Best CPU for Wireless Alyx discussion thread

[FPS Daisuki]

This thread is for discussing CPUs for a better wireless experience.

First, this is my Specs.
CPU:Ryzen2700X(8core 16thread)(3.7GHz)(TDP105W)
Mem:32GB
GPU:RTX2080S
Headset:VivePro

Alyx is a game that uses a lot of physics, but the CPU load is not so heavy.
When I'm using wired VivePro and SS 130%, Alyx can keep 90fps.
But when using Wireless Adapter, fps always drops below 40fps.
BeatSaber and H3VR, 2700X can keeps 90fps, so this is a problem of the amount of physics.

The encoding of the wireless adapter always occupies 60% of the CPU load,
so I think that it has a bad influence on physical calculations.

Does anyone have a 12core or 16core CPU?
Recently 12core 3900X has been greatly reduced in price, so I am considering buying it.
If anyone is playing wireless Alyx with a 12 core (or more) CPU, please let us know your impressions.

[Raterix]

Ryzen 9 3900x/3950x is the best choice.
Intel has disgusting multicore performance, absolutely horrible.

[NegativeCycle]

Originally posted by Raterix:

Ryzen 9 3900x/3950x is the best choice.
Intel has disgusting multicore performance, absolutely horrible.

Thats not at all true even remotely.

[Chili Dogs]

I get by just fine with a Ryzen 5 2600, RTX 2070 Super and 16GB ram.
I am on a Vive Cosmos Elite at medium settings
looking into getting the wireless adapter when I get my refund on my second HMD (mistaken order) but I will probably get a Ryzen 9 to alleviate some of the CPU overhead when streaming to the HMD.

I have seen there is some serious issues with the wireless adapter and Ryzen systems though.

[Pharaoh (Revolution Idol)]

Somehow I have my doubts that Source 2 can effectively utilize sixteen cores.

[Raterix]

Originally posted by NegativeCycle:

Originally posted by Raterix:

Ryzen 9 3900x/3950x is the best choice.
Intel has disgusting multicore performance, absolutely horrible.

Thats not at all true even remotely.

Originally posted by ok:

Originally posted by NegativeCycle:

Thats not at all true even remotely.

well it's just a amd fanboy, don't waste your time

Am I? Surely you must be the Intel fanboy, as there's overwhelming evidence that Intel cannot sustain good multithreading, and only the 10980xe can catch up.

Cinebench R20 results:
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=56114
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=56115
Source images: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-10980xe-processor-review,8.html

It's okay, continue your blind ignorance.

[Daddy Shark]

Originally posted by Star Trucker:

Originally posted by Raterix:

Am I? Surely you must be the Intel fanboy, as there's overwhelming evidence that Intel cannot sustain good multithreading, and only the 10980xe can catch up.

You have no idea what you're talking about kiddo. Learn the basics of how a PC works.

[Raterix]

Originally posted by Star Trucker:

You have no idea what you're talking about kiddo. Learn the basics of how a PC works.

Great argument! I'll be sure to use all the evidence you gave me proving Intel clearly is better.

[gooooood mewing vietnam!]

intel is still faster if you overclock

[FPS Daisuki]

The Vive Wireless Adapter's encode codec is probably optimized for intel.
Comparing Ryzen and Core i series, Core i7 (or 9) seems to have slightly better performance than Ryzen for wireless VR.

HTC released a fix patch for Ryzen in the middle of 2019.
So now, I don't think there is a difference between Intel and AMD's compatibility with Wireless.
I think rich people should buy Intel for wireless VR.

[Pharaoh (Revolution Idol)]

Originally posted by Rawhide:

intel is still faster if you overclock :hurtsad::silentpistol:

Intel hates overclockers, charging a premium for unlocked processors. Pfft.

I've always felt that AMD brings everything they have to the table at every price bracket, while Intel just does the bare minimum to be competitive most of the time, with two or three standout processors in their often pointlessly extensive lineups. Guess "best R&D in the world" means "we know how to just barely beat AMD most of the time." Until time proves AMD ages better once again.

I used to love Intel too back in the socket 775 days. Nahalem days too. Then Intel just sort of slowly began to turn into the stagnant giant they are today.

[gooooood mewing vietnam!]

an overclocked 9900k (or 10900k now, i guess) still beats anything amd has for gaming, you know, by like, 5-10%, unless zen 2 refresh manages to be a better overclocker

now when zen 3 is out, i'm willing to admit defeat, but today is not that day

[Raterix]

Originally posted by Rawhide:

an overclocked 9900k (or 10900k now, i guess) still beats anything amd has for gaming, you know, by like, 5-10%, unless zen 2 refresh manages to be a better overclocker
now when zen 3 is out, i'm willing to admit defeat, but today is not that day

You're copy-pasting word of mouth because you think AMD has bad singlecore performance.
A Ryzen 9 3950x currently has the singlethreaded crown.
Additionally, you can change the boost technology of the 3950x to make it even more clock-performant with Overdrive.

Seems like you're not informed.

[gooooood mewing vietnam!]

Originally posted by Raterix:

Originally posted by Rawhide:

an overclocked 9900k (or 10900k now, i guess) still beats anything amd has for gaming, you know, by like, 5-10%, unless zen 2 refresh manages to be a better overclocker
now when zen 3 is out, i'm willing to admit defeat, but today is not that day

You're copy-pasting word of mouth because you think AMD has bad singlecore performance.
A Ryzen 9 3950x currently has the singlethreaded crown.
Additionally, you can change the boost technology of the 3950x to make it even more clock-performant with Overdrive.

Seems like you're not informed. :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

i'm literally not saying it's bad, i'm saying overclocked "old" intel is marginally better, and new intel is also marginally better at stock, because "stock" single thread is already 5.3ghz

a 9900k at 5.2ghz on all cores, like mine, beats current 8 core zen 2 cpus without exotic cooling, across the board, given their lackluster OC potential

[Raterix]

Originally posted by Rawhide:

Originally posted by Raterix:

You're copy-pasting word of mouth because you think AMD has bad singlecore performance.
A Ryzen 9 3950x currently has the singlethreaded crown.
Additionally, you can change the boost technology of the 3950x to make it even more clock-performant with Overdrive.
Seems like you're not informed.

i'm literally not saying it's bad, i'm saying overclocked "old" intel is marginally better, and new intel is also marginally better at stock, because "stock" single thread is already 5.3ghz
a 9900k at 5.2ghz on all cores, like mine, beats current 8 core zen 2 cpus without exotic cooling, across the board, given their lackluster OC potential

Again more word-of-mouth.
I already said you can boost the 3950x to get even higher Singlecore performance (even though it's the king, you can get even more.) This effectively is equal to overclocking it. Your whole "ocing" argument is been deemed null and void. Did you also completely ignore my post? I said the 3950x is at the top rankings for Singlethreaded, so no, stock Intel again is not "marginally better".
Also, you actually have a double-standard of word of mouth. You think Ghz is equal to performance, when it's only a single factor.
Yes, it does need exotic cooling, most Intel chips run extremely hot, especially when overclocking. Now you're just pulling stuff out of your rear.
No further discussion can be provided from me, as you're clearly still in your own mindset.

[gooooood mewing vietnam!]

yeah i'm ignoring everything you're claiming and replacing it with my own claims since you're not giving any evidence that can combat my own experience