Help needed with cpu

[Aribeth-arygos (Aribeth)]

Better yet, find another source aside from the one guy you’ve repeatedly posted that finds similar results if you’re really going to make the claim that the 3600 runs circles around a properly overclocked 9600k.

Feel free to provide counter/alternative data. I haven’t seen any from any of you.

The timestamp in the second video leads to gryphon benchmarks initially, btw. There are a few graphs with gameplay benchmarks afterwards, but there is nothing about the 3600 in that video.

The 1st video is a 3600X video, the 2nd has the 8700K data.

nobody has time for that
…
If you’d like to actually post some gameplay comparisons between the 3600 and a 5GHz 9600k
…
gryphon benchmarks, which are hilariously useless

Data’s already been provided and now the goalpost is repeatedly being moved.

Charts, videos, text and benchmarks have been provided. When you don’t like the data you ask for a different reviewer and want to see different scenes (which has already been linked in videos you don’t want to watch). There’s preview mode for the video to view which scenes you want to watch btw.

Feel free to post your data if you don’t agree with what’s posted.

[Kagthul-bleeding-hollow (Kagthul)]

Feel free to post your data if you don’t agree with what’s posted.

No. You keep trying to put off YOUR responsibility to provide accurate data to back up your absolutely, 100%, grade-A bull-dung assertions on every one else.

The SINGLE source you’ve provided:

A - doesn’t show what you say it does
B - doesn’t even discuss the 3000 series in two instances
C - is using effing GRYPHON RUNS.
D - is from a guy who has ZERO reputation and whose conclusions ARE. NOT. MATCHED. BY. ANY. REPUTABLE. SOURCE. Not a single one.

You might as well say “Bill F from the backwoods of Kentucky whose qualifications and testing methodology are entirely unknown says “THING-Y”.”

Uhh… good for Bill F from the backwoods. No one cares what he has to say, he’s literally nobody.

YOU are the one making BS claims.

YOU back them up with reputable proof, or continue to be belittled and called out for being an ignorant, willful shill and troll.

Because. You. Are.

Also, goalpost teleportation champ complaining someone else is moving goalposts. The irony is massive.

There was no goalpost moved. We all assumed (i guess that shows us) that when we asked for proof, the “from a reputable source” was kinda… you know… included. Like… by default.

So when you didnt provide a reputable source, we had to state the obvious.

Edit: and while we’re at it, lets talk about the near-impossibility of providing another source, because no one effing benchmarks WoW because you CANNOT get reliable results. You can do 100% the same thing, every time, and get wildly varying results. Like, i’d love to show you results from Toms, LTT, GN, BitWit, Jayz, or, well, anyone…

But they wont benchmark it because its an absolute garbage fire and cannot be reliably tested with real testing methodology.

[Aribeth-arygos (Aribeth)]

Like, i’d love to show you results from Toms, LTT, GN, BitWit, Jayz, or, well, anyone…

Then feel free to show them. I’ve shown you data and you’re unhappy with it. Show proof to back up your BS claims. Oh wait… you have no proof.

no one effing benchmarks WoW because you CANNOT get reliable results.

Hence the static griffin ride baseline you trolls keep crying about.

You keep trying to put off YOUR responsibility to provide accurate data to back up your absolutely

I keep providing links and you keep providing nothing.

Here’s how one knows you didn’t read or watch any evidence posted:

B - doesn’t even discuss the 3000 series in two instances
…
C - is using effing GRYPHON RUNS.

It’s a Ryzen 3600X benchmark video that has griffin runs, 5 man waycrest and uldir raid.

[Kodiack-barthilas (Kodiack)]

@Aribeth-arygos

From Kodiack on his 9900K, unless you think he’s not a reliable source. HT can possibly provide a benefit. Quick and dirty but we’d def need more tests for consistency and stats.

Here’s some results with HT across more configurations:

[Album] imgur.com

This was again run with the same settings, and again run with addons all disabled. WoW scales nicely up to 4 cores in this scenario, at which point it quickly hits a wall. Anything beyond that is minor fluctuation/margin-of-error. Hyper-threading provides a healthy ~15-25% improvement when running only one or two cores, but does practically nothing with 4+ cores.

Do also note that these results are not at all directly comparable with my old ones. Always take benchmarks in populated areas with a large grain of salt. While I ensure that results are comparable enough for a quick test such as this one, the performance figures will vary greatly based on player count and other factors.

[Aribeth-arygos (Aribeth)]

Thanks the the updates. How did you disable cores btw?

[Kodiack-barthilas (Kodiack)]

It’s as easy as changing the process affinity. It takes effect immediately without needing to restart or anything. Since it can be done so quickly and seamlessly, it’s simple to get results that are fairly reliable for some given short amount of time.

[Aeson-lightninghoof]

Here’s some results with HT across more configurations:

This was again run with the same settings, and again run with addons all disabled. WoW scales nicely up to 4 cores in this scenario, at which point it quickly hits a wall. Anything beyond that is minor fluctuation/margin-of-error. Hyper-threading provides a healthy ~15-25% improvement when running only one or two cores, but does practically nothing with 4+ cores.

Do also note that these results are not at all directly comparable with my old ones. Always take benchmarks in populated areas with a large grain of salt. While I ensure that results are comparable enough for a quick test such as this one, the performance figures will vary greatly based on player count and other factors.

Thank you for the testing. So in summation: more than 4 cores/threads doesn’t lead to better performance. So you really don’t need more than a 9600K for optimal WoW performance? When you have 4+ cores (which is basically any recent consumer CPU) you should really be looking at speed for improved performance?

[Kodiack-barthilas (Kodiack)]

Basically, yes. The 8.x patches have made WoW love CPU cores far more than it used to, but it still doesn’t scale to everything you can throw at it. There may be further multi-threaded optimisations going forward, but at this point so long as WoW has 4+ fast physical cores it’ll run happily and see the most benefit with higher clock speeds.

[Aeson-lightninghoof]

Thank you. I have been saying this a lot lol.

[Griefs-emerald-dream (Griefs)]

A lot of us have been. But the “moar corez” subgroup is quite vocal and persistent.

[Aribeth-arygos (Aribeth)]

…at this point so long as WoW has 4+ fast physical cores it’ll run happily and see the most benefit with higher clock speeds.

From your own data:

4c/8T -> 89.0 https://i.imgur.com/xbtwzZ4.jpg
8c/16t -> 98.2 https://i.imgur.com/wBIOge1.jpg

That’s about a 10% uplift just standing still and doing nothing. 10% is nothing to ignore. The benchmarks I’ve been linking shows similar performance increases and the gap widens slightly more in 5 man dungeons/raids.

So in summation: more than 4 cores/threads doesn’t lead to better performance.

It definitely does. Your performance increases are less drastic going from 2->4 than it is from 4->8 cores but the performance delta is definitely there per the data he’s posted in the past.

[Kodiack-barthilas (Kodiack)]

There’s not a huge performance uplift above four cores. You can get ~10% scaling in some scenarios from my testing, seemingly when there’s more players around. The biggest benefit with 4+ cores will still come from higher clock speed.

If anyone can come up with a reproducible way of benchmarking with several players around, I’m all ears. Multi-core scaling in raids could potentially prove to be quite good.

WoW could possibly continue to see even more multi-threaded optimisations, as it has in 8.0, 8.1, and 8.2. Six or more cores will provide the best future-proofing, and can even provide minor performance advantages in the here and now, especially if there’s anything moderately CPU-intensive happening in the background.

[Griefs-emerald-dream (Griefs)]

So to summarize:

i5 9600k good for wow?

Very

[Aribeth-arygos (Aribeth)]

There’s not a huge performance uplift above four cores.

Not as much as going from 2 core to 4 cores yes. I wouldn’t call 10% not huge. That’s like upgrading from a 2700X to a 4770K. Also you’re using an Nvidia card. GCN scales differently so the core scaling benefit could be better or worse but we’d have to test.

Multi-core scaling in raids could potentially prove to be quite good.

Most benefits from 8 core are the 1% lows in raids in 1080p/1440p (upwards of 25%). On current Intel chips, turning off HT benefits slightly more in raids. I haven’t seen extensive AMD benches in raids yet.

At 4K there is much less a benefit.

Six or more cores will provide the best future-proofing, and can even provide minor performance advantages in the here and now, especially if there’s anything moderately CPU-intensive happening in the background.

I’d say 6 core should be the min. 8 core would be to get best experience (real cores not HT/SMT).

8.1 CPU scaling in raids:

So to summarize:

Bad summary. A 3600 would be cheaper and faster than a 9600 in WoW.