Want a better Minecraft server? Read about SpigotMC here!
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hosting Advice' started by Roper89, Jul 10, 2019.
What do you think, which of the processors will be better for the server?
For a single server, 9900k
It's really close between 3900X and 9900K(F), further testing specific to Minecraft will be needed to determine which one is better, although I've heard Minecraft benefits from faster IPC, which would imply the 3900X might perform better due to the 15% IPC improvements in Zen 2.
the problem with ryzen is that the interconnect between cores is slow(er) because of the gluing together of multiple cores (infinity fabric), so if you don't properly pin your processes to cores on the same cluster you get small stuttering.
Intel processors however can have faster clock speeds like 5ghz - if you have good cooling
Looking at the multithreaded one as well, Ryzen seems to perform quite well - the 3900X beats out the Xeon Platinum at an 18th of the price and tops the graph. But obviously this is only 1 benchmark, I can't find too many others, we'll see some more come in the coming days.
Clock speed isn't the only factor affecting core speed, there's IPC and cache size (to an extent) as a couple of examples.
Given the 3900X boosts to 4.8 (or was it 4.6? unsure but doesn't matter too much) GHz, it shouldn't be hard to push it to 5GHz with good cooling
First reviews show that this is not possible. der8auer said the chips even have trouble reaching the advertised boost frequency. And 4.7 ghz are impossible to reach - he said the 10 cpu's he tested have their limit for all core overclocking at 4.4 ghz.
You can't compare Intel's turbo boost to amds precision boost. And is basically doing a overclock, that's why you can't really overclock them. And the advertised boost speeds are down to silicon lottery, just like overclocking on Intel.
The previous ryzen generations boost clocks could be always reached and beaten a little.
In my opinion the intel turbo is just there for marketing, so they can sell their non-X processors with high ghz numbers. That's also why the turbo is not going to maximum possible and only boosting one core mostly.
Ryzen 3 has precision boost 2 tho
The way Zen and Ryzen boosts is a lot of different than AMD, the 2700X is already outperforming the 9900K in Java related mathematical operations such as perlin noise generation, the 3900X will for sure be a lot better, I even predict the 3600X to outperform the 9900K. People here have to stop comparing cinebench scores and gigahertz as they are not really related to the actual performance for Spigot.
It's really dependant on yourself, is this for a separate computer? Or will it also be your main rig along with a server? Do you want to host a single server or a network of servers?
This is based on a separate machine:
Like MD mentioned, a 9900k would be perfect for a single server given its higher per core performance of around 4.2% what should, in turn, make the server faster, though the performance increase isn't really noticeable comparing it to the 3900x.
For a small network of servers with 4 servers including BungeeCord, you'd be best going with the 3900x for the extra flexibility to add more servers on a single CPU (as the 3900x has 8 more threads than the 9900k and runs at nearly the same base clock.). Though you could easily get away with a 4 server network on a 9900k.
The CPU's are practically the same on paper, give or take with minor differences like 7nm processes on AMD compared to the 14nm processes on Intel.
If you plan to have this as your main rig I would suggest going with the 3900x for the extra cores and threads, so you can host the server in the background with minimal performance hits along with doing your other tasks like gaming.
Of course, to see the real differences you'd need to test running server(s) on such CPUs, like @FusionStyleFX mentioned above.
That is actually not true, there have not been a lot of testings with the new Ryzen Generation, you can see here that the 3800X is already outperforming the 9900KF, and with some common sense it is kind of obvious that the 3900X will be even faster, it's just that the benchmarking has not been finished and the results aren't really accurate. But, and this is the most important point which nobody seems to understand, the way those sites show you which CPU has a better single threaded performance is by rendering Cinema4D, it makes sense to use those values to compare them to gaming because games also have to render, but Java does not, a CPU can be extremely good in doing Cinema4D related tasks, but then fail with math operations which are important for Spigot.
If you benchmark Duplex & Perlin noise generation which is very important for Spigot, you will figure out that Zen and Ryzen is a lot better in handling that, with Ryzen clock speed plays a much smaller role due to the high IPC. From my own testings I have done with 3 different 9900K models and several Ryzen 2700X machines, the Ryzen 2700X is outperforming the 9900K by a few percents, which won't be very noticeable.
That means, if the 2700X and the 9900K are already on the same level, you can only imagine how good a 3900X, or even a 3600X would be because any of them would be faster.
Also, the way Precision Boost 2 & XFR 2 work boosts up the single threaded performance for specific applications.
In my opinion, it would be stupid to the with the 9900K and 3900X, if you want the best performance take a 3800X because the higher base clock, and as soon it's out the 3950X.
But seriously, I can't stress more how inaccurate it is to use rendering benchmarks and apply them on Java performance.
Even if a 3800X only hits 4.4GHz the performance will still be like a 2700X running on ~5.4GHz.
Pretty sure this was fixed in a chipset update or will be. iirc it was to do with SMT, but I can't find the thread on r/AMD anymore. tldr give it a few weeks and all of these issues will be ironed out.