AMD or Intel for 3D Vision

Post by **Muojo** » Thu Jul 02, 2020 10:20 pm

So I am at a crossroads. I can buy a 9900 (non K) for 220 USD 240 with taxes or shell out 167 bucsk more for a 10700k or buy a 3700x. So I always thought Intel CPUs were better for 3D vision cause of our core count bugs but people on these forums are telling me AMD is actually better?!:

https://www.overclock.net/forum/5-intel ... 00k-2.html

And they linked these benchmarks:

https://www.techspot.com/article/1876-4 ... s-core-i9/
https://www.gpucheck.com/compare-game-c ... tx-2080-ti

What should I do?

Post by **3DNovice** » Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:17 am

Post by **Muojo** » Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:08 am

3DNovice wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:17 am Ampere GPUs will be PCI Express 4.0 and will hopefully work with 3D Vision.
SSDs on 4.0 will be quite fast.
Intel does not support 4.0 currently, but will in 2021.With a die shrink, thermals and power to performance ratio will be much better than their top current CPU.
AMD currently supports 4.0.

That's my 2 cents, and all I know on this matter.

So what you say is to wait for Ryzen 4000 then?

Post by **3DNovice** » Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:09 am

Post by **Necropants** » Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:33 pm

At this stage you most likely want the strongest architecture/ highest core clock speed processor you can find. Due to the driver problems with 3dvision. That means Intel.
Intel has the best gaming performance right now in general I think because of this where games don't utilize alot of cores very well, but this is changing....
It's all well having 16 cores or whatever but worthless to you for 3dvision for the most part.

Personally I think its a bad time to consider an upgrade I would wait to see what the next year brings.

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:03 pm

Zen 3 4000 series desktop at the end of this year. Intel 7nm in 21/22, as well as Zen 4 5000 series. I will personally be waiting till 21/22 and buy the best of intel 7nm/Zen4 5000 with DDR5 support. I appreciate that people can't wait, but indeed now is a bad time to buy.

If I absolutely had to buy today from the above choices for 3DV especially, 10700k which comes clocked to 5.3GHz boost as standard, would win my money.

I don't know who is telling you that AMD is better, but it's not based on fact. Price vs performance? Yes. Performance vs power? Yes. Likeability over intel's unethical shenanigans? Yes. Raw gaming performance, especially for CPU limited 3D Vision? Hell no.

Post by **Necropants** » Wed Jul 08, 2020 9:08 pm

Yeah and from what I understand the 10700k series motherboards and such do not have PCIEX 4.0, unsure if we have even got too the point of saturating 3.0 but it's another reason to wait if you can.

Post by **drastic00** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:01 pm

I'm using a Ryzen 7 2700x and an Nvidia 1660Ti with Win 10 v2004 running driver 451.67 with 3D Vision (driver install is accomplished via the BringBack3DV tool here:
viewtopic.php?f=105&t=23752 ).
It's been working out quite well for 3DV as well as VR. Since I put this PC together, better cards and CPUs have dropped in price. It'd be nice to improve on this, as VR is surprisingly demanding. I figured if my rig could handle 3DV on max that it'd be even better for VR, but it doesn't work that way. On top of producing two images for 3D, the machine has to handle all of the directional tracking, so it ends up being even more computations being resolved.

Post by **kyanite** » Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:53 pm

I have a gtx 970 and a ryzen threadripper 3960. I have no problems with 3Dvision. I use the 3dfixmanager to get the 3dvision drivers on current nvidia drivers.

Post by **Necropants** » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:36 am

I think the thrust really lies with what the future holds at this point rather than whats playable now. That's why If you can wait till next year...

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Aug 08, 2020 4:30 am

Post by **ReadingSteiner101** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 3:12 am

Muojo wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 8:08 am
So what you say is to wait for Ryzen 4000 then?

That's what I'd do, at least.
If you're going to save and buy the best stuff you can get your hands on, it may be worth to wait a couple weeks/months and really buy the latest stuff on the market. This way, you'll be set for a couple years.

Post by **whyme466** » Tue Aug 25, 2020 7:30 am

Note that VR’s future is going to be more taxing on your CPU/GPU than 3DV gaming, primarily because of VR’s higher frame rates (really need at least 80 Hz). For example, I find VR gaming with my Vive Pro (same pixels per eye as Index), with 150% resolution scaling, puts a bigger load on my computer (i9-9900X, 32 GB) and 2080Ti, than 3DV gaming on my 4K OLED display. Reverb G2, which still appears to be on schedule for release next month, doubles Vive Pro’s pixels per eye. I can overclock my hybrid-cooled 2080Ti more with 3DV gaming than VR gaming, slightly hindering VR performance, also.

Post by **Obveron** » Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:25 pm

AMD definitely have the better product at the moment for almost all use-cases. However, if you're solely looking for 3dv performance, considering the 3 core bug, frequency is king. So Intel has a slight edge, particularly if you're comfortable with overclocking.

Post by **bo3bber** » Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:20 pm

It's also worth noting that for VR experiences in particular, that 90% of them are currently single threaded. So a massively multi-threaded CPU is useless for improving VR. Only go with huge numbers of cores if you have other workloads that can benefit like video processing or software development.

I'm sure there will be objections to my statement about VR being single threaded. 90% of the games built for VR right now are made using either Unity or UE4. Neither of those game engines supports multithreading in the current generation. UE4 has some limited support to improve the drawing, but nothing for the game logic itself. Unity has essentially nothing even for drawing. The game logic needs to run at 90 fps too- to capture your location, where you are looking, physics, and so on. It's single threaded.

There are some notable exceptions where the devs do the extra work to bring genuine multithreading to their gameplay, but the vast majority of UE4 and Unity devs hit the big Build button and let the tool do whatever it does.

Clearly this will change over time, UE4 and Unity both want to have DX12 and Vulkan at highest performance. Your crystal ball may be different than mine. Mine says that for two to three years of use for a new CPU, that IPC will remain king, not cores.

Caveat: I know Unity very well, but have looked only briefly at UE4. Still you can see this on your own system. Run any regular VR experience and look at CPU usage in Task Manager.

Post by **Muojo** » Wed Sep 16, 2020 3:30 pm

bo3bber wrote: ↑Tue Sep 01, 2020 11:20 pm It's also worth noting that for VR experiences in particular, that 90% of them are currently single threaded. So a massively multi-threaded CPU is useless for improving VR. Only go with huge numbers of cores if you have other workloads that can benefit like video processing or software development.

I'm sure there will be objections to my statement about VR being single threaded. 90% of the games built for VR right now are made using either Unity or UE4. Neither of those game engines supports multithreading in the current generation. UE4 has some limited support to improve the drawing, but nothing for the game logic itself. Unity has essentially nothing even for drawing. The game logic needs to run at 90 fps too- to capture your location, where you are looking, physics, and so on. It's single threaded.

There are some notable exceptions where the devs do the extra work to bring genuine multithreading to their gameplay, but the vast majority of UE4 and Unity devs hit the big Build button and let the tool do whatever it does.

Clearly this will change over time, UE4 and Unity both want to have DX12 and Vulkan at highest performance. Your crystal ball may be different than mine. Mine says that for two to three years of use for a new CPU, that IPC will remain king, not cores.

Caveat: I know Unity very well, but have looked only briefly at UE4. Still you can see this on your own system. Run any regular VR experience and look at CPU usage in Task Manager.

So go for Intel then? Or would the 4000 series have better single core performance?

Post by **Necropants** » Thu Sep 17, 2020 2:51 am

Seriously wait.... Until next year if you can. Amd are about to announce there next gen of CPU's too.

Post by **neovad** » Tue Oct 06, 2020 3:14 am

RAGEdemon wrote: ↑Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:03 pm Zen 3 4000 series desktop at the end of this year. Intel 7nm in 21/22, as well as Zen 4 5000 series. I will personally be waiting till 21/22 and buy the best of intel 7nm/Zen4 5000 with DDR5 support. I appreciate that people can't wait, but indeed now is a bad time to buy.

If I absolutely had to buy today from the above choices for 3DV especially, 10700k which comes clocked to 5.3GHz boost as standard, would win my money.

I don't know who is telling you that AMD is better, but it's not based on fact. Price vs performance? Yes. Performance vs power? Yes. Likeability over intel's unethical shenanigans? Yes. Raw gaming performance, especially for CPU limited 3D Vision? Hell no.

Is 3DMigoto loads only one CPU core especially in shaderhacking with inverse matrix and decals fixing ? Can somebody from top shaderhackers (Flugan, DSS, bo3b (known here as bo3bber)) who worked with codes of 3DMigoto wrapper clarify this ?

So there are two variables of CPU power in 3DV: architecture and core frequence. We should test the same game in same FPS mesurement programm with same GPU (better from top segment) with different CPUs. I have XEON 1230 v2 + RTX 2070 for tests now. The game for testing should be use low visual settings to avoid GPU limitation and use decals and inverse matrix fixing in 3DMigoto and it better to have internal benchmark too - Metro Exodus for example with low settings

Post by **3DNovice** » Fri Dec 18, 2020 4:52 pm

Post by **3DNovice** » Mon Jan 11, 2021 7:25 pm

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Mon Jan 11, 2021 8:21 pm

DDR5 8400MHz dropping second half of this year:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/ADATA-to- ... 894.0.html

New AMD CPUs with shrunk IO die, PCIe4, and DDR5 support also ought to be dropping early next year (1.5 year cadence after 5000 series), assuming no delays.

It would be foolhardy to /not/ wait for these platforms.

Some significant performance advancements almost within reach... hopefully they will stimulate the CPU market out of the crevice it has been stuck in for the last decade...

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Jan 23, 2021 10:56 am

Post by **Lysander** » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:07 am

Wow. This is unprecedented, I think, at least for video cards? This whole situation with the 30-series is a disaster...

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:32 am

Post by **3DNovice** » Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:11 am

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Feb 27, 2021 10:17 am

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Sat Feb 27, 2021 2:39 pm

Good FYI.

It has to be said that new wave of CPUs from Intel / AMD about to hit later this year/next year with DDR5 and improved IPC - 11900k will be short lived - buy with caution.

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Feb 27, 2021 5:26 pm

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:54 pm

There is another route available for those of us on z170 / z270 boards - a unified hacking tool has become available which can automatically modify most [all] bioses from these boards to enable support for more modern CPUs such as the 8C16T 9900k, 8c8t 9700k, and 6c12t 8700k:

https://www.win-raid.com/t3987f16-TOOL- ... -bios.html

There is a restriction on ASUS boards where they can only take <16 threads, but even in those circumstances, crossflashable biosses are available for full 8c16t support.

There are also options regarding the modification you choose - e.g., you can connect/isolate pins on the new CPU, or you could solder a couple of connections on your motherboard | you can use ASUS flashback, or you can get an SPI programmer for a couple of dollars with detailed instructions describing how to use it to flash your new bios.

There is always an element of risk, but for some this might be a viable path. For example, one could sell their 7700k for £150 and buy a 9900k for £250 - a relatively measly £100 has just doubled your core count and brought your 4+ year old system into trading blows with todays highest end cpu's for gaming; - however, their usefulness for 3DV with its core bug would be questionable of course.

Post by **guitarlickz** » Wed Mar 10, 2021 10:21 pm

RAGEdemon wrote: ↑Wed Mar 10, 2021 1:54 pm There is another route available for those of us on z170 / z270 boards - a unified hacking tool has become available which can automatically modify most [all] bioses from these boards to enable support for more modern CPUs such as the 8C16T 9900k, 8c8t 9700k, and 6c12t 8700k:

https://www.win-raid.com/t3987f16-TOOL- ... -bios.html

There is a restriction on ASUS boards where they can only take <16 threads, but even in those circumstances, crossflashable biosses are available for full 8c16t support.

There are also options regarding the modification you choose - e.g., you can connect/isolate pins on the new CPU, or you could solder a couple of connections on your motherboard | you can use ASUS flashback, or you can get an SPI programmer for a couple of dollars with detailed instructions describing how to use it to flash your new bios.

There is always an element of risk, but for some this might be a viable path. For example, one could sell their 7700k for £150 and buy a 9900k for £250 - a relatively measly £100 has just doubled your core count and brought your 4+ year old system into trading blows with todays highest end cpu's for gaming; - however, their usefulness for 3DV with its core bug would be questionable of course.

Wow that’s awesome
For months I wanted to upgrade my z170 mb for a new cpu!
Now there is a way to put 9900k cpu on my old mb!
Definitely gonna check this out.
Thanks rage for the info.

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:20 am

Glad some will find it useful

Here is a great video which knowledgeable people have said they followed, to go through the process. Some very valuable information in there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghT2iOvWTU

Post by **guitarlickz** » Sat Mar 13, 2021 6:59 am

RAGEdemon wrote: ↑Fri Mar 12, 2021 3:20 am Glad some will find it useful

Here is a great video which knowledgeable people have said they followed, to go through the process. Some very valuable information in there...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hghT2iOvWTU

Thanks brother

Post by **3DVnewbie** » Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:48 pm

Hi guys!

I'm a real n00bie and I'd love to experience 3D Vision but I'm a bit scared of making a wrong decision.

I've been given the specific choice between these 2 computers:

"RTX 2080 Super with an Intel i7-9700K"
or
"RTX 2080 Ti with an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X"

For 3D Vision should I steer away from the computer with the AMD Ryzen even though it has the better GPU?

The 2080 Ti sounds really nice but am I risking 3D Vision games crashing if I go with an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X?

Just a little scared because even though both computers are second hand good deals it's still a lot of money for someone like me.

Thanks for any help

Post by **helifax** » Sat Apr 17, 2021 4:04 pm

3DVnewbie wrote: ↑Sat Apr 17, 2021 3:48 pm Hi guys!

I'm a real n00bie and I'd love to experience 3D Vision but I'm a bit scared of making a wrong decision.

I've been given the specific choice between these 2 computers:

"RTX 2080 Super with an Intel i7-9700K"
or
"RTX 2080 Ti with an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X"

For 3D Vision should I steer away from the computer with the AMD Ryzen even though it has the better GPU?

The 2080 Ti sounds really nice but am I risking 3D Vision games crashing if I go with an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X?

Just a little scared because even though both computers are second hand good deals it's still a lot of money for someone like me.

Thanks for any help

I would like to know this as well

I've always used Intel CPUs since Sandy Bridge (more than 10 years ago

) but before 3DVision and Sandy Bridge I was all in for AMD and used their CPU's since I changed my Intel x80386 (if somebody even recalls the early 90's ^_^)
While in theory AMD or Intel CPUs should make a difference (as 3DVision is driver stack) I also wonder if they actually do

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Apr 17, 2021 7:58 pm

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Sun Apr 18, 2021 2:01 am

Currently, AMD Ryzen 5 CPUs are 20% faster in 3D Vision than their Intel Counterparts. 11 series not yet tested.

DJ-RK and I did a detailed benchmark series here: viewtopic.php?f=105&t=25692

Post by **3DNovice** » Sat Jun 19, 2021 5:35 am

It seems that DDR5 will be available soon
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/teamg ... -ddr5.html

Post by **3DNovice** » Wed Nov 10, 2021 8:26 am

Post by **RAGEdemon** » Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:26 pm

These new intel big.LITTLE cpus with 8 huge cores, ought to work really well with 3D Vision to brute force the 3 core bug. Looking forward to 3DV benchmarks of a 12900k in a non-GPU limited scenario...

If I was a betting man, I would postulate that, with DDR5, it would be ~20% faster than the equivalent a Ryzen 5xxx series, and 40% faster than an 'old' 6700k/7700k/8700k/9900k.

Edit: Wow, "Take a look at its neural kinetics, they're way above normal!"

Post by **3DNovice** » Mon Jan 03, 2022 10:25 am