- This topic has 5 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated Jul 9, 2023 9:38pm by
.
-
Posts
-
AMD’s 3D v-cache benefits some situations much more than others. How well does 3D v-cache on an AMD CPU benefit vorpx? Better than an Intel 13900? I doubt anyone has tested to see how well 3d v-cache works with vorpx, but maybe i’ll get some good insight…
VorpX dont have fundamental limits in the CPU.
If you activate G3D, you need massive GPU performance, but not CPU.AMD’s 3D v-cache benefits some situations much more than others. How well does 3D v-cache on an AMD CPU benefit vorpx? Better than an Intel 13900? I doubt anyone has tested to see how well 3d v-cache works with vorpx, but maybe i’ll get some good insight…
Yeah, as Frank already stated, additional CPU L3 cache isn’t really going to give you much in the way of a performance hit here, some games might fair better but they are not Vorpx specific.
The replies seem to heavily conflict with Ralf’s reply in this thread:
“CPU performance is also affected since for one vorpX has to do more work and also many calls to the DiretX API are doubled, which can be quite costly CPU wise. High single thread performance is what’s most important here. If it doesn’t blow your budget, I would recommend to go for a quad core i7. High single thread performance combined with the i7’s HyperThreading for 8 virtual threads is probably the best you can get for vorpX (and gaming in general).” – Ralf
Comments I read online indicate VR performance is boosted by having lots of v-cache (X3D CPUs) at least in regards to reducing frame rate drops. Perhaps this is applicable to VorpX. Here is some commentary on the matter:
5800x3D vs 5900x in VR
by u/Fotznbenutzernaml in virtualrealityX3D CPUs being faster in games compared to their X siblings doesn’t conflict at all with the notion that single core performance is most important for games. Quite the opposite actually.
In games almost always one thread limits performance CPU wise. That’s just how games work. You always have a main thread that puts it all together plus a varying number of support threads, each with its own very different task. E.g. physics, game logic, input, sound, various graphics related tasks etc. The task (thread) that takes the most time per frame determines how fast the game runs in the end. Hence single core performance is still king even for heavily multithreaded games.
The X3D CPUs are faster in games because despite their lower max. clock speeds their extra large cache speeds things up when the CPU has to access the same data in memory repeatedly. Apparently that happens a lot in many games, thus (gaming) performance per thread/core often is better than on their siblings with less cache. The more repeatedly accessed data a CPU holds in its internal cache the less it has to read from much, much slower RAM. How much faster a game actually gets because of that in the end quite heavily varies though.
Caveat if you do more than just gaming with your PC: not every application benefits from the larger cache. Workloads that depend less on repeated memory access can be considerably slower on X3D CPUs than on their X counterparts due to the lower max. clock speed. E.g. fully parallelized workloads like (CPU) raytracing that utilize all cores and/or do largely number crunching fall into that category. So choose wisely depending on your machine’s main purpose.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.