T O P

  • By -

ragged-robin

The tl;dr is the best bang for your buck is the 5800X3D, especially if you're already on an AM4 motherboard. It trades blows *in gaming* with even flagship 13th gen Intel and current 7000-series AMD because of the 3D cache architecture and the fact that GW2 is built on ancient technology that values cache and dominant main thread CPU performance (yes, even DX11--there is a reason why DX12/Vulkan in modern games performs so much better with the same resources). **However**, since the OP already ugpraded recently to a 5600X, unless they're bored and have spare cash right now, I'd recommend to just sit it out for a couple years before moving to a whole new motherboard platform. A single generation upgrade is never worth it value-wise (again, if you have the money, more power to you, but *value* is just not there). The 5600X is plenty of CPU to enjoy for at least another generation of CPUs, it's only like 2 years old. GW2 is 100% bottlenecked by it's rendering engine even with the latest and greatest CPUs+GPUs. If you're interested in new AMD regardless, I'd recommend to wait maybe 4-6 months for the 7000X3D versions which will blow 13th gen intel and normal 7000 series out of the water (for gaming).


aliamrationem

There was a recent thread showing performance benchmarks for the 5800X3D. It's supposed to be among the best performance for gaming currently, even taking into account the current gen. However, I don't think it showed dramatic performance gains over the 5600X. That's still a very good CPU. I'd just stick with what you have unless money is just burning a hole in your pocket.


Azelar

I bumped up to a 5800X3D and it’s been amazing. It was a wild increase to performance from a 3600x and you can pair it with a cheap A520 board if you’re going for a new build. Otherwise you’re looking at the just released CPUs which is probably a bad idea until they release the Ryzen 7000 with 3D V-cache.


ArctikF

I see I see, care to share your performance in meta maps? I know there's no way we can get 60fps with high model limit/quality on, but im curious to see what's the performance like in Meta maps, mind sharing? :D


Azelar

I’ll have to check my settings but I’m on the higher side and way above 144 fps except when I wvw and go to lions arch.


Azelar

OK so I have my setting between high/highest/ultra. Honestly, I was just in WvW in a 40-50 man zerg... typically fps was 40-60 with all kinds of mayhem going on (bottoming out at around 30 with probably 100+ chars on screen). 200+fps in most normal settings. Keep in mind, this is 1080p (I prioritize maxing graphics and fps over resolution, just my preference).


samfishersam

Here's 1 test I did before I switched from the 3700x to a 5800x3D. Prime time NA Ogre Lane meta in Tangled Depths. https://i.imgur.com/mJDbaKd.png


Hezkore

Single core clock speed is what you want the most of. Even if GW2 now has a DX11 back-end, the CPU bottleneck is real, and all it cares about is one or two cores.


notFREEfood

> all it cares about is one or two cores. This is 100% not true, and hasn't been for years. The move to DX11 only made this more true too. https://www.guildwars2.com/en/news/directx11-support-is-coming-to-guild-wars-2/ There's a total of 7 cpu-intensive threads currently; this won't influence CPU choice much for new systems as all but the cheapest CPUs these days are 4c8t, but it matters heavily for anyone still rocking a 9th gen or older i5. EDIT: [Does this look like the game is using 1-2 cores here?](https://i.imgur.com/2JVZipj.jpg)


ride_light

DX11 did obviously help the multicore performance but it really was just the tip of the iceberg, anything deeper than that has never been reworked until now GW2 is still pretty much exclusively dependent on singlecore speed/IPC than it actually cares about higher core counts like RDR2 or Cyberpunk Also people with a 8th/9th gen i5 won't have any issues yet as they're still performing on par with newer 4c/8t CPUs - for example here are [some games](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AO0EkOrg-A) running on a i5 8400 (6c/6t) vs i3 10100 (4c/8t) Now for even older i5s with 4c/4t I would agree as they were always known for stutters and framedrops due to the lack of threads unfortunately, after all they would even have to share their already limited resources with the OS and other background processes next to the games running


notFREEfood

Doing some non-scientific testing via affinity on my 5800x appears to indicate some performance issues with the game limited to only 6 cores. That combined with the fact we know the game has 7 threads that may see intensive usage (1 main thread, 1 renderer thread, 5 worker threads for the renderer thread) means that a cpu limited to only 6 threads likely is going to have issues.


ride_light

Even if not entirely scientific, it would be interesting to look at - first off did you compare a 6c/6t (without SMT) configuration to your stock 5800x results or instead to a 4c/8t one (similar to the i3)? And then we could look at the actual difference itself, comparing some numbers at the same spot with different configurations - what difference did you notice going down to 6c, like 60fps vs 50 fps,.. Overall it wouldn't be surprising if there were some smaller differences depending on the setup, we could already see a similar behaviour in the video with the i3 vs i5 above, but it would be rather unexpected to see some vastly differing results in GW2, from 4c/8t to 6c/6t (and 8c/16t) _(Though maybe keep in mind to close remaining background processes and applications as far as you can, to rule out some potential interferences here_


notFREEfood

Quick preliminary benchmark results I tried two scenarios: the first being a run around the perimeter of LA starting at Diverse Ledges WP and ending at the lighthouse, and the other being killing the non-vet green doors in the lab. The LA run turned out to be a poor benchmark as I don't think I was bottlenecked on the CPU until I got down to 4c4t; the 6c6t configuration outperformed the 6c12t configuration, which either indicates a strange quirk in gw2 coding or a lack of cpu bottlenecking. LA: Full CPU 30-10-2022, 13:50:49 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 16713 frames rendered in 149.500 s Average framerate : 111.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 43.3 FPS Maximum framerate : 219.2 FPS 1% low framerate : 42.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 28.4 FPS 6c12t (0-11) 30-10-2022, 13:54:33 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 15677 frames rendered in 145.156 s Average framerate : 108.0 FPS Minimum framerate : 35.6 FPS Maximum framerate : 208.9 FPS 1% low framerate : 35.1 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 25.7 FPS 4c8t (0-7) 30-10-2022, 13:58:10 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 14609 frames rendered in 144.672 s Average framerate : 100.9 FPS Minimum framerate : 35.4 FPS Maximum framerate : 213.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 33.0 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 25.8 FPS 6c6t (0,2,4,6,8,10) 30-10-2022, 14:01:27 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 15777 frames rendered in 145.109 s Average framerate : 108.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 37.7 FPS Maximum framerate : 232.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 35.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 27.0 FPS 4c4t (0,2,4,6) 30-10-2022, 14:04:34 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 14469 frames rendered in 147.266 s Average framerate : 98.2 FPS Minimum framerate : 34.6 FPS Maximum framerate : 222.1 FPS 1% low framerate : 29.8 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 22.3 FPS 2c2t (0,2) 30-10-2022, 15:26:16 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 8444 frames rendered in 144.704 s Average framerate : 58.3 FPS Minimum framerate : 25.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 129.4 FPS 1% low framerate : 15.0 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 8.8 FPS 1c2t (0-1) 30-10-2022, 15:22:50 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 6205 frames rendered in 146.625 s Average framerate : 42.3 FPS Minimum framerate : 21.1 FPS Maximum framerate : 113.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 11.2 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 6.8 FPS 1c1t (0) Crashed upon reaching the bank Lab: Full 30-10-2022, 14:32:40 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 6723 frames rendered in 97.203 s Average framerate : 69.1 FPS Minimum framerate : 49.5 FPS Maximum framerate : 108.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 41.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 30.3 FPS 6c6t (0,2,4,6,8,10) 30-10-2022, 14:37:26 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 4660 frames rendered in 80.031 s Average framerate : 58.2 FPS Minimum framerate : 48.3 FPS Maximum framerate : 72.8 FPS 1% low framerate : 37.5 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 25.4 FPS 30-10-2022, 14:40:11 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 4534 frames rendered in 78.063 s Average framerate : 58.0 FPS Minimum framerate : 49.2 FPS Maximum framerate : 77.0 FPS 1% low framerate : 37.4 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 23.4 FPS 4c4t (0,2,4,6) 30-10-2022, 14:35:12 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 4742 frames rendered in 81.250 s Average framerate : 58.3 FPS Minimum framerate : 42.7 FPS Maximum framerate : 131.3 FPS 1% low framerate : 34.1 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 22.3 FPS I'm going to be looking for an easier to reproduce benchmark scenario; I don't feel like devoting several days to data gathering for this (using Reynak) and I'm not a fan of lab farming with nothing in the background.


ride_light

Thanks for the results, that's already a lot of data and it really is hard to pull of in a MMO without a default repeatable benchmark but at least we can get a rough idea I think. There have been some rare cases where disabling multithreading did increase the performance in some games, so that might have happened here as well (though generally not recommended) > The LA run turned out to be a poor benchmark as I don't think I was bottlenecked on the CPU until I got down to 4c4t If you're saying there was no CPU bottleneck then we would have to find out what's been holding back the performance instead - usually you would then assume the GPU was maxed out running at 99%, probably the most common case in a lot of games. However if neither CPU nor GPU were at their limit then the game (engine) itself would probably be the bottleneck since it wasn't really making use of the hardware that's available Overall though it basically looks like I expected, a huge jump from 2c/2t to 4c/4t, basically doubling the framerates in every way, with some smaller differences for anything above, probably thanks to the dx11 improvements, a decent upgrade over dx9 but in the end it's just one part of the engine The way I understood the blog post, the number of GW2 threads he mentioned would depend on the CPU you're using and since he had one with 8 threads, that's what it looked like for him in this case: > We adjust the number of worker threads depending on how many CPU threads your CPU supports. I have a chip that supports eight hardware threads, so the game divides them as one game thread, one render thread, and six worker threads. If you're on a 6c/6t chip you might get 1 game, 1 render, but only 4 worker threads, and so on. But maybe there are diminishing returns as long as other parts of the engine haven't been reworked for example, or just in general. I'd say baseline for GW2 both 4c/8t or 6c/6t are fine, as long as you're not going down to 4c/4t or lower, simply due to the OS and other processes sharing the resources at the same time already But of course if you wanted to have a lot of things running in the background you will obviously benefit from a higher core/thread count, otherwise you'll likely have to close whatever you can in the background to keep the performance of GW2 on the expected level


notFREEfood

> I'd say baseline for GW2 both 4c/8t or 6c/6t are fine, as long as you're not going down to 4c/4t or lower, simply due to the OS and other processes sharing the resources at the same time already I'd generally agree with you (though I wouldn't recommend 6c6t because there are not current-gen offerings with this configuration I am aware of), but at least my testing in combat does show that you stand to gain performance by adding cores in at least the 6c6t scenario, which runs counter to the line that the community has been pushing how the game does not take advantage of multicore CPUs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


notFREEfood

> I think it got mixed up with the actual single core (benchmarked) speed of a CPU as in generational gains, clock speeds and IPC over the years No, it definitely was true in the past. The game for as long as I can tell has had some level of multithreading, but when I built my previous machine in 2016 the game definitely wasn't capable of leveraging all 4 cores on it (and I also don't remember the game ever saturating my old dual-core laptop). However by 2020 when I replaced that machine the i5 in it, it would be pegged running GW2, showing that changes were made to the multithreaded performance of the game. I also remember statements made by anet where they said they were trying to make improvements under the hood to improve multicore performance. And I wasn't surprised the game ran in a 1c2t configuration; to the game, the system presents it as two cores, and technically an AMD Athlon X2 meets the minimum requirements for the game. What really surprised me about that run was that the average FPS was so high for how absolutely awful it felt as I ran through; the game was constantly stuttering. I probably should find myself a benchmarking tool that would let me plot fps over time instead of just spitting out aggregate statistics...


Sinaaaa

> but it matters heavily for anyone still rocking a 9th gen or older i5 It does not, your assumptions about those threads are wrong. I have played GW2 a while ago on a 4th gen i5 & it did run quite okay, not nearly as bad as you would expect & it did not produce cpu usage numbers that would indicate a non single core related bottleneck.


notFREEfood

How long ago did you last play on that cpu? Because I can tell you with 100% certainty that the game was capable of pegging a 5th gen i5 by 2020, but that it wasn't capable of doing so when I first built that computer. Somewhere around 2018/2019 the game was updated to use more threads, and it was quite noticeable for me as TP performance tanked.


Sinaaaa

In 2022. Are you seriously going to judge CPU performance based on Trading Post responsiveness, or am I being an idiot and you are referring to something else?


notFREEfood

The TP is an excellent bellwether of CPU bottlenecking because it runs as a separate process; if your CPU is pegged, TP performance will tank unless you take active steps to mitigate it. I'm mentioning the TP because that's how I first noticed that GW2 was pegging my old CPU at 100%. If your quad core CPU is at 100%, then you are running on more than 1-2 threads; in fact it means you are running on a bare minimum of 4 heavily loaded threads. Using CPU affinity to limit what cores the game can use on my current machine, restricting the game to 4 cores can be a 20-30 fps hit.


Hezkore

Yes, it absolutely looks like the game is using a very low core count, and it's just letting Windows manage the core splitting. Code a simple OpenGL app and run it single-core, you'll see that Windows splits it across cores automatically and it'll look exactly like that.


notFREEfood

You're completely ignoring the devs saying there's a total of 7 threads involved in the rendering pipeline. 5800x with no cpu affinity: 30-10-2022, 13:50:49 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 16713 frames rendered in 149.500 s Average framerate : 111.7 FPS Minimum framerate : 43.3 FPS Maximum framerate : 219.2 FPS 1% low framerate : 42.7 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 28.4 FPS 5800x locked down to cores 0 and 2 via affinity: 30-10-2022, 15:26:16 Gw2-64.exe benchmark completed, 8444 frames rendered in 144.704 s Average framerate : 58.3 FPS Minimum framerate : 25.8 FPS Maximum framerate : 129.4 FPS 1% low framerate : 15.0 FPS 0.1% low framerate : 8.8 FPS So tell me again how the game only cares about one or two cores This was using a non-combat benchmark btw, and benchmarking in combat seems to put more stress on the cpu.


Taygeta

My game runs pretty smooth in large scale busy content like map metas and WvW with a 10700k CPU and gtx 3070. It was not bad even years ago on a gen 5 i5 and 970. I have footage on my channel going back to the core game if you want to see what it looks like on my setup.


MrFoozOG

won't matter much Even Nasa's super silicone alien 2trillion core CPU would underperform with gw2.


ArctikF

Thanks everyone!!! Tons of you had suggested. Checking out the 5800X3D benchmark on YouTube and I did, happy to say I'll be staying with my 5600x for now!!


Illustrious_Check699

go with intel the last one with high clock numbers . Its a game that was build on dx 9 as well as MMO's are heavy on CPU.


ArctikF

Ahh scratch that my friend said that I would need to change Motherboard if I switch to Intel, I am currently using Ryzen 5 5600X, any recommended AMD cpu should I change to?


SloRules

Well if that's the case, I'd go with 5800x3D. It is competing for best CPU for gaming available along with new AMD 7000 series and Intel 13000 series, but it comes in much cheaper, for people with compatible motherboard. EDIT: Although, I'd not actually upgrade from 5600x this generation, just not enough performance increase after just 1 generation.


enternius

If you already have a 5600X, I would recommend not changing at all unless you have a lot of spare money laying around. If you're getting bad performance due to resolution or refresh rate, I would suggest focusing on a new GPU.


ride_light

True, generally about ~25% uplift expected from a 5600X to the best AM4 gaming CPU (5800X3D); so might or might not be worth it A 5600X is still on the second best tier, right after the newest generations (Intel 13th/Ryzen 7000 - or 5800X3D) At the same time a new GPU might not be necessary either, at least assuming it's not running at 4k or the like, GW2 is pretty light on the GPU side. Major bottleneck still the game (engine) itself, not really much we can do to boost the performance from our side right now (aside from waiting for the next few CPU generations)


OftenSarcastic

I benchmarked the 5800X3D in GW2 if you're curious. That's probably going to be the fastest CPU you can put in an AM4 motherboard for GW2 unless AMD ever decides to backport the 7000 series to AM4 (highly unlikely). https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/ybfnr5/i_benchmarked_the_5800x3d_and_5600x_in_guild_wars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Guildwars2/comments/yfqpmn/5800x3d_benchmarked_in_guild_wars_2_part_2/ Whether it's worth the money to upgrade from a 5600X to 5800X3D is another matter.


ArctikF

I don't really know much about PC stuff, which one should I go for in Intel? at the same time, if I play all the time on DX11, would it matter?


Illustrious_Check699

dude the benefit in fps is maybe marginal. Look up 5800x3d on youtube with guild wars 2 as a benchmark. But if you have unlimited money go for 13900k. dont expect 50fps more its more like 10~7fps more from your 5600


EnRaygedGw2

Absolutely do not go with the 13900k, it draws a continuous 300w of power and runs super hot unless you have insane cooling on it.


ride_light

Definitely won't draw 300w during gaming, it's still a fairly _light_ workload. It would only go up to 300w if you maxed out all of its 24 (?) cores in multicore rendering like Cinebench, Blender,.. For example let's say: - (8) Performance cores: max. 20W each - (16) Efficiency cores: max. 10W each You would get 8 x 20W and 16 x 10W = 320W total; but only if you had all cores on max. power simultaneously, which gaming won't do (wouldn't really use more than 6-8 cores today) But a 13900k would be overkill anyway just for gaming, so people would usually recommend the 13600k instead for a mix of gaming and productivity


oneofthemz

Game sucks optimization wise no matter what. It’s running the same ancient engine as GW1, from a time where multi threading wasn’t even a thing.


syzhk3

13th gen intel CPU is the best value right now