Ryzen Vs Intel for streaming confusion.

[BoondockSaint080]

I want to upgrade my pc for streaming, as a 6600k just won't cut it. Those who think it can, just stop. I've tried. I was going to go with an R6 1600x because I thought it would perform much better than my current one dye to larger core count, more threads and more cache, but after looking at several compasrisons of streaming performance, I found a 7600k beaating the 1600x. Is this just lack of optimization? Is it poor design on AMD's part? I'm so confused because I thought intel would have been molested by Ryzen in this category.

 

[geofelt]

It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
In that case, Intel should prevail.
I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.

 

[mdd1963]

I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....

 

[BoondockSaint080]

It all comes down to the multithreading capability of your apps.
If they can effectively keep more than 4 threads busy, they ryzen 1600X with 12 threads should be the winner.

Unfortunately, many games and some apps depend on the performance of a single master thread.
In that case, Intel should prevail.
I5-7600K can typically overclock to 4.9 or so while ryzen 1600x tops out nearer to 3.9.
Add in the better efficiency per clock and intel will do better in most games and in less than fully multithreaded apps.
You can get some insight to this by looking at "Amdahl's law"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

However, if a i5-6600K with an overclock has been demonstrated to you to not do the job, I do not think a I5-7600K would do much better.
You should be looking at the I7-7700K or perhaps the upcoming I9 processors.

I don't plan on going intel and certainly not the x299 chipset. I may not have a lot but I do have some self decency lmao. Also I wasn't suggesting that I go for a 7600k, but rather that an equivelant to my processor is outperforming the 1600x, making me doubt it's capabilities. Obviously the 1600x 'should' win, but thats not the case according to what I've seen. I'm asking if AMD has failed to match intel in its own 'game' (non-gaming tasks) and that's the way it is, or does obs need an update that'll utilize ryzen to the fullest.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....

Ooooookkkaaaaaayyyyyy. Keep fightin my dude.

 

[InvalidError]

How much of a streaming advantage the 1600/1700 get also depends on the amount of post-processing you intend to do on top of your game stream, such as adding a webcam overlay, color correction, scaling, watermark, background image, banners, text overlays from twitch/twitter/whatever, etc. The more extra processing you add, the bigger the advantage should be.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

How much of a streaming advantage the 1600/1700 get also depends on the amount of post-processing you intend to do on top of your game stream, such as adding a webcam overlay, color correction, scaling, watermark, background image, banners, text overlays from twitch/twitter/whatever, etc. The more extra processing you add, the bigger the advantage should be.

It would be minimalistic but that's besides the point. 6 cores and 12 threads should rape 4 cores and 4 threads by 2 and a half miles of pure dick, but it's fucking intel as much as intel is fucking it

 

[TMTOWTSAC]

It probably comes down to the specific game, and what streaming settings were used. You can make any processor look inadequate with the right (or rather, wrong) encoding settings. And at the same time, even bargain CPU's with hardware assist (Quick Sync, Nvenc, etc) can be made to look like they're doing an amazing job.

 

[InvalidError]

Most games can hardly make any use of more than two cores and four threads, so Intel dominates pure gaming-oriented benchmarks. There is nothing throwing more cores in a CPU can do about that.

If you look at scientific applications, CPU-based rendering and other stuff that traditionally has excellent multi-core, multi-socket, multi-system scaling, Intel's chips are choking on Ryzen's dust trail on bang-per-buck.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

It probably comes down to the specific game, and what streaming settings were used. You can make any processor look inadequate with the right (or rather, wrong) encoding settings. And at the same time, even bargain CPU's with hardware assist (Quick Sync, Nvenc, etc) can be made to look like they're doing an amazing job.

In the benchmarks I'm talking about no hardware assist is on, and the settings were optimal. I did notice the constant 100% usage on Intel's side while ryzen tgot 50%-80%, leading me to believe it's unoptimized af

 

[BoondockSaint080]

Most games can hardly make any use of more than two cores and four threads, so Intel dominates pure gaming-oriented benchmarks. There is nothing throwing more cores in a CPU can do about that.

If you look at scientific applications, CPU-based rendering and other stuff that traditionally has excellent multi-core, multi-socket, multi-system scaling, Intel's chips are choking on Ryzen's dust trail on bang-per-buck.

I'm already well aware of the gaming results of Ryzen, and the fact that MOST scientific applications lend themselves towards Ryzen's corner, yet OBS is getting rather similar results, and not just relatively, i mean very similar results with the two. idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...

 

[InvalidError]

idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...

The same thing that is wrong with everything else that should scale well with more cores/threads but doesn't: the software or significant chunks of it hasn't been written with the possibility of this many hardware threads in mind. That is understandable for OBS which is supposed to be a background task with the smallest footprint possible to avoid getting in the way of the game or other stuff being recorded. That sort of frugalism is misplaced when you have a 6C12T or 8C16T CPU available.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

idk what is wrong and i'd really like to figure out what it is...

The same thing that is wrong with everything else that should scale well with more cores/threads but doesn't: the software or significant chunks of it hasn't been written with the possibility of this many hardware threads in mind. That is understandable for OBS which is supposed to be a background task with the smallest footprint possible to avoid getting in the way of the game or other stuff being recorded. That sort of frugalism is misplaced when you have a 6C12T or 8C16T CPU available.

Do you think dedicating 4 threads to obs and 8 to a game would improve the performance?

 

[InvalidError]

I'd look at OBS and whatever games you are running using Process Explorer to spy on how many active threads each have, that should give you a general idea of how many threads/cores they can scale to.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

I'd look at OBS and whatever games you are running using Process Explorer to spy on how many active threads each have, that should give you a general idea of how many threads/cores they can scale to.

Though i appreciate the advice, I've no access to a ryzen processor, and until I have proof that a 6 core Ryzen can beat a 4 core intel, even at a ghz faster at streaming and encoding, I'm not gonna have access. Obviously price to performance, the 1600x beat the 7700k, but is that extra clock speed really gonna dominate the 1600x in obs? I just dont get how the multitasking of gaming and streaming can be beaten by the 7700k. Is intel that on top of their optimization or are the devs of obs slacking? Is AMD's tech still that far behind that 4 intel cores beat 6 and cores? These are the questions and conversations I want to ask and start. These results have truly shaken my perspective on AMD'S lineup.

 

[jason3871]

Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that. When it comes to games, a lot matters on the resolution you will be gaming at. If it's at 1440p you will notice a very little difference between CPUs having more than 6 cores. At that resolution, it's the GPU you should worry about. If it's 1080p you game at the CPU will make a difference but not a huge one and mainly single-threaded performance would matter. For streaming, Ryzen it what you should be looking at. If you want to be sure, grab the cheapest Ryzen 7 CPU, the 1700 and call it a day!

 

[InvalidError]

Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that.

Except OP wants to game + stream with OBS in the background. OBS itself is going to be a handful of extra threads depending on how much extra processing it has to do and is likely to make more use of extra threads in the future as 6C12T and beyond become more mainstream.

 

[goldstone77]

I think depending on what video card you are using that you are miss informed about the differences in FPS between Ryzen 5 and i7 7700k with any main stream video card. Also, the CPU load playing games will be less on the 6 and 8 core systems while gaming. Ryzen 1800X has been tested to be better than intel systems including Intel's 8 core 6900k when it comes to streaming games. The 1700($299) comes with a CPU cooler and can overclock to be as effective as the 1800x. Also, AMD will be using the same socket, so you can upgrade to the next generation Ryzen CPU that comes out next year.

Start at 5:35. Ryzen is THE BEST CPU for Game Streaming? - $h!t Manufacturers Say Ep. 2
Linus Tech Tips
Published on Apr 6, 2017
Is Ryzen REALLY the best consumer CPU option for video encoding and game streaming? Let's find out!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jludqTnPpnU

Start at 1:00 into the video for benchmarks.
Is a $160 CPU Enough for Gaming?
Tech YES City
Published on Jun 14, 2017
"Today we pit the AMD Ryzen 5 1400 against the Intel i7 7700k with the Radeon and Geforce Mid-Range Champions (The RX 580 & GTX 1060 Cards) to see how much of a difference there is and also whether the performance you could gain off a 7700k is worth it when compared to the Ryzen 5 1400. Everything in this comparison was overclocked to relatively normal levels for air and water overclocks."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R173IbAXKX8

 

[BoondockSaint080]

Hi OP, to answer your question since I have had first hand experience with all Ryzen chips, I would say that for gaming Ryzen is good but no game will make use of more than 8-10 cores and I can assure you of that. When it comes to games, a lot matters on the resolution you will be gaming at. If it's at 1440p you will notice a very little difference between CPUs having more than 6 cores. At that resolution, it's the GPU you should worry about. If it's 1080p you game at the CPU will make a difference but not a huge one and mainly single-threaded performance would matter. For streaming, Ryzen it what you should be looking at. If you want to be sure, grab the cheapest Ryzen 7 CPU, the 1700 and call it a day!

I thought exactly the same, and I appreciate your input, but the comparisons I saw contradicted that. A 5ghz 7700k beat a 4ghz 1600x in BOTH gaming (as expected) and streaming. I'm just trying to spitball ideas as to the reason for.this disappointment. Even v8deo rendering does better on Ryzen, but streaming in particular does not.

 

[RobCrezz]

Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.

GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.

 

[RobCrezz]

Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.

GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.

Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.

 

[BoondockSaint080]

Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.

GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.

Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.

Looks like 1500 nitrate at 8000 nitrate. Really weird.

 

[mdd1963]

I'd fight very hard to get the 1700 or 1700X....

Ooooookkkaaaaaayyyyyy. Keep fightin my dude.

Or, buy the underperforming (while streaming) 7600K if you wish...the .1/1% lows indicate a processor struggling in some games to keep up....

Or, spend way too much on X99 , or, wayyy too much x 1.5 on X299.....

Where were/are the streaming comparisons of which you speaketh? (I'm sure there are scenarios where the 7600K might lead in a few streaming scenarios with certain games, but the 4c/4t cpu's days are numbered...

Today's logical choices are 1600X, 1700, 7700K

 

[BoondockSaint080]

Have you tried using your GPU to do the encoding in OBS? you might find the i5 is sufficient if you do.

GPU encoding is blurry and choppy no matter the nitrate, even when just recording.

Really? A few of my friends use NVENC at 1080p and looks fine to me.

No idea why. X264 gets like .5 fps but the picture quality is there. I am running 1440p on a 1060 though so that might be a problem.