AC/ACC & CPU's / Threads & Cores

Today, if contemplating building a new system purely for AC & ACC -should one choose Intel or AMD? (For sake of discussion, pricing not an issue)

I get the impression AC & perhaps, ACC? Prefer the presence of multiple cpu Cores and Threads.

At the very least, AC seems to care about and be benefitted by multiple cores/threads given its complaints of CPU occupancy, when one starts adding silly numbers of AI cars (eg. - 60+ AI) to say the Nords 108 AI mod track.

But is this a valid assumption to make? ... Are AC & ACC the type of software that will benefit more from large core counts over raw peak speed of fewer cores?

Particularly when graphics is a non issue, due to low gfx settings or an overkill gfx card configuration.

For entertainment sake, -what about use of Xeon servers? With again, lower peak speed, yet excessively multiple cores and threads.

 

It is not only number of opponents, AC is using single rendering thread making it single Core performance limited.
I hope ACC with UE4 is different but initial tests suggests otherwise.
https://www.racedepartment.com/thre...-fps-are-cpu-or-graphics-card-limited.159416/
Without in game rendering stats app it's a bit hard to gauge this accurately

 

Oh. Hmm. So, essentially - and loosely put, - Intel for AC 1, and the jury's out with regard to ACC? (Presuming perfect gfx hardware/support system hardware available to serve the cpu)

 

Have you had a look at process manager when AC and ACC are running? I seem to remember AC not making use of multiple cores/threads (correct me if I'm wrong) where ACC uses all my core/threads. I would have thought this was one of the many reasons for switching to a new game engine.

 

That's what I've seen when was testing HT
https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/...ung-odyssey-feedback.50152/page-5#post-980931

AC seems to be utilizing around 4-5 cores. Physics calculation is usually not that a big of a problem but single rendering thread in VR is.
The hope was that UE4 could do multi threaded rendering. But it's not known at the moment if ACC is utilizing this feature or not.

 

So I am right now choosing parts for my new pc, which is mainly for gaming (ACC and other simtitles).
At the moment I can't decide between Ryzen7 2700x for 309€ and i5 8600k for 330€.
How I read it the higher single cores of the i5 are the better choice than the more but slower cores of the AMD?

 

This is a really good question and IMO the opinions are changing here, recently. Not long ago I had the impression that single core performance was the way to go but now the devs and engines seem to have "arrived" and make good use of multi-core CPUs. In ACC, my 4 cores are used well. In a 20 AI race there's an AVG of maybe 65 % with peaks up to 90 %. RX Vega 64 runs at 100 %. The CPU load is distributed quite evenly across the cores.

So my quad-core 7600k isn't bottlenecking in ACC, infact it seems to be the spot-on CPU with a little bit of headroom. Therefore, I'd suggest to go for the 8600k. Will give you the good single core performance and still another "spare" 2 cores over mine. Should be mighty fine.

I previously had the 2500k and I just think the highest i5 version is a very good sweet spot with Intel.

Take all of this as an advise for 2d screen gaming. I have no idea how VR will change the perspective.

 

I would still go for single-core performance today, there are still many games these days that cannot fully benefit from multiple core power. One good example I'm playing today is X-Plane 11, one core is at 100% the rest have low load. Having disabled HT on my CPU made a noticeable reduction in stuttering, also with some FPS gain.

The thing is, even games that have good support for multi-threading will not have better performance on a 12-core vs a 6-core CPU if multi-core performance of the 2 CPUs are similar. But games without good multi-threading support will run better on the 6-core...

 

I’m in the same boat with building a new system within the next few weeks. Current thoughts on the CPU side are as follows:
CPU: 95% chance I’ll go with AMD, if you look at 8700K VS 2700X you aren’t giving up a huge amount of per core performance but gaining cores and it’s a fair amount cheaper. The AMD AM4 platform has guaranteed support up to 2020 so the new 7nm CPU’s that AMD has on track for 2019 will drop straight in, 7nm will give a large performance increase and Intel has no answer to this due to their 10nm issues. My final CPU decision will come down to the performance of Intel’s new 9900K due any day now and AMD’s answer to it which is inevitably 2800X that will no doubt be released very soon after Intel’s CPU. Given the 9900K looks to be over $800 AUD that choice is unlikely as initial reports put its per core performance at 5Ghz at 16.5% faster then a stock Ryzen 2700X and that price it’s near on double the AMD CPU and the platform has no upgrade future at all

Assuming the build is AMD the idea is to use a very good motherboard and RAM combo which will serve as a base for future AMD CPU’s

 

The Question is more like:
Are you playing on an 120-144Hz Monitor without Freesynx/Gsync?
Yes, go for Intel K
No, go for AMD RyZen or Intel non K (i5 8400)

With Freesync/Gsync its kinda unimportant. Sync is really great.

If you just own 60HZ Monitor, its really unimportant if i5 8600k or r5 2600.
VR is literally the same. RyZen 1 does handle 90Hz for 98-99% of all games.

For ACC we dont know yet.
There will be many optimisations ongoing like happened with AC1 through the years.

 

double, sorry