AMD or Intel for 3D Vision

[Muojo]

So I am at a crossroads. I can buy a 9900 (non K) for 220 USD 240 with taxes or shell out 167 bucsk more for a 10700k or buy a 3700x. So I always thought Intel CPUs were better for 3D vision cause of our core count bugs but people on these forums are telling me AMD is actually better?!:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel ... 00k-2.html

And they linked these benchmarks:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4 ... s-core-i9/
https://www.gpucheck.com/compare-game-c ... tx-2080-ti

What should I do?

[3DNovice]

Ampere GPUs will be PCI Express 4.0 and will hopefully work with 3D Vision.
SSDs on 4.0 will be quite fast.
Intel does not support 4.0 currently, but will in 2021.With a die shrink, thermals and power to performance ratio will be much better than their top current CPU.
AMD currently supports 4.0.

That's my 2 cents, and all I know on this matter.

[Muojo]

Ampere GPUs will be PCI Express 4.0 and will hopefully work with 3D Vision.
SSDs on 4.0 will be quite fast.
Intel does not support 4.0 currently, but will in 2021.With a die shrink, thermals and power to performance ratio will be much better than their top current CPU.
AMD currently supports 4.0.

That's my 2 cents, and all I know on this matter.

So what you say is to wait for Ryzen 4000 then?

[3DNovice]

Well, I'm not really saying anything, just suggesting that you might want to wait.

Any CPU that you purchase will require a new motherboard,unless your current mobo is capable of supporting the 9900 with a bios update.

[Necropants]

At this stage you most likely want the strongest architecture/ highest core clock speed processor you can find. Due to the driver problems with 3dvision. That means Intel.
Intel has the best gaming performance right now in general I think because of this where games don't utilize alot of cores very well, but this is changing....
It's all well having 16 cores or whatever but worthless to you for 3dvision for the most part.

Personally I think its a bad time to consider an upgrade I would wait to see what the next year brings.

[RAGEdemon]

Zen 3 4000 series desktop at the end of this year. Intel 7nm in 21/22, as well as Zen 4 5000 series. I will personally be waiting till 21/22 and buy the best of intel 7nm/Zen4 5000 with DDR5 support. I appreciate that people can't wait, but indeed now is a bad time to buy.

If I absolutely had to buy today from the above choices for 3DV especially, 10700k which comes clocked to 5.3GHz boost as standard, would win my money.

I don't know who is telling you that AMD is better, but it's not based on fact. Price vs performance? Yes. Performance vs power? Yes. Likeability over intel's unethical shenanigans? Yes. Raw gaming performance, especially for CPU limited 3D Vision? Hell no.

[Necropants]

Yeah and from what I understand the 10700k series motherboards and such do not have PCIEX 4.0, unsure if we have even got too the point of saturating 3.0 but it's another reason to wait if you can.

[drastic00]

I'm using a Ryzen 7 2700x and an Nvidia 1660Ti with Win 10 v2004 running driver 451.67 with 3D Vision (driver install is accomplished via the BringBack3DV tool here:
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=23752 ).
It's been working out quite well for 3DV as well as VR. Since I put this PC together, better cards and CPUs have dropped in price. It'd be nice to improve on this, as VR is surprisingly demanding. I figured if my rig could handle 3DV on max that it'd be even better for VR, but it doesn't work that way. On top of producing two images for 3D, the machine has to handle all of the directional tracking, so it ends up being even more computations being resolved.

[kyanite]

I have a gtx 970 and a ryzen threadripper 3960. I have no problems with 3Dvision. I use the 3dfixmanager to get the 3dvision drivers on current nvidia drivers.

[Necropants]

I think the thrust really lies with what the future holds at this point rather than whats playable now. That's why If you can wait till next year...

[3DNovice]

Intel Rocket Lake-S confirmed with PCI-Express 4.0 support.
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel ... pport.html

Sadly, still no die shrink.

Also the new Ampere CPUs are requiring a 12 pin power connecter.

https://www.techpowerup.com/269957/the- ... mpere-gpus

[ReadingSteiner101]

So what you say is to wait for Ryzen 4000 then?

That's what I'd do, at least.
If you're going to save and buy the best stuff you can get your hands on, it may be worth to wait a couple weeks/months and really buy the latest stuff on the market. This way, you'll be set for a couple years.

[whyme466]

Note that VR’s future is going to be more taxing on your CPU/GPU than 3DV gaming, primarily because of VR’s higher frame rates (really need at least 80 Hz). For example, I find VR gaming with my Vive Pro (same pixels per eye as Index), with 150% resolution scaling, puts a bigger load on my computer (i9-9900X, 32 GB) and 2080Ti, than 3DV gaming on my 4K OLED display. Reverb G2, which still appears to be on schedule for release next month, doubles Vive Pro’s pixels per eye. I can overclock my hybrid-cooled 2080Ti more with 3DV gaming than VR gaming, slightly hindering VR performance, also.

[Obveron]

AMD definitely have the better product at the moment for almost all use-cases. However, if you're solely looking for 3dv performance, considering the 3 core bug, frequency is king. So Intel has a slight edge, particularly if you're comfortable with overclocking.

[bo3bber]

It's also worth noting that for VR experiences in particular, that 90% of them are currently single threaded. So a massively multi-threaded CPU is useless for improving VR. Only go with huge numbers of cores if you have other workloads that can benefit like video processing or software development.

I'm sure there will be objections to my statement about VR being single threaded. 90% of the games built for VR right now are made using either Unity or UE4. Neither of those game engines supports multithreading in the current generation. UE4 has some limited support to improve the drawing, but nothing for the game logic itself. Unity has essentially nothing even for drawing. The game logic needs to run at 90 fps too- to capture your location, where you are looking, physics, and so on. It's single threaded.

There are some notable exceptions where the devs do the extra work to bring genuine multithreading to their gameplay, but the vast majority of UE4 and Unity devs hit the big Build button and let the tool do whatever it does.

Clearly this will change over time, UE4 and Unity both want to have DX12 and Vulkan at highest performance. Your crystal ball may be different than mine. Mine says that for two to three years of use for a new CPU, that IPC will remain king, not cores.


Caveat: I know Unity very well, but have looked only briefly at UE4. Still you can see this on your own system. Run any regular VR experience and look at CPU usage in Task Manager.

[Muojo]

It's also worth noting that for VR experiences in particular, that 90% of them are currently single threaded. So a massively multi-threaded CPU is useless for improving VR. Only go with huge numbers of cores if you have other workloads that can benefit like video processing or software development.

I'm sure there will be objections to my statement about VR being single threaded. 90% of the games built for VR right now are made using either Unity or UE4. Neither of those game engines supports multithreading in the current generation. UE4 has some limited support to improve the drawing, but nothing for the game logic itself. Unity has essentially nothing even for drawing. The game logic needs to run at 90 fps too- to capture your location, where you are looking, physics, and so on. It's single threaded.

There are some notable exceptions where the devs do the extra work to bring genuine multithreading to their gameplay, but the vast majority of UE4 and Unity devs hit the big Build button and let the tool do whatever it does.

Clearly this will change over time, UE4 and Unity both want to have DX12 and Vulkan at highest performance. Your crystal ball may be different than mine. Mine says that for two to three years of use for a new CPU, that IPC will remain king, not cores.


Caveat: I know Unity very well, but have looked only briefly at UE4. Still you can see this on your own system. Run any regular VR experience and look at CPU usage in Task Manager.

So go for Intel then? Or would the 4000 series have better single core performance?

[Necropants]

Seriously wait.... Until next year if you can. Amd are about to announce there next gen of CPU's too.

[neovad]

Zen 3 4000 series desktop at the end of this year. Intel 7nm in 21/22, as well as Zen 4 5000 series. I will personally be waiting till 21/22 and buy the best of intel 7nm/Zen4 5000 with DDR5 support. I appreciate that people can't wait, but indeed now is a bad time to buy.

If I absolutely had to buy today from the above choices for 3DV especially, 10700k which comes clocked to 5.3GHz boost as standard, would win my money.

I don't know who is telling you that AMD is better, but it's not based on fact. Price vs performance? Yes. Performance vs power? Yes. Likeability over intel's unethical shenanigans? Yes. Raw gaming performance, especially for CPU limited 3D Vision? Hell no.

Is 3DMigoto loads only one CPU core especially in shaderhacking with inverse matrix and decals fixing ? Can somebody from top shaderhackers (Flugan, DSS, bo3b (known here as bo3bber)) who worked with codes of 3DMigoto wrapper clarify this ?

So there are two variables of CPU power in 3DV: architecture and core frequence. We should test the same game in same FPS mesurement programm with same GPU (better from top segment) with different CPUs. I have XEON 1230 v2 + RTX 2070 for tests now. The game for testing should be use low visual settings to avoid GPU limitation and use decals and inverse matrix fixing in 3DMigoto and it better to have internal benchmark too - Metro Exodus for example with low settings

[3DNovice]

Seriously wait.... Until next year if you can. Amd are about to announce there next gen of CPU's too.

Yes, if you want Intel, wait until next year for a die shrink and PCIe 4.0 support finally.
Plus new motherboard chipset.
https://www.techpowerup.com/276046/inte ... nuary-11th

Unfortunately, it looks like ddr5 will not be seen available for desktops until 2022.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16142/dd ... m-sk-hynix
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16289/te ... 00-in-2021

[3DNovice]

Intel officially announced their Rocket Lake GPU at CES 2021 and will finally support PCIe 4.0, but no die shrink, it's still 14nm
and using the LGA 1200 socket, so it will be backward compatible with 400-series motherboards.

https://wccftech.com/intel-rocket-lake- ... -ces-2021/

There are new motherboards, with new chipsets to support these new Rocket Lake GPUs to their fullest

https://wccftech.com/intel-z590-motherb ... -gigabyte/

[RAGEdemon]

DDR5 8400MHz dropping second half of this year:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/ADATA-to- ... 894.0.html

New AMD CPUs with shrunk IO die, PCIe4, and DDR5 support also ought to be dropping early next year (1.5 year cadence after 5000 series), assuming no delays.

It would be foolhardy to /not/ wait for these platforms.

Some significant performance advancements almost within reach... hopefully they will stimulate the CPU market out of the crevice it has been stuck in for the last decade...