Hello, maybe someone knows what is better to choose for physics simulation, for example 3-4 characters in a scene with soft physics? I have a choice between 5700x and 5700x3d. I wonder what is better, a higher frequency or a larger cache.
-
Hi Guest!
We have recently posted a VaM2 2024 Progress Update on Patreon!
Check out the details here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/vam2-august-2024-111164439 -
Hi Guest!
We are excited to announce a new feature on the Hub: Favorites!
You can now add resources to your favorites, and organize your favorites into collections! You can check out the details in our official announcement!
Benchmark Result Discussion
- Thread starter MacGruber
- Start date
- Messages
- 697
- Reactions
- Points
- 63
Dude, just take a 5800X3D and you have the fastest you can get for AM4. No more worries.
But if you really wanna get one of the other two, having a look HERE, I'd take the 5700X non X3D cause better singlescore. But if this really translates to better performance in VaM, and having the 5700X3D as the only alternative, I dont know which one to pick really. I'd take a 5800X3D. Which is losing as well against a 5700X in singlescore
5700X is a little beast actually.
But if you really wanna get one of the other two, having a look HERE, I'd take the 5700X non X3D cause better singlescore. But if this really translates to better performance in VaM, and having the 5700X3D as the only alternative, I dont know which one to pick really. I'd take a 5800X3D. Which is losing as well against a 5700X in singlescore
5700X is a little beast actually.
thanks for the advice, but if I had the finances to buy 5800x3d and cooling for it, I would switch to a new platformDude, just take a 5800X3D and you have the fastest you can get for AM4. No more worries.
But if you really wanna get one of the other two, having a look HERE, I'd take the 5700X non X3D cause better singlescore. But if this really translates to better performance in VaM, and having the 5700X3D as the only alternative, I dont know which one to pick really. I'd take a 5800X3D. Which is losing as well against a 5700X in singlescore
5700x3d. Sim games Eat Up cache. youll get way better perf than 5700thanks for the advice, but if I had the finances to buy 5800x3d and cooling for it, I would switch to a new platform
- Messages
- 697
- Reactions
- Points
- 63
Faster than a 13900KS in average, but not really much. Min 1% have a huge improvement though. Thanks for testing!
- Messages
- 136
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
This one was using DDR4. The lower one was with faster RAM.
Benchmark Result Discussion
I want to try it, but I don't know how to configure it for my hardware. Can you help mi with that? I was searching for a tutorial/guide but I think there is none The guide is on the hub page that you get the software.
hub.virtamate.com
With good RAM they seems on tie pretty much overall, with worse physics time on intel
What was you performance patch parameters on this?
- Messages
- 55
- Reactions
- Points
- 8
Thank you!
As I assumed amd did really well on maxing the out of box performance again.
Honestly I really love them for this, but on the other hand it makes most reviews literally useless..
Intel can only be evaluated correctly with custom profiles and faster ram, which they - almost - never use.
May I ask how was the temps and power? Is it managable on air easily, right?
Last edited:
- Messages
- 55
- Reactions
- Points
- 8
I am in the same boat with an ageing 6800 XT. I really want to buy something new n shiny, but I can still push most scenarios to 100ish fps with some extra tweaking.
Tough I may invest to blackwell .. if wont be too overpriced .. probably a bit later after release .. or just try grab a 4090 when folks switching to 5090!
Is this a benchmark with a CPU patch?
- Messages
- 136
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
Ultra 9 285k test.
Testing Platform:
4090, G.Skill 64Gb - 6400Mhz CL 32-39-39-102
Let's start with my 13900k. HT disabled, since it gave the best performance in VaM, and with latest microcodes.
And with CPU patch [affinity=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
It's been a while since i used the benchmark... The results were worse than i had a few months back. Probably cuz of bios and microcodes updates QQ
285k
Same config for RAM, xmp at 6400Mhz.
And with patch [affinity=1,2,10,12,13,11,23,24]
/// EDIT 26.11.2024 //
It seems i messed up one P and E cores.
The correct affinity for 285k is:
affinity=1,2,11,12,13,14,23,24
Which leads me to a slightly low's improvments:
I found some better RAM sticks btw, and waiting for a delivery in a day or two.
// EDIT 26.11.2024 ENDS //
So yeah... As expected, gaming performance is slightly worse on the new platform.
I might get closer to the old system, or even beat it, with faster RAM, but right now, CUDDIM sticks are terribly overpriced and... not really available on the UE market lol
So, does new intel sucks for VaM?
Yeah, probably.
Will it get better?
Maybe. It's brand new platform, and as you can see at my affinity settings for the CPU patch, P-cores are all around on the CPU.
Windows, and, or BIOS, updates might bring some more performance over time.
But, there are also some goodies.
Scripts times seems to be slightly reduced. Which proves the new CPU productivity improvements.
And temperatures.
It's almost 20 Celsius degrees colder now, using the very same cooler solution, at Simpler physics test [the hottest one ].
13900k peak around 82 degrees, while hightest temp i got for 285k was 65 degrees.
Testing Platform:
4090, G.Skill 64Gb - 6400Mhz CL 32-39-39-102
Let's start with my 13900k. HT disabled, since it gave the best performance in VaM, and with latest microcodes.
It's been a while since i used the benchmark... The results were worse than i had a few months back. Probably cuz of bios and microcodes updates QQ
285k
Same config for RAM, xmp at 6400Mhz.
And with patch [affinity=1,2,10,12,13,11,23,24]
/// EDIT 26.11.2024 //
It seems i messed up one P and E cores.
The correct affinity for 285k is:
affinity=1,2,11,12,13,14,23,24
Which leads me to a slightly low's improvments:
I found some better RAM sticks btw, and waiting for a delivery in a day or two.
// EDIT 26.11.2024 ENDS //
So yeah... As expected, gaming performance is slightly worse on the new platform.
I might get closer to the old system, or even beat it, with faster RAM, but right now, CUDDIM sticks are terribly overpriced and... not really available on the UE market lol
So, does new intel sucks for VaM?
Yeah, probably.
Will it get better?
Maybe. It's brand new platform, and as you can see at my affinity settings for the CPU patch, P-cores are all around on the CPU.
Windows, and, or BIOS, updates might bring some more performance over time.
But, there are also some goodies.
Scripts times seems to be slightly reduced. Which proves the new CPU productivity improvements.
And temperatures.
It's almost 20 Celsius degrees colder now, using the very same cooler solution, at Simpler physics test [the hottest one
].13900k peak around 82 degrees, while hightest temp i got for 285k was 65 degrees.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 259
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
Intel said that the new platform will be almost exactly the same performance as the last one, but at up to 50% less power usage. Ryzen 9950x3d might actually beat it once it's released in januaryUltra 9 285k test.
Testing Platform:
4090, G.Skill 64Gb - 6400Mhz CL 32-39-39-102
Let's start with my 13900k. HT disabled, since it gave the best performance in VaM, and with latest microcodes.
And with CPU patch [affinity=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
It's been a while since i used the benchmark... The results were worse than i had a few months back. Probably cuz of bios and microcodes updates QQ
285k
Same config for RAM, xmp at 6400Mhz.
And with patch [affinity=1,2,10,12,13,11,23,24]
So yeah... As expected, gaming performance is slightly worse on the new platform.
I might get closer to the old system, or even beat it, with faster RAM, but right now, CUDDIM sticks are terribly overpriced and... not really available on the UE market lol
So, does new intel sucks for VaM?
Yeah, probably.
Will it get better?
Maybe. It's brand new platform, and as you can see at my affinity settings for the CPU patch, P-cores are all around on the CPU.
Windows, and, or BIOS, updates might bring some more performance over time.
But, there are also some goodies.
Scripts times seems to be slightly reduced. Which proves the new CPU productivity improvements.
And temperatures.
It's almost 20 Celsius degrees colder now, using the very same cooler solution, at Simpler physics test [the hottest one
13900k peak around 82 degrees, while hightest temp i got for 285k was 65 degrees.
- Messages
- 136
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
There is no point for AMD to beat it with 9950 x3d.
285k is right now even slightly slower than 13900k [2 years old Intel CPU], and totally crushed by 7800x3d in games.
There is no point to beat a dead body with a new x3d chips.
In short, 285k would be a great CPU, if it would be released 2 years ago. Now it's outdated as fck.
I'm gonna keep it, cuz i'm Intel fanboy, and performance is pretty much the same as for my last, 13900k, build. But it's a way more 'civilized' to work with in terms of power consumption and temperatures.
So it's like 'quality of life' upgrade. Nothing more.
- Messages
- 55
- Reactions
- Points
- 8
Thank you for showing it!Ultra 9 285k test.
Testing Platform:
4090, G.Skill 64Gb - 6400Mhz CL 32-39-39-102
Let's start with my 13900k. HT disabled, since it gave the best performance in VaM, and with latest microcodes.
And with CPU patch [affinity=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]
It's been a while since i used the benchmark... The results were worse than i had a few months back. Probably cuz of bios and microcodes updates QQ
285k
Same config for RAM, xmp at 6400Mhz.
And with patch [affinity=1,2,10,12,13,11,23,24]
So yeah... As expected, gaming performance is slightly worse on the new platform.
I might get closer to the old system, or even beat it, with faster RAM, but right now, CUDDIM sticks are terribly overpriced and... not really available on the UE market lol
So, does new intel sucks for VaM?
Yeah, probably.
Will it get better?
Maybe. It's brand new platform, and as you can see at my affinity settings for the CPU patch, P-cores are all around on the CPU.
Windows, and, or BIOS, updates might bring some more performance over time.
But, there are also some goodies.
Scripts times seems to be slightly reduced. Which proves the new CPU productivity improvements.
And temperatures.
It's almost 20 Celsius degrees colder now, using the very same cooler solution, at Simpler physics test [the hottest one
13900k peak around 82 degrees, while hightest temp i got for 285k was 65 degrees.
Honestly I think it has indeed got more performance, look at the max fps numbers, they are consistently higher. Altough its obvious there are bottlenecks, hence the lows did not improve..
It is just a different beast again, I think intel somehow went from plug-n-play to need-to-tinker style over the years. Basically switched sides with amd..
If it gets the fastest possible ram and a proper overclock with probably a half year of post release updates its going to show its fangs and claws, I bet. But best case it can shine in subforums and topics such like this. Reviewers wont do the extra miles for it.
- Messages
- 110
- Reactions
- Points
- 28
Are you running the patched (much faster multicore CPU physics) VAM in these runs or just default VAM?
Can you do 2560x1440 benchmark run so I can compare with my own results at 2560x1440?
- Messages
- 697
- Reactions
- Points
- 63
Because we wanna test CPU performance. Therefore you have to minimize the GPU usage.
The VaM benchmark is a mix of CPU and GPU usage, and there's 1440p or 4K results more than enough for testing the GPU, we already know what the 4090 is capable of. But with new processors coming out we have to test them, and that's why.
VaM is special in general as there are many scenes/situations where you are CPU limited anyway, no matter what GPU.
@bbaoni
Most probably your CPU. If you are not running DDR4 3200 CL16 minimum, you could buy new RAM as well. 32GB is enough.
5800X3D should give your system a remarkable boost. That's the fastest you can buy for AM4 platform.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 259
- Reactions
- Points
- 93
increasing resolution doesnt increase CPU load, but rendering same resolution in VR does. In VR unity has to render each frame twice for each eye, making twice the draw calls which cost CPU. So a CPU is kinda important for it to work well in VR.
