Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 3/6/2017 at 8:41 AM, TechguyMaxC said:

Blame the users for not buying the product without knowing the performance, rather than the media outlets for not testing with your workload of choice?  That's beyond the pale.

 

If you don't like it, why don't you either:

1) write to several media outlets and request FSX/P3d test

2) go buy Ryzen and test it youself!

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


My 1800X at stock vs 4770K @ 4.5 GHz experience:

It's insanely fast in anything that uses 8 cores efficiently, such as synthetic benchmarks, video encoding, 3D rendering, DAWs (running lots of virtual instruments/effects) etc. Primary reason I bought it.

It's slightly slower at stock than my overclocked 4770K in most games, but usually just a couple of FPS.
As for flight sims:

XP11: Loads significantly faster at startup or when changing location. During flight, X-Plane is mostly single-threaded. It only activates more threads when loading a new chunk of scenery, which happens periodically. The CPU boosts to 4.1 GHz much of the time, so it's still pretty smooth. A few FPS lower than my 4770K @ 4.5 GHz (2 - 4 FPS), but absolutely no stutters/frame skipping.

P3D: Also loads faster. By default uses all 16 threads (SMT), which is a bit overkill. AffinityMask=21845 or 21844 makes more sense. 21845 seems to work the best, there seems to be some hangups/stutters when you move it off Core 0. Like XP11, P3D only uses additional threads to load new scenery, but it happens more frequently/continuously rather than periodically in chunks like XP11. Scenery loads extremely quickly. You can Slew super fast and then stop, and terrain will "pop" into view after just a few seconds. It's probably a few FPS slower than my overclocked 4770K, but not by much.

Keep in mind that the 1800X can be overclocked too, though not as high as Intel (4.1 - 4.2 GHz seems to be the absolute max). There are also discussions about whether future updates to the Windows task scheduler could take better advantage of Ryzen's core layout and improve performance.

i7 7700K, which runs at a higher frequency and can be overclocked higher, is still probably the fastest for XP11 and P3D, if you don't need 8 cores for anything else. This is nothing new, the 7700K was already faster than the i7 6900K for P3D/X-Plane. It's always going to be a trade off between more cores or faster cores.

Asus Prime X370-Pro, Ryzen 1800X @ stock (at least for now), 2x8GB Corsair LPX 3000 MHz @2933 MHz, GTX 970 4 GB (I've ordered a 1070, but all tests were done with the 970), 500 GB Evo 850 SSD system drive, P3D and X-Plane installed on Kingston V300 480 GB.

  • Upvote 1

Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JimmiG for the XP11 test , i am going for the 1700 or the 1600X .

There are some issues with SMT in W10 and certain BIOS issues which i have been reading on the hardware forums.


Ryzen 5 1600x - 16GB DDR4 - RTX 3050 8GB - MSI Gaming Plus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2017 at 2:59 AM, Patriot3810 said:

here is a good chart and a good reason not to buy ryzen, it's a steam chart showing how many games actually use 4,6, or 8 cores for games

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/cpus/

 

I feel like a correction is in order. The chart doesn't show how many games use a certain number of cores. That would be impossible to measure anyway (a game can "use" 8 cores, but not see a significant performance advantage above 4 cores, for example).

The chart simply shows what Steam users are currently running, via the Steam hardware survey..

Quote

Steam conducts a monthly survey to collect data about what kinds of computer hardware and software our customers are using. Participation in the survey is optional, and anonymous. The information gathered is incredibly helpful to us as we make decisions about what kinds of technology investments to make and products to offer.

 

Naturally, since Intel's 8 core CPUs are so expensive, and Ryzen only came out a week ago, very few users have more than 4-core CPUs.


Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JimmiG - great to read your experiences, thank you. It seems that people who plump for a Ryzen or 7700k are both likely to be pretty happy overall which is good to hear!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JimmiG said:

Naturally, since Intel's 8 core CPUs are so expensive, and Ryzen only came out a week ago, very few users have more than 4-core CPUs.

But it's unlikely that a large proportion of those users will change to Ryzen in the next year or so. If that upgrade trend was likely, you would think that many more of them would have changed from 2 core to 4 core CPUs by now. Most non-flight sim games rely more on the graphics card and that's where gamers tend to make their investment. The other upgrade factor is that of performance in new games. If performance is still good enough, why would you want to upgrade (look at the numbers still running 2 core CPUs)?

Ryzen is definitely going to make the upgrade decision more difficult than it was just a month ago. However, for most gamers, it's probably not going to be an automatic first choice unless they know they'll need the extra cores.


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Most non-flight sim games rely more on the graphics card and that's where gamers tend to make their investment. The other upgrade factor is that of performance in new games. If performance is still good enough, why would you want to upgrade (look at the numbers still running 2 core CPUs)?

"Most non-flight sim games rely more on the graphics card and that's where gamers tend to make their investment."

That's a correct statement. It would also be correct to say that the war games and non sim users far outnumber the sim users. You seem to have missed the difference. It would also be correct to say that game developers are beginning to show more interest in multi core and 64 bit, they are bumping up against 32 bit limitations.

If you already own a chip that gives you top performance you don't need to upgrade, no sh**t, why would you?

My AMD FX 8350 gives me 18-25-30 FPS at dense airports with PMDG stuff. Could I use a few more FPS's?, yes of course. But it goes beyond that. My mobo is old etc.

Regarding Ryzen. If I get an increase in performance of any stripe it's ok with me. And by the way, those who say only the CPU counts in the sim world is full of it. I picked up a Cheap $230.00 RX-480 at the same time I bought the Rift. I saw a BIG difference in FSX instantly, that was before installing Oculus  Ryzen is new, new platforms always have teething problems, some chips even have errata. I remember getting a new chip from Intel that had the math bug, free with a complaint.  Some mobo manufacturers didn't have enough time to  do it right, new versions are eminent. New BIOS's are eminent. Win 10 Core tables will be fixed. If all you do is sim, then go for that very last FPS to be gained. I said from the very start, " If it come close it will fit my and most upgraders needs". I think it's done at least that!

The best is yet to come IMHO!

Best.

BaldyB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JimmiG said:


My 1800X at stock vs 4770K @ 4.5 GHz experience:

It's insanely fast in anything that uses 8 cores efficiently, such as synthetic benchmarks, video encoding, 3D rendering, DAWs (running lots of virtual instruments/effects) etc. Primary reason I bought it.

It's slightly slower at stock than my overclocked 4770K in most games, but usually just a couple of FPS.
As for flight sims:

XP11: Loads significantly faster at startup or when changing location. During flight, X-Plane is mostly single-threaded. It only activates more threads when loading a new chunk of scenery, which happens periodically. The CPU boosts to 4.1 GHz much of the time, so it's still pretty smooth. A few FPS lower than my 4770K @ 4.5 GHz (2 - 4 FPS), but absolutely no stutters/frame skipping.

P3D: Also loads faster. By default uses all 16 threads (SMT), which is a bit overkill. AffinityMask=21845 or 21844 makes more sense. 21845 seems to work the best, there seems to be some hangups/stutters when you move it off Core 0. Like XP11, P3D only uses additional threads to load new scenery, but it happens more frequently/continuously rather than periodically in chunks like XP11. Scenery loads extremely quickly. You can Slew super fast and then stop, and terrain will "pop" into view after just a few seconds. It's probably a few FPS slower than my overclocked 4770K, but not by much.

Keep in mind that the 1800X can be overclocked too, though not as high as Intel (4.1 - 4.2 GHz seems to be the absolute max). There are also discussions about whether future updates to the Windows task scheduler could take better advantage of Ryzen's core layout and improve performance.

i7 7700K, which runs at a higher frequency and can be overclocked higher, is still probably the fastest for XP11 and P3D, if you don't need 8 cores for anything else. This is nothing new, the 7700K was already faster than the i7 6900K for P3D/X-Plane. It's always going to be a trade off between more cores or faster cores.

Asus Prime X370-Pro, Ryzen 1800X @ stock (at least for now), 2x8GB Corsair LPX 3000 MHz @2933 MHz, GTX 970 4 GB (I've ordered a 1070, but all tests were done with the 970), 500 GB Evo 850 SSD system drive, P3D and X-Plane installed on Kingston V300 480 GB.

good review, what good are frames if you are stuttering.. i have a 6600k @4.7 ghz and still get stutters at any time even at 30fps and above. Tried locking to 30 hz, didnt work and tried running unlimited and its slightly better but still get stutters with 3200 ddr4 ram.  If your telling me I lose a few frames but no stutters occur then this is a HUGE deal. can you confirm its super smooth?


7900x3d , 64gb 6200mhz 30CL Ram, RTX 3080

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, BaldyB said:

It would also be correct to say that the war games and non sim users far outnumber the sim users. You seem to have missed the difference. It would also be correct to say that game developers are beginning to show more interest in multi core and 64 bit, they are bumping up against 32 bit limitations.

I haven't missed the difference. I'm fully aware that FPS games rule and that flight sims are such an insignificant part of the overall games scene that nobody thinks of us when making driver and BIOS optimizations. Very few games are currently properly optimized for 4 cores so to expect developers to start optimizing for 8 cores anytime soon is unrealistic. 64bit-only games have been around since 2013 - I think Call of Duty: Ghosts was the first. It's only the flight sim world that's dragging its heels.

10 hours ago, BaldyB said:

If you already own a chip that gives you top performance you don't need to upgrade, no sh**t, why would you?

Exactly my point. I was responding to JimmiG's comment "Naturally, since Intel's 8 core CPUs are so expensive, and Ryzen only came out a week ago, very few users have more than 4-core CPUs." That situation isn't going to change soon. Those gamers with 2 and 4 core CPUs (over 90% according to Steam) are not suddenly going to upgrade to Ryzen just because it's new and cheaper than Intel 8 core CPUs. They'll only do it if they need to upgrade and there's a really compelling reason to choose 8 cores over 4. I'm sure that 8 cores and beyond will eventually become the norm but that's still some way off (years?). What's good is that at least now we have a real choice which hasn't been the case for some time.


 i7-6700k | Asus Maximus VIII Hero | 16GB RAM | MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X Plus | Samsung Evo 500GB & 1TB | WD Blue 2 x 1TB | EVGA Supernova G2 850W | AOC 2560x1440 monitor | Win 10 Pro 64-bit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the review JimmiG, its nice to see a review from someone who has actually used one instead of the normal its useless/its great replies. I am still a few weeks away from finally upgrading my system so will be nice to see if any of the mobo/win10 issues are fixed for the ryzen by the time i make a purchase.


From EGFF to YSSY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Exactly my point. I was responding to JimmiG's comment "Naturally, since Intel's 8 core CPUs are so expensive, and Ryzen only came out a week ago, very few users have more than 4-core CPUs." That situation isn't going to change soon. Those gamers with 2 and 4 core CPUs (over 90% according to Steam) are not suddenly going to upgrade to Ryzen just because it's new and cheaper than Intel 8 core CPUs. They'll only do it if they need to upgrade and there's a really compelling reason to choose 8 cores over 4. I'm sure that 8 cores and beyond will eventually become the norm but that's still some way off (years?). What's good is that at least now we have a real choice which hasn't been the case for some time.

I don't think anybody is expecting the majority of games to fully utilize 8 cores in the near future. However if a couple of high profile games begin to utilize more cores, you'll want to have those extra cores. The industry is inevitably going in that direction, because we've pretty much hit the limit of IPC/clock speed (Kaby Lake might remain the champion here even after Intel launches their next generation).

The arguments for getting Ryzen instead of a 7700K are basically the same as the arguments for going with something like a 6900K instead of a 7700K (ignoring the small detail that the 6900K costs twice as much). You get "good enough" performance in lightly threaded applications, and the advantage of 4 extra cores for anything that bothers to use them, not necessarily just games, but also content creation, heavy multi tasking, development etc. Conversely, the argument for getting the 7700K over either the 6900K or a Ryzen, is that if you don't run anything that benefits from more than 4 cores, you can save a bit of money and gain a bit if performance in the short term.


Asus Prime X370 Pro / Ryzen 7 3800X / 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz / Gainward Ghost RTX 3060 Ti
MSFS / XP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As was pointed out in a PC World article/benchmark. You can purchase a Ryzen 1700 which you can overclock, some to 4.1 Ghz, plus a new NVidia TI and have $20.00 left for a large pizza! The R 1700 excels in 4K but lags in lower resolutions!  Even so the Frames are more than playable. I don't know in all honesty how this translates to FSX/PSD/XPlane. However I would be happy with a decent increase in Frames. Last I looked fsx Tube pilots like me do NOT race with other aircraft, FSX is not primarily a racing game. No law says you have to buy or upgrade. but common sense requires a look at the math if you do.

Many BIOS fixes are coming. The developers are working with AMD. 4 core AMD CPU's are coming. Many enhancements are in the works.

I do not have the stuff on hand to do a proper comparison with both systems, wish I did to see the actual difference in FPS per buck. I do suspect the difference would not be paying Intel a crazy sum of money for a few frames. That you can take to the bank!

Best

BaldyB 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Play truck sims too and strong single threads matter for AI cars and mods.  Doubt will see octo-core games that are common in next five years. Still, use fsx after many years and Intel cpu does the job and Ryzen is still behind in core efficiency and eight core is impractical for me as not using for video editing at all. Still, Ryzen is leaps ahead of bulldozer series. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...