Are newer processors actually better?

[Axeface]

So, I just upgraded my computer at great expense (for me) from a 3570k (oc'ed to 4.2ghz that I've had for almost a decade) with DDR3 866 ram, to a Ryzen 3600 with DDR4 3000 pretty much specifically for X4 - this game is one of the main reasons I wanted to. To my absolute amazement my performance is about the same.

I understand that the Ryzen is a 4.2ghz processor too, but I was under the impression that more threads and cores plus its decade newer technology would give me a huge amount of gains for this game. Seems not. Are newer processors actually better than older ones, or is it all marketing BS? Is it all just about raw ghz?

[Ronald Sandoval]

well they use a lot less power which saves you money so better in that way

[CBJ]

With X4, you will get diminishing returns from throwing more cores at the game. It uses 2 cores very intensively, and several more cores somewhat less so. So once you have enough cores to do the additional tasks comfortably, having a processor that can run those two key threads as fast as possible will usually gain you more than adding more cores.

As a general rule, newer processors with a similar clock speed may well perform somewhat better than their older counterparts due to other optimisations in the architecture, but how effective that is depends on many factors and isn't easy to pin down for a given application until you try it.

[Axeface]

I see, thanks. Well i'm obviously getting some more fps in some situations but the high ends of fps are not really relevant as anything above 60 is just superfluous for me (I always cap or vsync if i can), and anything above about 130 is worthlessly wasting power. The low end dips of fps remain pretty much the same, the same spots where I got low fps before I still get pretty much the same low fps. So i've gained fps where it doesnt matter (as I had 60 fps on the 3570k anyway) and gained none where it does.

Im currently checking my whole new setup for issues. I hadnt installed chipset drivers which i've now done, and i'll do some more testing.

I did think the massive RAM upgrade would make a difference too though.

[red assassin]

The effective instructions per clock on your Ryzen is about 20% higher than on your old i5, which is measurable but not likely to melt your face off, as it were. You have an extra two cores plus hyperthreading, so on a highly parallelized workload the new CPU is up to twice the total throughput of your old one. However, as CBJ says, most games are not that highly parallelized at this point. We haven't had significant gains in single threaded speed since we hit the 4GHz-ish cap - it's more of an iterative process squeezing slightly higher IPC numbers - so the trend for CPUs and workloads is more parallel, but it takes time to get there and threaded programming is hard.

I only upgraded off my old 3570k when I wanted more RAM and it was more cost effective to buy a Ryzen setup than more archaic RAM, and it is nice for a few things like large compile jobs, but in general I don't really notice it.

[jlehtone]

with DDR3 866 ram

Typo? Intel lists 1333/1600 for 3570K and wikipedia 1866.

A question is: where is the actual bottleneck during the lows?


There are (relatively) recently discovered vulnerabilities (mainly in Intel, but also AMD) CPU's. Closing them eats some performance. That might be a part why Ryzen's IPC is only 20% better than 3570K.

[Gavrushka]

I've come across the ridiculous scenario of people with graphic cards costing more than my rig, yet having far poorer performance in X4 than me. -I've an 8th generation I7, twinned with a GTX 1050Ti, and the bottleneck only becomes the GPU (marginally) if I use 'Ultra' settings. (Of course, AA kills my game in any setting.)

I will soon gift my rig to a family member (mum, aged 82 who loves FPSs such as Doom) and will buy an I9 with a better graphics card. - It'll be the second most expensive computer I've bought. - The most expensive was an AST (Ad?)Vantage Pentium 166, 16MB with 2.5GB Hard disc which was around £2,400 back in 1996/97(ish).*


*I did have a Sharp MZ80K costing £400 back in the late 70s, so not sure if *inflation* makes that the more costly. - I doubt it.

[Vertigo 7]

Honestly, at this point, it's getting to where the chipset in use is more important than a specific CPU. The latest models all but eliminate bottlenecks between RAM, storage, PCI Express and the CPU. 10GB ethernet is also starting to creep its way into the home network picture. Combine all of that with the advantages of Thunderbolt and you will not rub up against much that can tax your system.