FM20 Performance Benchmarking Thread

[djinni999]

I'm trying to participate in this but I'm getting a ******** savegame could not be loaded message. Does ANYTHING ever properly work in this world. The fcckkknnng incompetence I have to face daily.

[Brother Ben]

1 hour ago, djinni999 said:

I'm trying to participate in this but I'm getting a ******** savegame could not be loaded message. Does ANYTHING ever properly work in this world. The fcckkknnng incompetence I have to face daily.

Too right mate, I bet the bloke who started this thread messed up the upload.  The idiot. You just can't get the staff 

My advice though is to download the file put it in the save game folder, load the game, clear the cache, then shut down the game, then reload the game. 

Edited June 8, 2020 by Brother Ben

[djinni999]

13 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Too right mate, I bet the bloke who started this thread messed up the upload.  The idiot. You just can't get the staff 

My advice though is to download the file put it in the save game folder, load the game, clear the cache, then shut down the game, then reload the game. 

Smug, thinly veiled comments like this reveal that the person isn't as bright as they think they are.

1. I wasn't necessarily blaming the OP and his files.

2. Your advice isn't helpful. It is a fresh install, with the saves in the proper folder, appearing in the load game screen, with multiple shutdowns and reboots of the game. THEY WON'T EFFIN LOAD. Yeah it must be my fault. How stupid I must look now. FFS.

[XaW]

11 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

Smug, thinly veiled comments like this reveal that the person isn't as bright as they think they are.

1. I wasn't necessarily blaming the OP and his files.

2. Your advice isn't helpful. It is a fresh install, with the saves in the proper folder, appearing in the load game screen, with multiple shutdowns and reboots of the game. THEY WON'T EFFIN LOAD. Yeah it must be my fault. How stupid I must look now. FFS.

1. He is the OP, he was sarcastic.

2. They have worked for EVERYONE else, so it's not hard to pinpoint the source of trouble here...

Also, this is a voluntary thing to see how the game runs on different setups. Why so angry?

Let me quote you to sum up your input here:

15 hours ago, djinni999 said:

The fcckkknnng incompetence I have to face daily.

 

[Brother Ben]

18 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

Smug, thinly veiled comments like this reveal that the person isn't as bright as they think they are.

1. I wasn't necessarily blaming the OP and his files.

2. Your advice isn't helpful. It is a fresh install, with the saves in the proper folder, appearing in the load game screen, with multiple shutdowns and reboots of the game. THEY WON'T EFFIN LOAD. Yeah it must be my fault. How stupid I must look now. FFS.

I was attempting to be light hearted and funny, if a little sarcastic, I clearly missed the mark and I apologise.  To be fair I am the OP and i'm pretty incompetent at times 

That said If I was being arsey then I wouldn't have offered advice on how to fix the issue regardless of how good you think that advice was.

Have you tried to verify the integrity of the game?  It's explained here.

Quote

Verify Integrity of Game Files

1. Restart your computer and launch Steam.
2. From the Library section, right-click on the game and select Properties from the menu.
3. Select the Local files tab and click the Verify integrity of game files... button.
4. Steam will verify the game's files - this process may take several minutes.

Hope this works, i'll have a look around to see if I can see any similar issues for other fixes

Edited June 9, 2020 by Brother Ben

[djinni999]

Thank you for the civility. I wasn't aware of who the OP was, not that it matters. I never said there was something wrong with the save files. Also, I have had huge issues installing Win 7 on Ryzen, these past days, spent hours, no solutions worked. I am generally pissed at thinbgs not working for no reason. Maybe that contributed at my frustration.

That said, I didn't mention that my FM is a demo version from steam. It SHOULD NOT matter, but I'll mention it for what it's worth. Fresh install. Is clean cache necessary? Thank you.

[Brother Ben]

3 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

Thank you for the civility. I wasn't aware of who the OP was, not that it matters. I never said there was something wrong with the save files. Also, I have had huge issues installing Win 7 on Ryzen, these past days, spent hours, no solutions worked. I am generally pissed at thinbgs not working for no reason. Maybe that contributed at my frustration.

That said, I didn't mention that my FM is a demo version from steam. It SHOULD NOT matter, but I'll mention it for what it's worth. Fresh install. Is clean cache necessary? Thank you.

I don't think it will work on the demo i'm afraid, the demo only allows you to run one nation iirc

For what it's worth its definitely worth buying the game.  If you decide to then pop back and give it another go

[djinni999]

4 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

I don't think it will work on the demo i'm afraid, the demo only allows you to run one nation iirc

For what it's worth its definitely worth buying the game.  If you decide to then pop back and give it another go

Yeah. My intention was just to try it out of curiosity for my old 2500K  to see how it fares and also to contribute to this benchmark project. I have 2019. Is there a chance you can make the equivalent saves for FM19? Or I can make my own, though I'm not sure which settings to choose when setting up the game; there is some info in the OP. Thanks.

[djinni999]

I've decide to give it a go on FM19. Can you list which nations were chosen for the 10 and 51 nation saves. Does it matter if I pick just random nations to increase the count to 51, as long as the player count is the same?

[djinni999]

i5-I2500K (4/4) @3.3 ghz, 8GB DDR3 1600 mhz, Integrated GPU, SSD got me 1:58 for Bench A.

Edited June 9, 2020 by djinni999

[Brother Ben]

There are files for FM19 here

You'll need to post the results there for FM19 but Benchmark 2 & 3 are the same, or as near to the same as is possible, so you'll get an idea of how it shapes up

Edited June 9, 2020 by Brother Ben

[djinni999]

Yeah, that's why I only did the Bench A using your 2020 settings. I chose Spain for starting league and only this is playable. All other leagues are view only. Then I also reduced detail to 'none' for the other leagues. Spain is La Liga and Copa full, others are none. Is this correct? And also, when you go back or forth a year, the day is not the same for a particular date. Both 19 and 20 benchmarks A start at 8-20, but greatly less or more matches might be played depending on the coinciding day (TUE, WED for CL, THU for EUROPA, WED and SAT for INTL). This would greatly affect bench times accross two versions. Am I right in my thinking?

[Brother Ben]

2 hours ago, djinni999 said:

Yeah, that's why I only did the Bench A using your 2020 settings. I chose Spain for starting league and only this is playable. All other leagues are view only. Then I also reduced detail to 'none' for the other leagues. Spain is La Liga and Copa full, others are none. Is this correct? And also, when you go back or forth a year, the day is not the same for a particular date. Both 19 and 20 benchmarks A start at 8-20, but greatly less or more matches might be played depending on the coinciding day (TUE, WED for CL, THU for EUROPA, WED and SAT for INTL). This would greatly affect bench times accross two versions. Am I right in my thinking?

You are correct however its never going to be perfect.  You're probably better off just doing the 2019 benchmarks and comparing the results to that thread.  When you get the full version on FM20 then you can do my benchmarks here.  

[Lenzar]

How can I get the specs that you want for my computer? I can find what type of CPU I have, and how much RAM, but where do I get info such as RAM clockspeed?

[Brother Ben]

15 minutes ago, Lenzar said:

How can I get the specs that you want for my computer? I can find what type of CPU I have, and how much RAM, but where do I get info such as RAM clockspeed?

You can download this program HERE

once you've installed it the CPU tab will give you the type of CPU, it can be found under specification.  don't worry about CPU speed I can work that out from the model number

click on the "memory" tab and you will be presented with this

The type and size are top left

The speed is DRAM frequency.  You need to double this figure. (DDR = Double Data Rate)

So the above is 534 x 2 = 1068MHz 

 

[Lenzar]

Benchmark A was 1:37.23

B was 12:18.00

(Will do C and add later)

Edited June 10, 2020 by Lenzar

[diimaan]

Good to see my rig in top 20 and with the lowest base clock! 

Also I have limited my turbo to 3.40 Ghz with Throttlestop to keep my laptop running at sane temperatures! 

[FMFutbol]

Saving money for a  i9 - 9900K

[Brother Ben]

4 hours ago, FMFutbol said:

Saving money for a  i9 - 9900K

It really does seem that, in FM at least, you get what you pay for

the Intel Core i9-10900K is out now too and it’s top end is 5.3GHz stock, I’d love to see the benchmarks with that

Edited June 13, 2020 by Brother Ben

[simonstocker14]

Type: Laptop

Model: Sony Vaio SVE151D11M

CPU Model: i5-2450M

CPU Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3.10 GHz

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: 1330Mhz

GPU: Intel Graphics 3000

Storage Type: HDD

 

Benchmark A: 3 min 46 Sec

Benchmark B: 25 min 59 Sec

Benchmark C: 44 min 46 Sec

[Brother Ben]

Just now, simonstocker14 said:

Type: Laptop

Model: Sony Vaio SVE151D11M

CPU Model: i5-2450M

CPU Base Frequency: 2.5 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3.10 GHz

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: 1330Mhz

GPU: Intel Graphics 3000

Storage Type: HDD

 

Benchmark A: 3 min 46 Sec

Benchmark B: 25 min 59 Sec

Benchmark C: 44 min 46 Sec

Cheers Simon.

New laptop arrived yet?

[simonstocker14]

Not yet! Desperately needed though. 
I got an email saying it might not be here until 22nd.

[Brother Ben]

1 minute ago, simonstocker14 said:

Not yet! Desperately needed though. 
I got an email saying it might not be here until 22nd.

Annoying but I guess its not unusual with the virus still having an impact

[simonstocker14]

Yeah it is. Hopefully it’s not delayed any further though. 

[AlWakRa]

On 07/06/2020 at 00:04, AlWakRa said:

I got Asus zephyrus m15 with i7-10750h, 16gb 3200mhz ram, 1tb ssd, rtx2060, but with 4k panel for color accuracy as I work on photo editing a lot, should perform very similar to the one here with 9750h, wanted to get a ryzen 4000 based laptop but nothing with good screen panel. 

Finally it is here. It didn't arrive as early as I would like, nevertheless, with current situation, cannot fault them a lot. I did the runs in Turbo mode. 

Type: Laptop

Model: Asus ROG Zephyrus M15 GU502LV

CPU Model: i7 - 10750h

CPU Base Frequency: 2.6GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 5.00 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2933 (The chips are 3200, but cpu-z reads them as 2933, I need to check bios)

GPU: NVIDIA RTX 2060 90W - 6GB

Storage Type: Intel 660p 1 TB

Benchmark A: 1:10

Benchmark B: 8:09

Benchmark C: 7:24

 

I tried to check my cpu usage during the tests, in A and B utilization was usually around 25-35% with some spikes to 50+%, in C the cpu used 100% most the time during the transfer window, with a sustained speed of 4.3Ghz on all cores. The fastest I saw was 4.5Ghz, temps were quite good as I saw 65C after finishing the test, also, I used the under voltage option in bios (-80mv). 

[Brother Ben]

7 hours ago, AlWakRa said:

Finally it is here. It didn't arrive as early as I would like, nevertheless, with current situation, cannot fault them a lot. I did the runs in Turbo mode. 

Type: Laptop

Model: Asus ROG Zephyrus M15 GU502LV

CPU Model: i7 - 10750h

CPU Base Frequency: 2.6GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 5.00 GHz

RAM: 16GB

RAM Clockspeed: 2933 (The chips are 3200, but cpu-z reads them as 2933, I need to check bios)

GPU: NVIDIA RTX 2060 90W - 6GB

Storage Type: Intel 660p 1 TB

Benchmark A: 1:10

Benchmark B: 8:09

Benchmark C: 7:24

 

I tried to check my cpu usage during the tests, in A and B utilization was usually around 25-35% with some spikes to 50+%, in C the cpu used 100% most the time during the transfer window, with a sustained speed of 4.3Ghz on all cores. The fastest I saw was 4.5Ghz, temps were quite good as I saw 65C after finishing the test, also, I used the under voltage option in bios (-80mv). 

Great stuff,  really good results.  It might be time to split the laptops and desktops in the comparison charts

In terms of CPU usage it just shows that full detail is required to really test those cores to the max

Interesting that you under-volted it too, if you can keep the stability it can make a hell of a difference to temps.  65c is brilliant for a laptop

We just need one of these fabled 4th gen mobile Ryzens as a comparison.  

Edited June 19, 2020 by Brother Ben

[Brother Ben]

Massive update on Post 2 with results now grouped by Type.  

The online Spreadsheet also has tabs so you can fiddle about yourself.

I've mentioned it before but if anyone has the skills and fancies knocking up a snazzy bar chart or something like that i'd be extremely grateful !

 

@Lenzar Have you managed to do Test 3 yet?  Also could I get your GPU Model and whether you are using SSD or HDD please.  Just updating the spreadsheet.  Thanks

Edited June 19, 2020 by Brother Ben

[AlWakRa]

8 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Great stuff,  really good results.  It might be time to split the laptops and desktops in the comparison charts

In terms of CPU usage it just shows that full detail is required to really test those cores to the max

Interesting that you under-volted it too, if you can keep the stability it can make a hell of a difference to temps.  65c is brilliant for a laptop

We just need one of these fabled 4th gen mobile Ryzens as a comparison.  

 

Those Ryzens are monsters, I tried to convince myself to get a Ryzen 9 4900HS based laptop, they were cheaper than the one I got, but the screen was the deal breaker for me, nothing with good color coverage for photo editing, but their power are no joke for video editing and productivity, looks like they aren't treated with much love from laptop manufacturers, or maybe it is early days and in the future there will be better options. 

 

As for undervolting, I was reading the available reviews for my laptop while waiting and one of them suggests undervolting to makes the processor sustain over 4.0Ghz on all core for longer time, which proved to be 4.3 in my case on all cores, without doing it, it can jump to higher clocks for a moment but it will heat up quicker and throttle down, if I have time, I may try without undervolting, as my temps weren't very high, to see if there is any difference, but usually a 5.0 Ghz turbo speed doesn't mean all cores can reach it, if I know which cores are capable of that, I can assign them to fm2020 and see how it fares, but this is taking it a bit far with thinking and tinkering  which I don't want to spend time on, at least if I can turbo with higher speeds for long time, it will benefit other tasks.

 

Anyway, I am happy with my purchase in general, as I can work on all tasks more efficiently, in fm case, where I spent only brief time, it didn't lag or stutter like before, it is more smoother experience.

[shai82]

Type: Desktop

CPU Model: i5 - 4670  / Q2'13  / 6 MB Cache / 4 cores / 4 cores-4 threads

CPU Base Frequency: 3.4 GHz

CPU Turbo Frequency: 3.6 GHz

RAM: 8GB

RAM Clockspeed: 1333Mhz

GPU:  integrated - intel HD 4600

Storage Type: SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 54 Sec

Benchmark B: 28 min 1 Sec

Benchmark C: 29 min 10 Sec

[Brother Ben]

Ive got into an interesting debate with somebody on Facebook who claims that Stadia is the fastest way to play Football Manager and that it has been confirmed by SI.  To back this up he quotes this article. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eurogamer.net/amp/2019-08-27-google-stadia-the-fastest-way-to-experience-football-manager-2020

So my question is just how good is Stadia and is this bold claim an accurate one?  I have my own suspicions but I’d be interested to hear what others think

 

[FMFutbol]

10 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Ive got into an interesting debate with somebody on Facebook who claims that Stadia is the fastest way to play Football Manager and that it has been confirmed by SI.  To back this up he quotes this article. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.eurogamer.net/amp/2019-08-27-google-stadia-the-fastest-way-to-experience-football-manager-2020

So my question is just how good is Stadia and is this bold claim an accurate one?  I have my own suspicions but I’d be interested to hear what others think

 

I got the stadia free trial but wasn't about to pay full price for FM2020 a second time.

[djinni999]

On 19/06/2020 at 22:18, AlWakRa said:

 

Those Ryzens are monsters, I tried to convince myself to get a Ryzen 9 4900HS based laptop, they were cheaper than the one I got, but the screen was the deal breaker for me, nothing with good color coverage for photo editing, but their power are no joke for video editing and productivity, looks like they aren't treated with much love from laptop manufacturers, or maybe it is early days and in the future there will be better options. 

 

As for undervolting, I was reading the available reviews for my laptop while waiting and one of them suggests undervolting to makes the processor sustain over 4.0Ghz on all core for longer time, which proved to be 4.3 in my case on all cores, without doing it, it can jump to higher clocks for a moment but it will heat up quicker and throttle down, if I have time, I may try without undervolting, as my temps weren't very high, to see if there is any difference, but usually a 5.0 Ghz turbo speed doesn't mean all cores can reach it, if I know which cores are capable of that, I can assign them to fm2020 and see how it fares, but this is taking it a bit far with thinking and tinkering  which I don't want to spend time on, at least if I can turbo with higher speeds for long time, it will benefit other tasks.

 

Anyway, I am happy with my purchase in general, as I can work on all tasks more efficiently, in fm case, where I spent only brief time, it didn't lag or stutter like before, it is more smoother experience.

Regarding undervolting; when you set a certain clock speed, it can appear to be reaching it when you check it through software such as Ryzen Master or HWMonitor. This may be falsely reported by such software. They are being tricked into seeing those clocks when actually they aren't hitting those speeds. The only way to be sure if you are taking a performance hit is a full-load benchmark. 

Basically, you undervolt but keep your clocks as high as you can, thinking you're gaining reduction in temps at no performance cost. The reality is that your CPU will not hit or maintain those clocks when they are required. 

That said, there probably is a sweetspot of voltage/real cpu performance, but finding it may not be as easy.

[AlWakRa]

On 19/06/2020 at 22:18, AlWakRa said:

I may try without undervolting

I tried it, it was slower, did A and C, I made a re-run with current settings as benchmark, did it faster than the original benchmark, 1:08 and 7:04, but no point in trying for the best possible times as these only a benchmark not a drag race, without under-volting, 1:12 and 7:41.

 

3 hours ago, djinni999 said:

Regarding undervolting; when you set a certain clock speed, it can appear to be reaching it when you check it through software such as Ryzen Master or HWMonitor. This may be falsely reported by such software. They are being tricked into seeing those clocks when actually they aren't hitting those speeds. The only way to be sure if you are taking a performance hit is a full-load benchmark. 

Basically, you undervolt but keep your clocks as high as you can, thinking you're gaining reduction in temps at no performance cost. The reality is that your CPU will not hit or maintain those clocks when they are required. 

That said, there probably is a sweetspot of voltage/real cpu performance, but finding it may not be as easy.

Thanks for the insight, I was very suspicion of these speed reporting, as I used asus integrated app and task manager, and they report different speeds, anyway, my understanding on the matter, the chip performance can vary, and not all chip produced equally, there is some margins to consider when they do the default setup, they consider the variation and go for something safe for all chips, it is the same logic to overclocking, not all chip able to reach same speed with same setup. And you are right, to get the sweetspot of performance takes time and lot of stress tests to make sure everything is stable. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by AlWakRa

[shai82]

hope its ok to ask here, can someone recommend me for a new CPU?

i only play FM but i want it to be fast enough with 20 +- leagues.

i thinking about one of those CPU's:

Intel Core i5 10600K

Intel Core i5 10600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600K

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

 

thanks

[djinni999]

4 hours ago, AlWakRa said:

I tried it, it was slower, did A and C, I made a re-run with current settings as benchmark, did it faster than the original benchmark, 1:08 and 7:04, but no point in trying for the best possible times as these only a benchmark not a drag race, without under-volting, 1:12 and 7:41.

 

Thanks for the insight, I was very suspicion of these speed reporting, as I used asus integrated app and task manager, and they report different speeds, anyway, my understanding on the matter, the chip performance can vary, and not all chip produced equally, there is some margins to consider when they do the default setup, they consider the variation and go for something safe for all chips, it is the same logic to overclocking, not all chip able to reach same speed with same setup. And you are right, to get the sweetspot of performance takes time and lot of stress tests to make sure everything is stable. 

Yes, exactly. After every tweak, you need to run something like Cinebench CPU stress test. Not only to test stability but to get a score. If your score is lower, it's not optimal. If high temps is a problem, then you sacrifice slight drop in performance. If it isn't you need to find the right max Voltage that gives you as good a score as stock. This is just for undervolting to reduce temps. Overclocking is a different matter but similar in methodology. Don't rely on clock speeds being reported in software, only bernchmark results, not even FM benchmarks, as it may not put a full load on the CPU continuously.

Also, don't use two hardware monitors at the same time. They will interfere with eachother. And with most monitors you have an 'observer's effect'; while monitoring the software is stimulating your CPU and skewing the results. Use Ryzen Master for temps and CPU clocks, etc to get the most precise measurements.

Edited June 21, 2020 by djinni999

[djinni999]

4 minutes ago, shai82 said:

hope its ok to ask here, can someone recommend me for a new CPU?

i only play FM but i want it to be fast enough with 20 +- leagues.

i thinking about one of those CPU's:

Intel Core i5 10600K

Intel Core i5 10600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600K

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

 

thanks

do you need many cores for other workloads? Is it mostly gaming you're interested in?

[shai82]

50 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

do you need many cores for other workloads? Is it mostly gaming you're interested in?

no, just simple work and FM.

[Brother Ben]

1 hour ago, shai82 said:

hope its ok to ask here, can someone recommend me for a new CPU?

i only play FM but i want it to be fast enough with 20 +- leagues.

i thinking about one of those CPU's:

Intel Core i5 10600K

Intel Core i5 10600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600K

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

 

thanks

For FM it's the Intel Core i5 10600K, it'll blitz 20+ leagues

If you need any more advice whether you're looking to build your own or buy pre made you can ask here

 

[Bigpole]

3 hours ago, shai82 said:

hope its ok to ask here, can someone recommend me for a new CPU?

i only play FM but i want it to be fast enough with 20 +- leagues.

i thinking about one of those CPU's:

Intel Core i5 10600K

Intel Core i5 10600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600

AMD Ryzen 5 3600K

AMD Ryzen 7 3700X

 

thanks

I think right now 10600k would be the best but I think multi-core and multi-threaded will be better 'used' that's why 3700x might be better 'for the future'. Like, check 3rd tests and results.

[Brother Ben]

16 minutes ago, Bigpole said:

I think right now 10600k would be the best but I think multi-core and multi-threaded will be better 'used' that's why 3700x might be better 'for the future'. Like, check 3rd tests and results.

Test 3 has more than 20 leagues running in full detail and unless he plans to do this, which 99% of people won't (you're better off using that processing power for more active leagues) then it's hard to recommend Ryzen at all purely for FM.  I agree that for the future it may well be a better choice but there's no getting around the fact that in basic terms clock speed is king on FM and unless AMD can address that then the typical user, represented here by benchmark A, is better off with Intel

Big fan of your Polish database by the way, played the FM19 version a fair bit 

[djinni999]

13 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Test 3 has more than 20 leagues running in full detail and unless he plans to do this, which 99% of people won't (you're better off using that processing power for more active leagues) then it's hard to recommend Ryzen at all purely for FM.  I agree that for the future it may well be a better choice but there's no getting around the fact that in basic terms clock speed is king on FM and unless AMD can address that then the typical user, represented here by benchmark A, is better off with Intel

Big fan of your Polish database by the way, played the FM19 version a fair bit 

Yes, that makes sense. BUT, when you factor in costs, CPU+MB, and upgradability, then I don't think 10600K is that great an idea. I'd consider 8700K or 9700K used, if you want intel and a short-term build. If not, an Intel build makes zero sense unless you like throwing money around.

[Brother Ben]

40 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

Yes, that makes sense. BUT, when you factor in costs, CPU+MB, and upgradability, then I don't think 10600K is that great an idea. I'd consider 8700K or 9700K used, if you want intel and a short-term build. If not, an Intel build makes zero sense unless you like throwing money around.

True but I wasn't basing on cost or upgradability.  Of course Ryzen is the better processor on almost every metric you can think of.  Just not the typical FM set up.  That's why I always ask what someone plans to do with their PC if i'm recommending processors. 

You're probably correct about 8th or 9th gen cpu's used.  Trouble is not a lot of people want used gear.

Maybe i'm biased.  I just don't have any software that would even come close to needing all the cores Ryzen has to offer.  My most demanding piece of software is FM. As soon as AMD can reliably hit 5 GHz i'll make the switch.  I'm skint though so that's by the by 

[shai82]

2 hours ago, djinni999 said:

Yes, that makes sense. BUT, when you factor in costs, CPU+MB, and upgradability, then I don't think 10600K is that great an idea. I'd consider 8700K or 9700K used, if you want intel and a short-term build. If not, an Intel build makes zero sense unless you like throwing money around.

so you recommend AMD for the long term? id dont want used or previous gen. 

maybe i will wait for zen 3.

thanks.

[djinni999]

43 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

True but I wasn't basing on cost or upgradability.  Of course Ryzen is the better processor on almost every metric you can think of.  Just not the typical FM set up.  That's why I always ask what someone plans to do with their PC if i'm recommending processors. 

You're probably correct about 8th or 9th gen cpu's used.  Trouble is not a lot of people want used gear.

Maybe i'm biased.  I just don't have any software that would even come close to needing all the cores Ryzen has to offer.  My most demanding piece of software is FM. As soon as AMD can reliably hit 5 GHz i'll make the switch.  I'm skint though so that's by the by 

It's not a bias, it's being reasonable. If you're only going to game + internet, etc. Is there a single reason to get a 3900X? Even a 3700X is overkill. That's where the 3300X comes in, it is essentially a proper gaming CPU that is super-competitive in pricing, no bloat in terms of idle cores.

My present AMD lean has less to do with AMD or Ryzen than with the AM4 socket. Intel has an excellent reputation for changing the socket for no reason at all; with pathetic performance improvements over generations. My X570 board will support 3rd Gen and very probably 4th gen, and possibly 5th gen. If one gets a 10600K now, they will be stuck with it  unless they are willing to spend significantly more for a possible hypothetical future flagship CPU that is only 10-15% or so better in (gaming) performance (the 10900K, even, is not even 10% better in single-thread). Otherwise, they'll almost certainly face a motherboard upgrade as well.

Two years ago, especially with an upgrade as opposed to full rebuild, the 8700K and 9700K would have been no brainers. They're still not cheap today second-hand, I can't imagine what they cost back then. BUT you would have gotten what you paid for, with no better alternatives that were reasonably priced. In hindsight, I'm lucky I didn't upgrade back then, as I would have been stuck with those CPUs and having invested so much in that dead-end system. My trusty i2500K (stock) got me by just fine. 

[djinni999]

4 minutes ago, shai82 said:

so you recommend AMD for the long term? id dont want used or previous gen. 

maybe i will wait for zen 3.

thanks.

No one can see the future and there are no guarantees. But, comparing Intel and AMD's past track records of recent times, AMD is doing much better. They are delivering on their promises. The 3rd Gen Ryzens are going to be pretty good. My 3300X is a transitional CPU between 2nd and 3rd gen, it's not like the other Ryzens. 4th Gen, which probably will be supported on B550 and X570 boards (though no guarantees) should be a significant upgrade over a typical Ryzen today (2600, 3600, etc.).

Honestly, if you don't want to spend that much unnecessarily and minimize future-proofing risk, then just get the 3300X for $120 now. Get a B450 board that is bargain-priced but perfectly fine in terms of features and performance. I hear MSI Mortar and Tomahawk get recommended a lot for budget builds. If there is a socket change for 4th gen Ryzen, you won't have invested as much into a X570 high-end board like I did. If you're willing to spend more and intend on overclocking a future 3rd gen CPU, then yeah a mid to high-end X570 or B550 will be needed. 

If you're willing to wait for 3rd Gen Ryzens to hit the stores, then that is very reasonable. If you find that a particular CPU is reasonably priced and offers a noticeable increase in performance, then get that. If not, you can always fall back to the 3300X, which will have become even cheaper by then. 

[Brother Ben]

17 minutes ago, shai82 said:

so you recommend AMD for the long term? id dont want used or previous gen. 

maybe i will wait for zen 3.

thanks.

Depends on use case, see the discussion above. There are pros and cons to both.

If you want the absolute best performance for FM then it’s gotta be Intel, the stats on the first page bear this out but it will come at a cost and upgradability as mentioned.

that said my 6 year old i5 is still performing admirably and makes short work of 20+ leagues

 

[djinni999]

7 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Depends on use case, see the discussion above. There are pros and cons to both.

If you want the absolute best performance for FM then it’s gotta be Intel, the stats on the first page bear this out but it will come at a cost and upgradability as mentioned.

that said my 6 year old i5 is still performing admirably and makes short work of 20+ leagues

 

The fastest Test A score is 0:53 seconds for non-overclocked. My 3300X does 1:08. That is a 28% improvement. The cost differential is 300%, ie. 4 times the price. Maybe, this will help put things into perspective. 

[Brother Ben]

@djinni999

I like the Look of the Ryzen 3 3200G, it’s just £75 and I’ve got a mate on an insanely tight budget who wants a desktop for FM and I’m looking for a reason not to build this for him

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/dmGsNq

he only wants new parts and will probably only run 5 nations maximum

I think it’s a pretty sweet deal, what do you recon?

[Brother Ben]

6 minutes ago, djinni999 said:

The fastest Test A score is 0:53 seconds for non-overclocked. My 3300X does 1:08. That is a 28% improvement. The cost differential is 300%, ie. 4 times the price. Maybe, this will help put things into perspective. 

Well when you put it like that 

this is why it would be great to have a price/performance comparison of results

[djinni999]

17 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

@djinni999

I like the Look of the Ryzen 3 3200G, it’s just £75 and I’ve got a mate on an insanely tight budget who wants a desktop for FM and I’m looking for a reason not to build this for him

https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/dmGsNq

he only wants new parts and will probably only run 5 nations maximum

I think it’s a pretty sweet deal, what do you recon?

The G is APU, so he won't need a GPU, which he really doesn't for FM anyway, so yeah, that's a very good choice. But how much is the 3300X? 120 quid? Plus a GPU, so if it's purely FM and nothing else for years, then yeah go with that. I don't know the ST performance of that CPU though, so it may or may not be a sweetspot. let me check

EDIT: 3300X is 21% faster for single-thread. So it may be worth it to shell out slightly more. Plus, 3300X will benefit fully from RAM OC/tweaking, which no other Ryzen will. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by djinni999