![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#1 | |||||||
Captain
![]() |
![]()
As I mentioned in the thread about the monitor, I found a video card that was -moderately- affordable. (Not really, but it was better than they were.)
Also as I posted here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=232683 in the thread about new PC options, in March of this year the RX580 was ~$500. ![]() Found a XFX RX 580 for ~$370, so I decided to get it now since the last time I waited they were all out of stock for months, AND doubled in price. ![]() Had to go to 2 locations to find 1 (the last one), but now I have it! All I need now is the rest of the over-priced parts and I'll have a new PC! ![]() Short Version: Only in benchmarks that put most of the load on the GPU did the newer card really make a difference. I've read a few places that the RX 580 and RX Vega at 1920x1080 are "CPU Limited". EDIT: Or maybe not? I finally found the console command to increase the FPS cap on Source Engine games... added below. ON TO THE BENCH MARKS! First the stuff that didn't change: AMD FX8350 8-core 4.0ghz (4.2 turbo, does this actually work?) Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 (insert sarcasm here.) 32GB Corsair DDR3 (I forget the specs) OS: Fedora 28 (Linux, not a hat ![]() The 2 video cards are: Gigabyte Radeon R9 380 2GB Link to specs: https://www.gigabyte.com/Graphics-Ca...D-rev-10-11#sp XFX Radeon RX 580 8GB Link to specs: http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/produc...d-rx-580p8dbdr I'll post the #s by the benchmark. All benchmarks were run with the CPU governor set to "Performance". Based on what I've read, Performance runs at the max stock clock speed, any "throttling" is done by the hardware. But, I could be wrong. Either way, "Performance" sounds good. ![]() ----- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Most of the games that I have will never touch the RX 580's limits, leaving the CPU the bottleneck for now. If I go with a 4k monitor, then the situation might change. Barracuda P.S. Please let me know if the Quote boxes make this easier, or harder to understand. Last edited by BarracudaUAK; 06-07-18 at 06:15 PM. Reason: Formatting is all over the place! |
|||||||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Eternal Patrol
![]() |
![]()
Cool stuff.
I finally have the PC I've always wanted, and it doesn't come close to yours. AMD Ryzen 5 1400 4-Core 3.2 Ghz 8 Ghz RAM Radeon RX 560 Like you, I don't see myself ever having a game that will tax that. I only mention it at all because I seem to have made one mistake. I've compared Windows 10 and 8.1 in the past, and a couple of the programs I use prefer 8.1, to the point of not working well with 10 at all. I had the option to downgrade to 8.1, but after doing so I discovered that MS seems to have made a deal with both Intel and AMD, so that none of the newest processors work with anything other than Win 10. It's frustrating to realize that I could have had an older Athlon processor that cost less, would still be more than I needed, and would work with 8.1. My main reason for posting is to make sure everybody knows about that little problem.
__________________
“Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Captain
![]() |
![]() Quote:
Actually yours is pretty close! In several ways, better. EDIT: Short version, your Ryzen is excellent. I did a quick search for the Ryzen 1400, and grabbed the specs from AMD's website. architecture AMD Ryzen™ 5 1400 # of CPU Cores: 4 # of Threads: 8 Base Clock: 3.2GHz Max Boost Clock: 3.4GHz CMOS: 14nm Package: AM4 PCI Express Version: PCIe 3.0 x16 Compared to my FX 8350: # of CPU Cores : 8 # of Threads: 8 Base Clock: 4.0GHz Max Boost Clock: 4.2GHz CMOS: 32nm Package: AM3+ PCI Express Version: PCIe 2.0 x16 The FX 8350 doesn't "HyperThread", so I only have 8 threads. The Ryzens, based on all I've read, for the same clock speed have 40% more IPC (Instructions per clock/instructions per cycle). So if your Ryzen was a FX cpu, it would be roughly equivalent to a 4.48ghz (bases on some quick math, 3.2 X 1.4 = 4.48) in IPC. Your CPU is less than half the architectural size of mine = Less heat. PCIe 3.0 is TWICE AS FAST. (GiB/s = Gigabytes per Second.) PCIe 2.0 is ~8GiB/sec max. on a x16 slot. PCIe 3.0 is ~16 GiB/sec max on a x16 slot. Meaning IF, for example, you were to run Crossfire with 2 cards. Both would be at x8. Your board could "feed" each card data at 8GiB/sec. You can feed both cards as fast as I can feed 1. I seriously considered a RX560, but I couldn't find any #s on the same games or benchmarks like Unigine Heaven/Valley/Superposition. The driver disk that came with my RX 580 doesn't include Drivers for Win 8/8.1. The box shows supported Operating Systems as: "Linux, Windows 10, and Windows 7". To me, Windows 8 has always seemed to be like Vista. A modification to a design that people liked, with serious "structural issues". Vista driver situation (compared to XP) was similar to Win 8/8.1 is (compared to Win7). I don't see Win 8 drivers on the AMD website for the RX Series! ![]() Also, you are using DDR4, Mine uses DDR3. Faster there too! Given the current prices, I would most likely have gone with 8-16GB RAM (depending on the Motherboard). Keep in mind I built my system over 9 months, first gathering core parts on one trip. Then case, fans, etc. the next time (mini road trips! kinda). Then finally ran across a sale at a local store got PSU, R7 370X, and a part that I'm forgetting to get running. This took a few months. A few months later I got the 2nd R7, and a few months after that, got the last 2 HDD for the RAID. Just before the RX 480's launch I was out of town again, and the store I had bought most the core parts at, had the R9 380 and the R9 Fury on sale. The R9 380 was ~$150, and the R9 Fury (Fiji core, HBM ram) was ~$200. I got the 380s, still kinda wish I had gotten the Fury, it was out running the VEGA in games/benchmarks for several months! Might not have needed to get the RX580!!! I'm sure with some careful, slow deliberate (read: on sale) parts collection, your Ryzen will be a total monster in a short time. Barracuda Last edited by BarracudaUAK; 05-23-18 at 12:48 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Captain
![]() |
![]()
I did a quick test with Kerbal Space Program.
Although I'm still looking for the option/setting to show the fps (I know I saw it in there somewhere) I turned all graphical options to the max. Only when approaching "mach 1" and the aerodynamic effects start to show did it have trouble. I turned those one notch lower than full, and all was well. Occasionally, when making rapid (that is, really dumb) moves (if your not "testing"), it would stutter. I dropped the AA down 1 notch as well, as this is the quickest frame rate boost in most games, and I can do pretty much anything I want with a smooth frame rate. Even flipped it over and landed it, mostly. ![]() Control-able all the way down. This is on a rocket/ship with 409 parts. As soon as I find the FPS counter/graph, I'll update with ACTUAL fps #s. Edit: Most odd combo here. New video card, yet monitor is having trouble. ![]() Priorities! ![]() Edit #2: I put my signature on this one twice! Must be getting old. Barracuda Last edited by BarracudaUAK; 05-26-18 at 05:18 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|