU dies.

On an Intel 6 core, everything is on one chip still communicating via a ring bus, which runs at the speed of the Cache (The CPU frequency typically) So the inter-core communication is much faster without relying on system memory speed. Which means you can get lower latency and cheaper memory as well.

Add that to the higher IPC and it makes for a better per core performance which translates to your gaming experience. And any other single threaded task. On most browsers for example I think they have it set up to be single threaded per tab? But I'm sure there are exceptions to that, so don't quote me.

nakshabandy · Aug 30, 2018

Eximo :

really you have been helpful in a total outrageous way, one last question, in the mean time i might not have the budget for a discrete gpu, i have been thinking of the R5 2400G igpu (rx vega 11), if i used it for now will it sustain me till i get proper gpu?, also regarding the 1050 ti when i ran it on bottleneck calculator, i got 33% while 1060 3gb got me 8%, so do i need the 1060 6gb for future proof? are you sure that 450 psu can sustain 1060 6gb ? Thank you pretty much

TerryLaze · Aug 31, 2018

nakshabandy :

You can keep using the 730 until you can afford a good GPU.You don't need a better GPU just for the bottleneck,you need a better GPU IF and when you want better graphics and/or higher resolutions.
Sometime in the far future you will need a 1060 level of GPU to run the future games at 1080/med or even low but it's far in the future yet.

nakshabandy · Sep 1, 2018

thank you all for your time and detailed helpful answers

Search

HT AMD vs Intel

nakshabandy

Eximo

Eximo

Titan

nakshabandy

Eximo

Titan

Eximo

Titan

nakshabandy

TerryLaze

Polypheme

nakshabandy

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page