add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Ryzen or Intel

AverageGangMember
  • 21 months ago

So for my next big upgrade, should I go with Intel or AMD? I cannot decide. I'm a competitive gamer who wants to stream, but I'm play at 144+ refresh rates. So it's hard to decide. Any help?

Comments

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

If you are not using higher bit-rates well streaming the 8700K is your best option for handling the encoding well gaming at higher refresh rates.

If you use higher bit-rates go for a 2700X but you will take a hit in frame rates.

  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

I'm sorry I believe you have the priority here backwards.

If someone has a lot of bandwidth to work with, and can afford to use more bandwidth for a stream, then they can get away with lower encoder quality, or even hardware encoder (GPU based), as the increased bandwidth makes up for the reduced compute effort put into compressing the stream. For youtube streamers with gigabit up/down fiber, simply using the GPU's fixed function encoder cranked to lossless

When CPU power is especially important, is for those streamers who whose upstream is very limited (a few Mbps), or their streaming service has relatively low ingest bandwidth limits. This is where we need to use MORE CPU POWER to maximize video quality in a limited bandwidth.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I was going by what the benchmarks show.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3287-amd-r7-2700-and-2700x-review-game-streaming-cpu-benchmarks-memory/page-2

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3288-amd-r5-2600-2600x-review-stream-benchmarks-gaming-blender/page-2

Lower upload rates at the same settings let you take advantage of higher player side performance of the 8700K which is where the 2700X falls behind running more in the 100fps average range well streaming.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

The CPU usage preset is agnostic to the bandwidth setting. Only the CPU usage preset change effects the CPU usage.

The bandwidth setting is agnostic to the CPU usage preset. Changing the bandwidth available does not change the CPU usage.

The only important change in those tests for CPU workload while streaming, is the change from the "Faster" preset to "Medium" preset. The bandwidth change was thrown in to demonstrate a scenario where some users may wish to use both more CPU and more bandwidth to increase stream quality from 2 angles. Unfortunately, by changing both, they have inadvertently confused some of their readers (case in point, you) about what setting is effecting the CPU workload.

In reality, if we have more "bandwidth to burn," so to speak, then lower presets, or even GPU based encoding, can achieve very good final video quality results. Using the more CPU intensive software encoder presets is what makes high quality video possible at restrictive bandwidths.

Lets use an example:

Where I live, internet service is still practically 3rd world compared to some parts of the country. Downstream service in the 20-100Mbps range with upstream service in the ~2-10Mbps range is common here. I'm a cheapskate and we don't really use enough video streaming services in this household to need a high end service, so we're on a promotional 40/5 that tests out at more like 32/4 of usable bandwidth. If I wanted to stream from here without major interruption issues or causing others at the household and issue, I would have to select a stream bandwidth of ~2Mbps. The only way to make such a stream look any good, would be if it were encoded using the software X264 encoder at an aggressively high CPU usage preset, like medium or better.

Last time I was passing through Kansas City I stopped at my Uncles place for a night. I pulled out my work laptop to check emails and such. He suggested I run a speed test for giggles. I nearly needed a change of trousers as I watched the meter peg the limits of the type N wireless connection established to his home router at ~450Mbps down and UP!!!! I had never seen anything like this before.... In fact, he has gigabit service both ways to his house over fiber and it's not terribly expensive. Apparently, there is a reason to live in Kansas City after-all.. (seriously why else would anyone live there?)

In this "bandwidth to burn" scenario, when using streaming services with no ingestion limits, we could use the GPU encoder set to "lossless" encoding settings (which, as I recall, produces a 50-60Mbps edit correction: up to 50Mbps ReLive / up to 130Mbps Shadowplay stream.) When given this much bandwidth, even the lower quality hardware encoder will achieve very good looking results, in fact, likely much better looking results than we'd get burning up most of a 2700X trying to cram more video quality in a 2Mbps stream with slow cpu usage presets. By using the GPU encoder and "burning bandwidth instead of CPU resources" we can actually achieve very good results without even worrying about picking a CPU suitable for streaming, as at that point, it doesn't matter anymore, the CPU isn't doing it. For someone in Kansas City, the best streaming CPU is whatever the heck CPU you want or can afford because you don't need to use your CPU to encode the stream in Kansas City.

So, I reiterate, it is in fact more important to have more CPU power when bandwidth restricted, than the other way around.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I misunderstood the intent of the benchmarks then.

But looking them over again the only options that fits the posters goals would be a 8700K running lower quality settings, either of the Ryzen involved are incapable of streaming with the necessary frame rates.

If the poster wants to get into better quality streaming well keeping the frame rates going with BetrayedPredator option going to a separate encoding PC.

Or going with Shadowplay/ReLive.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

Keep in mind, Nexus is only showing 2 encoder quality settings out of about 10. There are options that use less CPU than the "faster" preset selected, and with enough bandwidth to work with, those presets could work fine.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

it depends on what you want to stream at and what games

It might be easier to go Intel for a gaming rig then buy a Ryzen 1200 for a streaming rig if you want to be competitive

  • 21 months ago
  • 2 points

a ryzen 1200 would not be good for streaming....

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I don't think you realize that if all a PC is doing is exclusively encoding you don't need more than 4 cores.

2700x would be good for gaming and streaming on the same rig

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Ohhhh i thought you meant one system for gaming and for streaming use the 1200. I didn't know you meant having two systems, one for the gaming and one for encoding/streaming. That would be a good idea.

  • 21 months ago
  • 3 points

If you want a solid 144+FPS in most modern shooters @1080p you need the IPC intel offers. My buddy made an identical build to mine but he went 1700x I went 8700k. With the same gpu and similar settings I hit 160-180 in Rainbow six Siege and he’s usually around 120-150. That’s not horrible but I wanted my games to constantly stay above 144.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Which games are we talking about?

This is important because most competitive games (CS:GO, DOTA2, LoL...) arent exactly demanding and a Ryzen CPU can push more than enough frames to cap 144hz as long as your graphics card is capable enough.

Also, the Ryzen 7 CPUs have proven to be able to push a higher amount of frames on the receiving end of a watcher on twitch as well than something like an 8600K. Its even possible a 2600 would be more than fine as well depending on the titles.

So the original question still remains, what titles are we talking about exactly?

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I wouldn't say the 8600k is a far comparison since the lack of hyperthreading

also the 2700x cost around the same as the 8700k so its a fairer comparison

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

The 2700 would be ahead of the 8700K when streaming at a higher bit rate. Then again, the frame rate will depend on the title. Ryzen does start with a deficit but its much less impacted in frame rate than the 8700K.

The 8600K is a pretty powerful CPU. I used it only as an example.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

With the Intel chip it comes with an iGPU. Even with a video card installed you can go into the BIOS and enable the iGPU as it disables automatically when you install a seperate video card. With the iGPU now enabled you can use a program like OBS and in the options where you select hardware or software encoding you will have a new option "Intel Quick Sync". Basically you can push the encoding to the iGPU and keep that load off your CPU cores and main video card.

Now people are going to be eager to suggest the i7-8700k as the best CPU for gaming but realistically the i5-8600k is just as good as games don't really scale with 12 threads of the i7. If you want to do tasks that are more multithreading friendly such as video editing and such then yes the i7 will scale better and the R7 2700x will also be a champ too. Intel has the fastest per core CPUs when you get that 5.0 GHz OC that is doable on almost all of the coffeelake i5/i7 cpus.

If you want to use Re:live or Shadowplay which both use the GPU to encode for live streaming and recording then you could have about a ~3% drop in FPS which really isn't that much. Basically you have a ton of options that will all work but since high refresh rate gaming is your center focus and streaming isn't hard to do I would go with an Intel CPU for thus use case. Unless I plan to do a bunch of video editing I would also just get the i5-8600k instead.

I have a Pentium G4600 and tested the Intel Quick Sync for encoding and it was a huge success in a PC that only has 8GB of ram and a RX 470. I was only able to upload at 720p @30fps due to my internet upload speed bottleneck but when recording to my SSD I could easily do 1080p @60fps for the recording. Using GPU-Z I was able to watch the iGPU usage of the Intel HD 630 and at 1080p 60 fps it peaked at 44% iGPU usage. The iGPU in the new coffeelake CPUs I believe is a tad stronger so it should work great. Say if you play your game at 1440p and want 144Hz I doubt you are going to upload a stream of that size due to the bottleneck of internet upload speeds so 1080p@60fps would be great if you have 20mbps internet upload.

This video will show livestreaming on a super budget PC using Intel Quick Sync in OBS where the PC does not have enough resources anywhere else to run live streaming: https://youtu.be/0rQb2Jhef6M This is just to show how "little" you need to actually livestream.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

I love questions no one ever asked before.

  • 21 months ago
  • -1 points

I would go for Intel it is much easier to upgrade.

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

That's a joke right?

  • 21 months ago
  • 1 point

Wow... Did you miss the last 10 years?!

[comment deleted]

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube