Jump to content
Sports Interactive Community

djinni999

Members+
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 "What we've got here is a failure to communicate"

About djinni999

  • Rank
    Amateur

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh I see. That makes sense and will affect processing time. Of course, it shouldn't matter for a CPU bench as it's the same save file everyone is going to use. But it will skew the results when comparing to previous versions. But comparing different versions isn't really meaningful, except to satisfy curiosity maybe and to gauge improvements in efficiency over the years. At the end of the day, how many people are going to play a particularly fast old version? I know there are legendary versions that people just love, and data update activity is pretty high. I myself have CM 00/01 installed right now, It was to test some things and also it is clutter free very responsive and you can breeze through it. Most will play the latest or the one before that, just in order to not abandon a save they invested in. One tip. Make a standard benchmark that takes place outside transfer windows. Since youth intake also significantly slow things down, especially the big nations, you'd want to avoid that period too. It's not just the slowing down, you just want to minimize variance. So, very early February after the window has surely closed to mid-February, when there won't be any intake from the Big 5 would make a good candidate. And retroactively, the same saves can be created for earlier versions, as long as people are willing to bother with it and players are willing to participate in the benchmarks. Edit: Not allowing matches to be rescheduled for TV broadcast would also be needed.
  2. Why do you believe that it is so hard to recreate the conditions? I never really understood this. After all, it's just a certain amount of data and the processing. I mean, added features, like I don't know, social media, press conferences, media etc. might adversely affect processing time, but the database and game setup should work the same way, maybe? As we talked about earlier, if you're looking for a meaningful comparison of different FM versions, all you need to do is choose the right dates. So it starts in the same period of a season, say CL first week matches, and then the normal over the weekend matches for the leagues. So, the same type and same amount of matches are played and calculated by the same method over a long enough time to reduce standard deviation and give statistically significant results. AS for the most common setups, maybe a sticky ongoing poll in the main forum would help. I generally pick 1 active nation, the remaining big 4 top 2 tiers view only for both players and increased transfer activity. Maybe internationals, and top clubs, etc. as well. Don't remember the player count I had in my last saves. Maybe 80K or so.
  3. Yeah. Even my i2500K was just fine not really bad at all the last time I was playing FM. Even in a poorly optimized game like SCUM it was just fine. At least give him some upgradability options, ie motherboard. The B450 is the budget chipset to go for. He'll enjoy the option of upgrading to 3rd Gen if he pleases, 2 or 3 years down the line. It'll be less confusing than an Intel build.
  4. The G is APU, so he won't need a GPU, which he really doesn't for FM anyway, so yeah, that's a very good choice. But how much is the 3300X? 120 quid? Plus a GPU, so if it's purely FM and nothing else for years, then yeah go with that. I don't know the ST performance of that CPU though, so it may or may not be a sweetspot. let me check EDIT: 3300X is 21% faster for single-thread. So it may be worth it to shell out slightly more. Plus, 3300X will benefit fully from RAM OC/tweaking, which no other Ryzen will.
  5. The fastest Test A score is 0:53 seconds for non-overclocked. My 3300X does 1:08. That is a 28% improvement. The cost differential is 300%, ie. 4 times the price. Maybe, this will help put things into perspective.
  6. No one can see the future and there are no guarantees. But, comparing Intel and AMD's past track records of recent times, AMD is doing much better. They are delivering on their promises. The 3rd Gen Ryzens are going to be pretty good. My 3300X is a transitional CPU between 2nd and 3rd gen, it's not like the other Ryzens. 4th Gen, which probably will be supported on B550 and X570 boards (though no guarantees) should be a significant upgrade over a typical Ryzen today (2600, 3600, etc.). Honestly, if you don't want to spend that much unnecessarily and minimize future-proofing risk, then just get the 3300X for $120 now. Get a B450 board that is bargain-priced but perfectly fine in terms of features and performance. I hear MSI Mortar and Tomahawk get recommended a lot for budget builds. If there is a socket change for 4th gen Ryzen, you won't have invested as much into a X570 high-end board like I did. If you're willing to spend more and intend on overclocking a future 3rd gen CPU, then yeah a mid to high-end X570 or B550 will be needed. If you're willing to wait for 3rd Gen Ryzens to hit the stores, then that is very reasonable. If you find that a particular CPU is reasonably priced and offers a noticeable increase in performance, then get that. If not, you can always fall back to the 3300X, which will have become even cheaper by then.
  7. It's not a bias, it's being reasonable. If you're only going to game + internet, etc. Is there a single reason to get a 3900X? Even a 3700X is overkill. That's where the 3300X comes in, it is essentially a proper gaming CPU that is super-competitive in pricing, no bloat in terms of idle cores. My present AMD lean has less to do with AMD or Ryzen than with the AM4 socket. Intel has an excellent reputation for changing the socket for no reason at all; with pathetic performance improvements over generations. My X570 board will support 3rd Gen and very probably 4th gen, and possibly 5th gen. If one gets a 10600K now, they will be stuck with it unless they are willing to spend significantly more for a possible hypothetical future flagship CPU that is only 10-15% or so better in (gaming) performance (the 10900K, even, is not even 10% better in single-thread). Otherwise, they'll almost certainly face a motherboard upgrade as well. Two years ago, especially with an upgrade as opposed to full rebuild, the 8700K and 9700K would have been no brainers. They're still not cheap today second-hand, I can't imagine what they cost back then. BUT you would have gotten what you paid for, with no better alternatives that were reasonably priced. In hindsight, I'm lucky I didn't upgrade back then, as I would have been stuck with those CPUs and having invested so much in that dead-end system. My trusty i2500K (stock) got me by just fine.
  8. Yes, that makes sense. BUT, when you factor in costs, CPU+MB, and upgradability, then I don't think 10600K is that great an idea. I'd consider 8700K or 9700K used, if you want intel and a short-term build. If not, an Intel build makes zero sense unless you like throwing money around.
  9. do you need many cores for other workloads? Is it mostly gaming you're interested in?
  10. Yes, exactly. After every tweak, you need to run something like Cinebench CPU stress test. Not only to test stability but to get a score. If your score is lower, it's not optimal. If high temps is a problem, then you sacrifice slight drop in performance. If it isn't you need to find the right max Voltage that gives you as good a score as stock. This is just for undervolting to reduce temps. Overclocking is a different matter but similar in methodology. Don't rely on clock speeds being reported in software, only bernchmark results, not even FM benchmarks, as it may not put a full load on the CPU continuously. Also, don't use two hardware monitors at the same time. They will interfere with eachother. And with most monitors you have an 'observer's effect'; while monitoring the software is stimulating your CPU and skewing the results. Use Ryzen Master for temps and CPU clocks, etc to get the most precise measurements.
  11. Regarding undervolting; when you set a certain clock speed, it can appear to be reaching it when you check it through software such as Ryzen Master or HWMonitor. This may be falsely reported by such software. They are being tricked into seeing those clocks when actually they aren't hitting those speeds. The only way to be sure if you are taking a performance hit is a full-load benchmark. Basically, you undervolt but keep your clocks as high as you can, thinking you're gaining reduction in temps at no performance cost. The reality is that your CPU will not hit or maintain those clocks when they are required. That said, there probably is a sweetspot of voltage/real cpu performance, but finding it may not be as easy.
  12. I see. But I did set it up with almost the exact player count, database size. Anyway, so do you think the extra 8 cores is the difference between 2:42 and 3:12 times on the 102 league bench?
  13. I did state that I used FM20 bench A settings for FM19. I equaled the 9700K at 1:00. Using FM19's Bench A, I got 3:12. I am aware that the 3900X gets 2:42, which is the very reason that I made the post. I was expecting it to be close. I'm confused as to the discrepancy. Could it be that loading 102 or so leagues totally taxes the 4-core, while the 12-core is able to handle it much better? FM20 Bench A has only 20 leagues loaded, so that could explain why I was able to beat the 3900X there. Also, it seems FM20 has benefited Ryzens more, as they seem to have closed the gap between the top Intels.
  14. Hi guys. I did benchmark A. My system is Ryzen 3300X, a bit undervolted but @3.4 GHz all-core, 16 GB 3200CL14 RAM, 1080 TI, SSD. I got 3:12 and I'm a bit underwhelmed. I was expecting better. Is my result normal? Using the FM2020 Benchmark A settings on FM19 I got a really good score, beating all Ryzens and tying the 9700K for 5th place.
  15. Yeah, that's why I only did the Bench A using your 2020 settings. I chose Spain for starting league and only this is playable. All other leagues are view only. Then I also reduced detail to 'none' for the other leagues. Spain is La Liga and Copa full, others are none. Is this correct? And also, when you go back or forth a year, the day is not the same for a particular date. Both 19 and 20 benchmarks A start at 8-20, but greatly less or more matches might be played depending on the coinciding day (TUE, WED for CL, THU for EUROPA, WED and SAT for INTL). This would greatly affect bench times accross two versions. Am I right in my thinking?
×
×
  • Create New...