Intel 9900K, 8700K or 2700x ryzen: game development

Yeah well, I run a custom loop with a 1080 TI and a 2700x complelty silent it's only baking in unity that makes the fans start to move

 

Any problem with ASUS? I have been looking at CrossHero VII, Taichi or Astrock, which one?

It tells that I should stick to Intel? ?

What memories are you using and which speed have you been able to achieve?

It could be possible to set ram to 2993mhz, which is AMD allows as maximum by specs, without problem?

I would like 32GB 2x16GB. They have told me that if memories are samsung-B die or something like that, I should no have problems setting up ram at 3000mhz-3200mhz for example.

https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3200c14d-32gtz i can only see QVL for intel mobos.

https://www.gskill.com/en/product/f4-3400c16d-16gsxw This one has QVL with X470 and some mobos.

Do you recommend me CH7 over Taichi or AORUS? I am also considering a possible upgrade to last generation AMD chips in 2 years, when support for AM4 ends.




Thanks everybody.

 

The image import for the fps sample that I talked about was a heavy load. I havent studied temperatures in games that much yet, but I do know that my cpu fan became notably louder during that unity asset import than at any other moment during my use of the 9900k so far. I will do a couple of game tests later and share the results, but it certainly isnt something I'm worried about.

I remember the first time I saw a dark rock, I was most amused by the size of the thing, it is stupidly large. There arent many CPU in the world that I would be worried about the temperature of when used with one of those, have you seen the size of it? The main thing to take care of when using such a heatsink is that it will actually fit in your case!

Honestly, when it comes to issues of both heat and power usage of the 9900k, I can see why these are factors that can get into review headlines. But there is not really a new and alarming phenomenon to see here, for anyone that has paid attention to the high frequency & more and more cpu core trends of recent years, or issues with the stated TDP of cpus not really being a fair reflection of how much power they actually use when many cores are engaged, the 9900K is just more of the same, and within the realms of what we might expect from 8 intel cores compared to previous 4 and 6 core chips.

For me the 9900K has turned out just how I hoped, a nice but expensive option that somewhat bridges the gap between the mainstream chips with 4-6 cores and the enthusiast/workstation many core chips such as the previous generation i9s for LGA 2066 sockets. I see it as sitting somewhere in the middle of this former gap, which is perfect for my needs. No doubt if my budget had been tighter, I would already have filled this gap with something from AMD some time ago.

 

Surly when selecting hardware, should look into options, where overclocking is not required.
Unless you don't mind potentially short down life span of your hardware.

Then if using inadequate hardware, specially OC CPU to inappropriate cooling, then no surprises for overheating complains.

Read reviews and benchmarks of hardware, to get best selection.

 

I personally really like the Asus motherboards. I have used a lot of Asus motherboards over the years. For example, I currently have an ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero with an i7-8700k in one of my PCs, and it has been quite solid.

 

My rig is nice and quiet with these big ass fans...lol. My memory runs at 3200.

 

You are likely have more trouble to find space in your room, than in your PC tower lol
Why not to move the bed there?

 

lol...it still fits on my desk so its fine.

 

Is that...neon lit RAM? I Iike how clean your case is...why do my giant Antec tower cases always look like a scene from Star Wars where they're putting C3P0 back together again...

 

So, thanks again for your comments. When importing, what is the maximum temp you estimate?

Yeah, rock pro 4 is a titan, they have recommend me it and in my case it seems to fit.

So, you think that without OC, 9900K will not have extremely hot temperatures? What mobo you recommned for this CPU?

Which mobo, CPU and ram?

But for game development, you bet on 8700K, 9900K or 2700x?

That's what i am doing. I am not an OC guy, but if AMD give me more performance with stability doing a simple RAM set up, I could consider. I am NOT thinking of increasing frequency of CPU, overclocking graphic card and so on.

Do you think that setting RAM at 3200mhz for 2700x, will damage my build lifetime?

Thanks everybody

 

CROSSHAIR VII HERO (WI-FI), 2700x and G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 16GB (2 x 8GB) 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C16D-16GTZR .

 

Any of those and a lot of older ones too.

 

Most likely not if you don't overclock it. If you take Mobo which supports this speed, go for it.Just make sure you got plenty breading space in casing tower.
Just remember, do not underestimate cooling / vent system.

Personally I am very happy with liquid cooling.
But one thing I would change, if buy another rig, put higher emphasis on quietness of the pump (even is not that loud).

GPU fan when kicks in, is the by far loudest in my case.

 

I dont think there is much point giving exact figures since that will take time I dont have, and is dependent both on my heatsink which is a very different spec to yours, the case, and the ambient temperature.

Intel are not selling chips that get too hot under normal use. And there are plenty of reviews where they test this stuff in a more methodical manner than I will manage. Also, why care much about this? Any cpu that has many cores that run at high frequencies is going to use plenty of power and create plenty of heat. And the whole point of choosing a very large heatsink is so that you dont have to worry about this issue, especially so since you arent planning to overclock. Personally I care about the issue in the sense that I like my computer to be as quiet as possible, but I also want high performance, and I know there is a balance to be struck, have to compromise somewhere. Performance was the priority for me with this machine, and I didnt want to bother with a really huge heatsink, and I was still able to choose the 9900K without fear. I have other machines I will use when I want silent/almost silent computing, and happily in this era even with powerful chips like the 9900K, things are mostly quieter than the PCs I used when I was much younger anyway. Plus when we build computers ourselves we have control over various factors that allows us to avoid counterproductive situations, such as thermal throttling that wastes some of the potential of the CPU. I am far happier with this machine than I would be with, for example, an iMac Pro where the thermal situation is likely compromised by other factors.

I cannot give motherboard recommendations really because I have only tried one Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro and it works for me, but I have nothing to compare it to. And this is an era where every motherboard manufacturer seems to make about 6-10 different versions of their boards, many with small differences, and lots of them cost a lot of money. One thing I could say is that in terms of BIOS user interface, I dont think Gigabyte is the best. But since I dont know how many PCI-E slots you want, or how many M.2 connections, or whether you want wifi or USB C type connectors, or RGB lighting etc etc, I dont think I can help you choose.

 

With ECS does the cache size of the CPU have a performance impact e.g.

Ryzen 2700X L1 768 KiB, L2 4 MiB, L3 16 MiB (source)

Core i9-9900K L1 512 KiB, L2 2 MiB, L3 16 MiB (source)

Could the larger L1/L2 caches of the Ryzen CPU boost ECS performance?

 

Thanks dude, it is a great deal of useful information.

I will think about 9900k.

I am a fan of ASUS, because never a product from this brand has give me problems: laptops, using 2 and no problems, so if finally I decide to go with Intel, I will take an asus mobo.

 

Any of those three CPUs will be great for game dev.

 

You would need to actually test it on a game by game basis. ECS makes great use of the cache, so the Ryzen might benefit from that. But the better IPC and higher clockspeed of the Intel will probably mean the Intel is going to be faster even with heavily optimized ECS work.

 

Don't know to be honest. I would say read/write speed would be more critical than anything.
But unless you are doing simulation, rather a game, the game design should be performing similarly on either CPU, without handicap.

 

Thanks, I will wait for AMD 2920x that is going to be released next week, and maybe other CPU prices drop down. I would like to see 2920x vs 9900k comparison, but in this case a possible 800€ price for 2920x is far from my budget.

 

If I was you, I would never go for latest model of hardware.
If you want most of it, go with hardware which is well tested and reviewed by many, over prolong period.
So that means looking into halve to 1 year old, or even more.

 

That's true, that's why i am more decided to buy 8700k or 2700x instead of 9900k, but until 5 november, that is when i probably will order my new build, i will pay attention to news, releases and researching with build config.

 

It's not just the size matters, the 'how you can use it' too.

Larger L1/L2 cache helps everything. Including the random memory layouts. There is a higher chance that your next data is in the cache already and the memory controller can store more frequently used memory pieces in the caches.

Largely agree, but now, it's a little bit special circumstance, because the fixes for the meltdown and spectre problems became hardware-based on the latest CPUs. So this time maybe worth to buy a new one.

 

Can you actually find a 9900? https://www.extremetech.com/computing/279505-evaluating-availability-of-intels-9th-generation-cpus

PS Have you considered low end Threadrippers they are around the same price as a 9900 and have more cores?

 

Yes, in Spain at least they are selling online.

I will wait until October 29, when 2920x and 2970x are released and maybe their release drop downs other CPU prices.

I want cores and threads, but the choice is 2700x, 9900k or 8700k, because sometimes I also like to play.

Thanks.

 

Unlikely. AMD's Threadripper doesn't compete with Intel's 9900K. The former is aimed at workstations while the latter is aimed at consumers. It's a completely different market.

AMD's Threadripper might be the same price as Intel's 9900K, but the motherboard for it won't be the same price as the motherboard for the 9900K. Threadripper motherboards (Socket TR4) start at the $300 price point with a good one for around $400 to 500.

A 9900K motherboard starts at around $50 with a good one being approximately $150.

Plus you have to take into account the cost of memory. Having quad channel memory sounds fantastic until you realize that requires having four sticks. Memory prices have come down but you're still looking at $400 for 32 GB (4 x 8 GB).

 

If you can pay $600+ for an 8 core CPU maybe price is not a big issue?

 

Right, I definitely don't think you're wrong. I just think it's important to point out that while the CPU may not cost any more the rest of your computer might be a different matter. Once you step into workstation and server territory the costs go up very quickly.

 

Yeah thats one of the main reasons I said I consider the 9900K to be a nice bridge between these two different CPU sectors, and why I got one.

 

Threadrippers use case is really limited, the memory latency makes syncing threads really expensive, only tasks that is paralleled without the need of sync will work at optimum performance. Not whole lot of problems do paralell that perfect. though maybe Unity light baking is one that does. Would be interesting to see a benchmark of just that. I wish unity displayed total time of bake would be easier to benchmark

 

That's nothing, here is my home office, my big tower takes up almost all leg room

 

Don't forget to water your plant

 

No worries , it's dead now!

 

Bet that makes testing your game rather difficult.

 

The playspace is about 1.5 X 2.5 which is below the minimum 2x2.5 meters but it works pretty ok. Just strech out the other arm before throwing a grenade so you know you will not hit something

Here is some gameplay from that space

 

Hm ... now I'm wondering whether I should wait for 7nm after all. My primary dev machine is still an i7-5820K with a 980Ti ... I also have a i7-6700K with a 1080 that I currently use as secondary dev and testing machine. Full game builds currently take more than 3 hours on Unity 2017.4 (I believe 11 or 12 cut that in half, which is very cool ;-) ). I don't do a lot of lightmapping and if I do, I can let it run over night, or on an idle PC but shader compilation is annoying and I believe also distributed across cores quite well. I have a reduced version of the project which builds in 5 to 10 minutes.

I also do realtime greenscreen "VR Mixed Reality" compositing for promotional videos, so both CPU and GPU can never be too fast because the faster they are, the higher I can go up in quality.

When the RTX GPUs were released, I really wanted to get a 2080 Ti with a full new build, and may still do that ... but it seems that both, CPUs and GPUs are currently "sub-optimal" both in terms of price, power consumption and heat due to being stuck at 14nm ... and rumor is that 7nm will land next year.

So, we might get significantly better performance, higher reliability (hardware fixes to CPU security issues seem to start landing now in the most recent CPUs but this should be much better 6 or 12 months from now), lower price and lower power-consumption. The only problem is that the first generation of 7nm might also bring a lot of expected unexpected problems ;-)

F'n first world problems ... but what do you think? Given that even 10nm is causing so much trouble, is expecting 7nm next year even realistic?

 

Even it would be next year, it will be probably quite expensive. So unless you have money to burn, for sake of having top high end hardware, I personally would go what is tested and proved already.

Well, you know we can wait year to year, for some break through in hardware. That way, we would never buy anything, as every year brings something new

 

I think there are plenty of unknowns, as well as known variables that people just have to use to make the right choices for themselves and their own particular situation. I needed power now, and even if some stuff comes out next year, it wont be early next year. I also dont believe in assuming that the prices will be lower, since there are many factors that go into price and we've seen a lot of companies trying to squeeze more profit out of certain segments in recent years, along with currency fluctuations that have made some things more expensive in certain countries.

The 2080ti is exceptionally poor value for money, but I still got one because most of the stuff I do is GPU-heavy and it just happened to come out at a time where I could actually afford to get one.

 

AMD 7nm will come next year. Intel might not even deliver 10nm next year

 

Yes I should probably have been clearer that I was mostly on about Intel and nvidia with my 'wont be early next year' comment.

I havent been keeping up with AMD CPUs much at all, but I do see stories about 7nm AMD GPUs in the first quarter of 2019. I suppose I shall keep an eye on that since I am getting a new mac mini soon for the mac side of what I do, intend to get an eGPU enclosure to go with it, and nvidia with macos is in a slightly weird place these days due to lack of official Apple support for nvidia stuff (though drivers are still often available, there are sometimes gaps and months where some nvidia cards dont work on certain macos versions).

 

Current indications are that we will see AMD's 7nm processors in Q1 2019. A quick search for news articles suggests that we will see a 13% increase to IPC (Instructions Per Cycle) from the previous generation.

AMD's 7nm processors are going to be using the same architecture they've been using for the two years now. Therefore it's both tested and proven already.

 

If AMD can deliver 7nm next gen Ryzen CPUs during Q1 2019, then AMD is going to have a fantastic year 2019. I hope AMD can deliver that.

Personally, I tend to get what I need when I need rather than holding off for later tech, unless a company has already given a release date for the new tech.

 

Hardware to hardware is never the same in behaviour and reliability.
Specially when talking about smaller scale, where chances for electrons tunneling is increased, hence potential errors.
So until solution is tested in production, I wouldn't be claiming same reliability, as their previous models.

 

If that's the case you'll never have a completely stable system because every generation is hardware to hardware.

Both of their previous generations were die shrinks. AMD hasn't had a generation that wasn't a die shrink since Excavator back in 2015. Zen was 14nm, Zen+ was 12nm, and now Zen 2 will be 7nm.

Plus they're using TSMC this time around which has a far better track record than Global Foundaries.

 

True.
That is one reason, why we got so many variation of similar designs, plus marketing behind of course.
Some work better than others.
Hardware benchmarks reveals stability and performance.
Due to errors, performance my potentially be downgraded.

In the end we reducing size, so is new tech, even if general architecture stays the same.

 

Out of interest, had to refresh my memory

Semiconductor
manufacturing
processes

• 10 µm – 1971
• 6 µm – 1974
• 3 µm – 1977
• 1.5 µm – 1982
• 1 µm – 1985
• 800 nm – 1989
• 600 nm – 1994
• 350 nm – 1995
• 250 nm – 1997
• 180 nm – 1999
• 130 nm – 2001
• 90 nm – 2004
• 65 nm – 2006
• 45 nm – 2008
• 32 nm – 2010
• 22 nm – 2012
• 14 nm – 2014
• 10 nm – 2017
• 7 nm – 2018
• 5 nm – ~2020

 

You need to add 14nm to the list. That is the one Intel is stuck on currently.

 

Done. Not sure why I missed it in first place.

 

The odds of 5nm making it to market are pretty slim if we can't get around the whole quantum tunnelling problem.

 

And even gone back to 22 for some budget models