Which CPU is better for 7dtd?

[Michu]

ryzen 7 2700x or i7 9700k?

[Crater Creator]

The Intel chip wins narrowly.

https://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD%20Ryzen%207%202700X&id=3238

https://m.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel%20Core%20i7-9700K%20@%203.60GHz&id=3335

If there’s non-anecdotal evidence that 7DtD in particular is better on certain cards than benchmarks would suggest, I haven’t seen it.

[Hyebri]

Ryzen is cheaper and barely any weaker. Seems like the better option.

[pApA^LeGBa]

Wait for Ryzen 3000 comes on 7.7. If you can and it keeps it´s promises get the 12 core. Sylen Thunder said the more cores the better in a another thread.

[Michu]

Originally posted by pApA^LeGBa:

Wait for Ryzen 3000 comes on 7.7. If you can and it keeps it´s promises get the 12 core. Sylen Thunder said the more cores the better in a another thread.

I only hope that X470/B450 boards can handle 12/16 core. X570 will be very expensive

[pApA^LeGBa]

According to AMD they do. Pretty sure you can´t really overclock on a B450 tough.

[FT]

Originally posted by pApA^LeGBa:

According to AMD they do. Pretty sure you can´t really overclock on a B450 tough.

7Days doesn't seem to saturate a 4c4th-6c6th Ryzen chip, so using a $40-$70 motherboard with weaker VRMs while turning Ryzen's SMT off and locking it down to 4-6cores can allow a cooler and less thirsty overclock. This is what I've been doing when I want to run the system's fans extra slow/quiet.

That said, I've seen 7Days running a little smoother on an Intel ~$140 i5 8400-9400F with a $40 board and cheapo RAM than it has on my 4.2ghz OC'd Ryzen 6core system. I think an i5 9600K for around $220 would be hard to beat either at 4.3-4.6ghz on a cheap board or OC'd near 5.0ghz on a Z300 board. You can find new Z390 boards for $80-$90 now, so a 5.0ghz 6core intel CPU and board combo for $300 is completely possible..at least in the US.

[pApA^LeGBa]

You might be able to do that on the 5 2600. The new generation is a whole new level. X570 Boards all come with a VRM cooling fan. Look around a bit on youtube and in techforums, there is a lot of explanations why OC on a new ryzen with a b450 board is a bad idea. Can´t really explain it shortly here and not beeing a native speaker makes it even harder.

For 300$ i get the 5 2600, MSI b450 Tomahawk and 16GB of RAM. Also 1151v2 is offically dead. Nothing new coming to that platfrom anymore.

[FT]

Originally posted by pApA^LeGBa:

You might be able to do that on the 5 2600. The new generation is a whole new level. X570 Boards all come with a VRM cooling fan. Look around a bit on youtube and in techforums, there is a lot of explanations why OC on a new ryzen with a b450 board is a bad idea. Can´t really explain it shortly here and not beeing a native speaker makes it even harder.

For 300$ i get the 5 2600, MSI b450 Tomahawk and 16GB of RAM. Also 1151v2 is offically dead. Nothing new coming to that platfrom anymore.

The new Ryzen generation is lower TDP for equal or better IPC than previous gen, so it's a little easier to push on the old boards when both are locked to the same amount of threads. The problems with Zen2/3000 on older+weaker boards are when trying to run high-voltage maximum OC's on the 16-32thread models with all threads enabled. A new Zen2 CPU locked to 4c4th-6c6th at 1.4v-1.45v or lower should be easy for a cheapo b450 board to handle.

The X570 fan isn't for VRMs, it's for the chipset which is connecting the new PCI4 lanes at roughly double the traditional wattage. The upcoming 550 and lower boards are supposed to lack the fan and PCI4 support while offering their naturally lower-wattage and cooler chipset. The more robust VRM's on the top-tier motherboards aren't inherently related to the chipset, but are there to make sure these expensive boards can fully support the full 16c32th part at 1.55v+ boosts as well as maximum overclocking without anything choking. The new 105watt+ TDP models will want better VRMs, but the new 65-95watt parts won't care any worse than the old 1600x and 2600x.

I agree that overclocking a full 16-32threads at 1.5v+ is a bad idea on the cheapest b350-b450 boards with weaker VRM configurations, but keeping them locked to 6c6th and at sensible voltage limits will allow any of these to OC to the maximum stable amount without overheating the VRMs nor anything else during 7Days...unless it's using the Wraith Stealth, which is tiny.

The i5 9600k and Z300 ~5.0ghz set is a better system for gaming than the Ryzen 2600 or likely any Ryzen system by a decent amount though it admitedly costs quite a bit more. The $140 i5 9400F and a $40 board and ~$80 16gb RAM would still be a slight ways better for modern and previous games while costing even less than the Ryzen combo, but the 2600 might gain an edge in future titles if they can manage to over-saturate 6cores at 4.0ghz...plus the 2600 and MB and RAM can be found for a similar price in the US.

If the old AMD motherboards make you nervous about Zen2, then they've hit the same 2year cycle as Intel. The new AMD boards aren't backwards compatible with older Zen1 CPU's and none of the cheap 310-410 boards are forward compatible with Zen2 according to AMD...so they've already fragmented the compatibility pretty badly unless you're the owner of a higher-priced MB, where you could simply buy a pair of inexpensive boards if switching generations is important once they're available in 2020. Though I don't think the old b350-b450 will be much problem and neither does AMD.


The main thing is; even if the new Zen2 high-end chips can really match stock 9700K-9900K single thread performance, that still means a $220 9600K -or most older K-series intels able to clock near 5.0ghz- can match their single threaded performance. And the Intel CPU's don't suffer the extra latency of Ryzen for accessing RAM while gaming.
Folks who can saturate 6threads 100% can benefit nicely from Ryzen, but folks who don't need all those threads can reach higher gaming performance on Intel...even on a low budget.

Please don't think this means I'm a blind Intel fanboy. My main computer is on Ryzen while my previous main system was a total AMD/ATI build. I just think both processors have things they're particularly good at and things where their competitor is better, and both are more affordable because the other exists.
I don't think Ryzen is bad at gaming. I just think Intel is equal or better at the same price. I'll be happy to be proven wrong about Zen2 gaming though. Both companies need their opposites to be competitive to keep their own laziness and greed inline, so I hope AMD and Intel keep pushing their respective limits.

Some Ryzen 1000series are also at clear-out prices that beat any Intel 6core parts though, so an $80 1600 with a $40 MB and $80 RAM can still beat the price of an Intel 9400F combo while beating the performance of the nearest priced Intel 2c4th system for more CPU-intense games.
I am the cheapest of skates, and the Spire is a mighty fine stock cooler.

[pApA^LeGBa]

Yeah, me looking at that watercooled Mobo from ASRock confused me with VRM and Chipset.

Wasn´t there a WIN Update that dealt with AMD CPU´s that brought another plus in performance?

And again, 7 days to die DOES benefit from more cores according to SylenThunder. Also you should never choose your CPU by the performance of one single game. You don´t do yourself a favor there, no matter if you choose AMD or Intel.

[FT]

Originally posted by pApA^LeGBa:

Yeah, me looking at that watercooled Mobo from ASRock confused me with VRM and Chipset.

Wasn´t there a WIN Update that dealt with AMD CPU´s that brought another plus in performance?

And again, 7 days to die DOES benefit from more cores according to SylenThunder. Also you should never choose your CPU by the performance of one single game. You don´t do yourself a favor there, no matter if you choose AMD or Intel.

The most recent Windows update made a noticeable performance increase for the FireStrike Benchmark on Ryzen, but it didn't improve any other tested benchmarks nor actual games. The couple of reviewers I saw testing it said it seems more likely that the update fixed something which was working poorly specifically in FireStrike.

There might've also been something with one of the updates which sped up Ryzen core waking, but this won't give any improvements if you're already running Windows in "High Performance" mode or the "Ryzen Balanced Mode" that comes bundled in with most motherboard chipset updates from roughly around a year ago.

SylenThunder mentioned that 7Days will use a lot of cores when they are available, but I don't think it actually gains a performance benefit from additional cores unless it's hitting a wall on fewer cores.
For example: if 7Days runs a 4core CPU near 100% on all cores sometimes, then spreading that load out to a 6core CPU should increase performance because the game can use those extra cores and it has a reason to use them. BUT, if 7Days only pushes a 4core CPU to around 60% usage, then using a 6core CPU instead would only thin out the usage between more cores without gaining any performance because the 4core CPU wasn't even hitting its limit anyway.

It's often recommended to choose your CPU based on your favorite programs and all the games that you like to play, so I agree that picking based on just one game is a bad plan unless you pretty much only play that one game for most of your use.
Ryzen 6-8core models have an advantage in a handful of new games when compared to Intel 4c4th models, but even the 4c4th Intels will match or beat Ryzen in most older titles while the 6core and 4c8th Intels can generally match or beat Ryzen on any game, including AMD optomized titles. This means Ryzen only has a gaming advantage in a small and recent pool of games, and only if you're avoiding the $140 9400F 6core i5 for some reason. The only way I can see this changing is if one of the 3600/3600X models can noticeably beat the 6-8core 5.0ghz intels, or if the 3600 gets immediately priced-dropped to $140. The 3400 4c8th CPU would be a more logical bet for this i5 9400F price and performance if it weren't still a Zen1/2000 part because all the APU's are one generation behind.

On the overall positive side, I don't think anyone simply looking for 60fps will be disappointed with either. The differences don't show for many games until you're aiming for 120-144fps, which also needs a special monitor with real native refresh-rates of 120-144hz along with a GPU that's powerful enough to push that high FPS at your chosen resolution and settings. Folks who don't have those other two things (high native refresh monitor and powerful GPU) won't likely experience a really noticeable difference between CPU companies outside of the rare compatibility issue.

[pApA^LeGBa]

Yeah, i am getting an AMD to put some competition out there, and most people will have enough power with a 2700X, the amount of people who OC outside the built in turbo is pretty small i would say, and if you don´t OC you will be happy with either, that´s true.

Having a monoply only hurts the customer, a good reason to go AMD even if they miss a few percent in the end. And for people who do other stuff than gaming AMD is perfect.

[FT]

Originally posted by pApA^LeGBa:

Yeah, i am getting an AMD to put some competition out there, and most people will have enough power with a 2700X, the amount of people who OC outside the built in turbo is pretty small i would say, and if you don´t OC you will be happy with either, that´s true.

Having a monoply only hurts the customer, a good reason to go AMD even if they miss a few percent in the end. And for people who do other stuff than gaming AMD is perfect.

If you don't mind sharing; which CPU are you aiming to get, and what CPU do you use now?

I moved up from an old AMD fx4100, so my new-ish Ryzen 6core is about 60% faster singlecore as well as having 12threads VS 4threads on the old CPU.
I'm hoping to see Zen2 or Zen3 get another 30%+ faster singlecore performance compared to Zen1 to get really competitive with Intel for gaming and everyday little tasks, but I'm not sure if that's realistic.


After a little back and forth testing it looks like 7Days runs a hair faster with my Ryzen CPU at 4c4th 4.2ghz and a hair slower with the same system running 6c6th 4.15ghz. Basically the same FPS between the two different CPU settings while the GPU is running at around 80% usage. CPU usage is around 60%, so it could probably run similarly well on only 3cores on Zen1 when clocked this high.
During a 32 and 64zombie horde night the CPU usage falls as low as 50% on 4c4th and GPU falls as well, so something else seems to be holding FPS back.
The 4c4th runs about 10degrees cooler than the 6c6th.

[pApA^LeGBa]

3600X would be my choice for now. Well my wallets choice at least for this year. Right now i have a i5-4460. Wich still does pretty good for it´s age tbh.

So basically any newer CPU would be a plus for me. I think the 5 2600 would mean like 30% more performance already iirc. Maybe i should consider that and do a bigger upgrade next year, if there aren´t unexpected expenses like this year again for house and garden...