Recently I changed my r5 1600 to 5600 without changing motherboard and memory (b350 and 2400MHz accordingly) – only CPU. And wanted to make small note to those who may questioned how to upgrade, what speed memory and motherboard take, or doubt in expediency of similar upgrade.
I tested brushes in Krita, PS and CSP. I just created simple table for 1600 and 5600 depending on size with brushes of different preferences. Brush speed increased from 1.2x to 2x times depends on brush type. Avarage is about 40% boost speed. Those numbers actually agrees with common tests and conclusions about how Ryzen family speed changes within 1-5 generations. Nice bonus is neat boost in browsing and image viewers working.
For CSP users – the software have some bugs consider brush speed with texture: it has some edge point after what brush speed just brokes, for me it is 565 - 566 on both 1600 and 5600. This bug life for years now. I suspect the same with Intel CPUs too.
When I had 1600 I overclocked my memory to 2900Mhz and CPU for 3900MHZ and nothing changed in brush performance. Since Zen3 much less depends on memory speed now, greater memory speed obviously do nothing regarding brushspeed. I presume that only architecture and optimizing the CPU itself in the core through generation only could bring some noticeable differences in our time.
I think that 3400 memory speed, 5th generation of motherboard with 5600X (the boosted version of 5600) could add some 1-2% in brushspeed, but does it coherences with price?
So, for those have, like I was, 1600 in your PC or 2600 I can boldly recommend upgrade to 5600. Since prices really dropped it will be good choice. (For me upgrade price was around 70$ (including selling previous CPU)) If you building new PC and aim for 5600 – motherboard and memory speed doesn’t matter, consider other criteria outside brushspeed when you choosing them.
Thanks for the test. I am surprised CPU is getting this kind of massive jump. I am on ryzen 2700 and didn’t felt any need to upgrade from the CPU side. Probably due to my canvas performance being aided by RTX 2070.
Interesting find though. Could core count also help since you updated from R5 to R5?
In my case it was sort of clean test since number of core\threads remains the same along with all other hardware. Since I begin work in Krita with my 1600, i personally don’t have experience how brush speed depends from core numbers, but I read around this forum that cores should help to boost speed too.
As for GPU, currently Krita, Photoshop and CSP don’t have brush engines that use it (Paintstorm (with Realistic Paint Studio), Rebelle and Corel Paintier have). And my GTX960 do the job well for canvas handling.
And yep, all depends from needs. Personally, in some cases, especially at start of painting when I need big brushes I felt some uncomfortability with my 1600, now it is much better.
I feel ya, I made a jump from Xeon (equal to i7 3770k) to ryzen 2700. Should suffice till a new generation of consoles arrives. Plus everything is so expensive nowadays. sheesh!
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I figured it’s better than starting a new thread.
I’m about to build/upgrade to a new PC, going from an AMD Athlon X4 860k to an AMD R5 5600. Obviously the jump in performance is going to be huge, but I wanted to ask how well Krita scales with a higher number of cores/threads, since the 5600 has 2 more cores and actually supports multithreading.
For me, Krita works very well, with the 24 cores in my PC. There is something about “too many” cores and Krita and rendering if I remember correctly, but can not find it at the moment.
Following the link in the opening post from @I9S you can find postings from @Grum999 about something I would call “a vague border”, but that is not what I was looking for.
These are the posts you can find if you follow the link given from @I9S in the opening post. Maybe my mind fools me and I meant these, but think of others?
