I have yet to see an OOM in V3.0, so I never updated past 3.0.   I do x-country US flights from KSFO to KBOS or KMCO in the PMDG 777 and don't see OOMs.  I guess my 3930K is starting to show deterioration as I don't have a better explanation at this point for the recent need for a tiny bit more voltage.  Or maybe the voltage regulation parts are starting to go.  Still running great, and to get that overclock on air for 5y running at 1.32 is pretty remarkable it seems, but running as much as I have for 5y at this level of overclock definitely points to an end and probably not too much longer who knows.   I don't have a hint of overheating either. 

18 hours ago, BaldyB said:

Sir, are you really a Tech Guy? I mean you are looking at a brand new architecture in it's first stepping, it is very close, regarding single thread performance. If you base it's performance on any device when it's brand new and it has more room than not for all sorts of improvements and on a narrow snapshot of time, you may find yourself in error.

 

 

Fact is: The 7700k is the fastest at the moment.

And the plattform of Ryzen does not have more or better features then the Intel plattform. In fact it has less PCIe lanes from what I read and slower RAM.

So why should he wait that Ryzen may get better anytime soon? :-)

On 3/3/2017 at 8:21 AM, TechguyMaxC said:

7700k is a smart choice.  It's exactly the one I made for my Flight Sim box a couple weeks ago, even knowing the Ryzen launch was imminent. ;)

 

I don't intend to spoil your joy, but...

..... The benchmarks all have one-thing-in-common... that these AMD CPUs are better than the Intel's on most areas and Intel in others. I can comfortably say that upon overclocking one of these AMD  CPU's, the difference we will see (remember we all have different set-ups and play at different P3D and FSX settings) when compared to Intel's 7700K, will be around 1-2 fps. I do not see significant difference of 10, 12, 15, or even 20 fps between both Intel and AMD's. Even today with a high-end Intel processor going from 4.6Ghz to 5.0Ghz shows very little to no difference in performance increase. (I have built and OC  4 computers in the past 10 years).  Most will try to OC to the highest number possible only to feel better that their CPU got all the way to 5.0. ..But, ask them if they see any gains?  Nope- No gains!  In fact, they will go through all the trouble of delidding their CPU to get to 5.0HGhz only to find out , there is  almost no gains in fps between 4.5 to 5.0Ghz. 

 

13 hours ago, swiesma said:

Fact is: The 7700k is the fastest at the moment.

And the plattform of Ryzen does not have more or better features then the Intel plattform. In fact it has less PCIe lanes from what I read and slower RAM.

So why should he wait that Ryzen may get better anytime soon? :-)

 Forgive if you haven't consider this but......

..... The benchmarks all have one-thing-in-common... these new AMD CPUs are better than the Intel's on most areas and Intel in others. Upon overclocking one of these AMD  CPU's, the difference we will see (remember we all have different set-ups and play at different P3D and FSX settings) when compared to Intel's 7700K, will be around 1-2 fps. I do not see significant difference of 10, 12, 15, or even 20 fps between both Intel and AMD's. Even today with a high-end Intel processor going from 4.6Ghz to 5.0Ghz shows very little to no difference in performance increase. (I have built and OC  4 computers in the past 10 years).  Most will try to OC to the highest number possible only to feel better that their CPU got all the way to 5.0. ..But, ask them if they see any gains?  Nope- No gains!  In fact, they will go through all the trouble of delidding their CPU to get to 5.0HGhz only to find out , there is  almost no gains in fps between 4.5 to 5.0Ghz. 

Hey Joe,

You are right in some regards for sure - the reason I chose what I did (7700k over clocked) is because there is unlikely to be a huge difference between the CPU's in use, or perhaps that I could notice. I am very positive for the return of AMD and I think there is a good chance that the next iterations or both AMD and Intel will show some real steps forward due to competition. That said, I went against Ryzen right now for a couple of reasons

1) The early adopter issues are something I didn't want to deal with whether they be performance related or build related - this will be my first PC build in a long time and I would be slightly nervous about troubleshooting my way through. If it was a year later then maybe it would be a Ryzen choice, once things have been ironed out and performance has been optimised. A few frames here and there are not a big issue, you are correct - it's about smoothness for me. I have read arguments for/against more/less cores over all the forums. Some people say 4 cores is the best, some say past 6 there is little improvement and I was also told that 8 is in fact the sweet spot for P3D. The fact there is little consensus to go by (and LM haven't been particularly helpful in answering these questions directly) means I went for the one I know will work well out of the box, can be over clocked easily and will be a good performer. I don't want to be updating my bios every week for the next 6 months and finding performance issues/changes coming in with every iteration.

2) The 7700k performs really well in P3D and even with a potential 64 bit release, it's still going to be very good for a few years. Especially if coupled with a 1080Ti. Even if P3D is suddenly made to work better with a higher core CPU, I don't see the 7700k becoming immediately obsolete. I would hazard a guess that most P3D users are on 4 core CPU machines (that's a guess but I'd be pretty confident in it) and may be for at least a couple more years? I really don't see that a better optimised multi core friendly P3D will give those with 6-8 core machines sudden 20+% performance gains - not in the very near future. Hence I went for the 7700k. It was guesswork though and I could be wrong.

I appreciate that my build finish may well coincide with a new release of P3D (any time in the next few weeks or months I could envisage) but even if core optimisation is high on the list of improvements (and there's nothing to suggest that it will be) I won't be disappointed with my choice. My new set up will include a networked PC anyway to offload some of the add on program CPU work.

I'm happy with my choice and definitely was tempted with AMD. The results coming through though mean that it just wasn't right for what I wanted right now. I am pretty sure that a 7700k over clocked with a 1080Ti will feel like a significant upgrade from my 3930k and a 780Ti and I guess that is what's most important.

@JamesHongKong Well said. But I guess some here still don't get your point:-)

4 hours ago, JamesHongKong said:

Hey Joe,

You are right in some regards for sure - the reason I chose what I did (7700k over clocked) is because there is unlikely to be a huge difference between the CPU's in use, or perhaps that I could notice. I am very positive for the return of AMD and I think there is a good chance that the next iterations or both AMD and Intel will show some real steps forward due to competition. That said, I went against Ryzen right now for a couple of reasons

1) The early adopter issues are something I didn't want to deal with whether they be performance related or build related - this will be my first PC build in a long time and I would be slightly nervous about troubleshooting my way through. If it was a year later then maybe it would be a Ryzen choice, once things have been ironed out and performance has been optimised. A few frames here and there are not a big issue, you are correct - it's about smoothness for me. I have read arguments for/against more/less cores over all the forums. Some people say 4 cores is the best, some say past 6 there is little improvement and I was also told that 8 is in fact the sweet spot for P3D. The fact there is little consensus to go by (and LM haven't been particularly helpful in answering these questions directly) means I went for the one I know will work well out of the box, can be over clocked easily and will be a good performer. I don't want to be updating my bios every week for the next 6 months and finding performance issues/changes coming in with every iteration.

2) The 7700k performs really well in P3D and even with a potential 64 bit release, it's still going to be very good for a few years. Especially if coupled with a 1080Ti. Even if P3D is suddenly made to work better with a higher core CPU, I don't see the 7700k becoming immediately obsolete. I would hazard a guess that most P3D users are on 4 core CPU machines (that's a guess but I'd be pretty confident in it) and may be for at least a couple more years? I really don't see that a better optimised multi core friendly P3D will give those with 6-8 core machines sudden 20+% performance gains - not in the very near future. Hence I went for the 7700k. It was guesswork though and I could be wrong.

I appreciate that my build finish may well coincide with a new release of P3D (any time in the next few weeks or months I could envisage) but even if core optimisation is high on the list of improvements (and there's nothing to suggest that it will be) I won't be disappointed with my choice. My new set up will include a networked PC anyway to offload some of the add on program CPU work.

I'm happy with my choice and definitely was tempted with AMD. The results coming through though mean that it just wasn't right for what I wanted right now. I am pretty sure that a 7700k over clocked with a 1080Ti will feel like a significant upgrade from my 3930k and a 780Ti and I guess that is what's most important.

I agree. going from a 3930K to 7700K will be a significant difference.

4 hours ago, swiesma said:

@JamesHongKong Well said. But I guess some here still don't get your point:-)

Well this is very much what I decided and isn't necessarily a recommendation that others need to follow. I was really unsure about the best way to build a new sim PC 2 weeks ago and thanks to the help of people in here and on other forums, I feel that I have made the best informed decision for what I want to achieve.

The only thing I would say is that I would have appreciated some direct guidance from Lockheed Martin in their support channels when I asked about this. There are at least 3 of us currently deciding on the best way to upgrade their hardware to future proof themselves and unfortunately we haven't received any official guidance that said "pick a CPU with X cores to best guarantee performance now or in the future". I'm of course aware that they can't reveal much about what they have planned but people are spending big bucks on sim systems and as we come to a new version potentially, a gentle steer would have provided some much needed reassurance. This is my only concern right now in going for less cores but I was unable to wait. 

I posted the question "should I upgrade from my 5930k to a 7700k" at the Guru3D forums.  Now these guys are hard core gamers and all they care about are the benchmarks. They all replied that I would be down grading if I did switch and that I was a little crazy for wanting to. 

I am keeping my 6 core until something really better comes along. 

1 minute ago, warbirds said:

I posted the question "should I upgrade from my 5930k to a 7700k" at the Guru3D forums.  Now these guys are hard core gamers and all they care about is the benchmarks. They all replied that I would be down grading if I did switch and that I was a little crazy for wanting to. 

I am keeping my 6 core until something really better comes along. 

That's probably fair although I don't think you'd be downgrading necessarily - the 5930k is the successor to my current chip I think? Either way, I'm a few generations behind today's so am likely to see good improvements by going to the 7700k. I'm certainly not expecting to be disappointed. I really have mulled over the more cores vs less cores arguments and I'm honestly not convinced the difference is going to be there for a couple of years yet - when I say difference, I mean performance difference that I'll notice. I have similarly asked for opinions in the Overclockers.net forums and I honestly get a mix response with some saying get a maxed out 7700k whilst others says higher cores. When people have realised that I am more focused on sim stuff though rather than just gaming, the consensus (from those who understand the sim stuff) is that I will be very happy with my choice.

I am truly hopeful that:

1) P3D v4 in it's (I estimate) 2 year life cycle is optimised to make really effective use of multi core processors (6-8 cores)

and 

2) that Ryzen development is continued and optimised so that Zen 2 and 3 (in a couple of years say) are another step forward and we can say that they are definitely going to give us better performance in our sims (or Intel if they really step up their development to compete).

Today though, from everything I can understand, the 7700k is a good upgrade from my current set up and for relative future proofing for P3D.

Its a lot benchmarks out here BUT the SIM is another thing.

1-2 fps or 7700k is a downgrade to 6-8core Intel and AMD Ryzen , rubbish!!!!!!

if you have a good Ryzen or Intel 6-8 core lucky to dial in 25fps you get atleast 32.5fps with a good KabyLake.

its simple Ryzen 4.0-4.1ghz to a 5.0-5.1ghz 7700k 30% diff in the sim the same for the Haswell-E - Broadwell-E.

not counted in the better IPC of the Kabylake of 6-8%

Have a good 7700k and a 5960X and Ryzen ( not installed P3D yet, but tested a lot with other benches) it  have not shine in benchmarks  that needed to perform in the sim

Sorry but I am going with the guys that know. I get great fps with my 5930k at standard clocks and keep well up with a buddy that has a 7700k.

Even if the 7700k would give me 5 fps more it is not worth the expense or time to switch and waiting for a better cpu than the 7700k is the proper choice. 

2 hours ago, warbirds said:

waiting for a better cpu than the 7700k

That's where I disagree as my upgrade from a 3930k is going to see a significant improvement by moving to the 7700k. The trouble has been that improvements in the last few years have been so incremental hence the benefits of upgrading have not been as big as they once were. That said it's been almost 5 years since I last upgraded my CPU so saying that the improvement is going to be minimal is not likely to be correct. I think it'll be another couple of years before we see the outcome of Ryzen arriving on the market at which point we'll know whether our sims can better make use of more cores and whether Intel and AMD have pushed their technology further.

The only thing I would say about the guys that know too is that they know about over clocking a lot for games but the knowledge of the flight sim market is pretty limited (in the non-flight sim forums) - I've had first hand experience of this asking similar questions in the last couple of weeks with no one able to give me definitive flight sim related performance information - in fact quite a few people were curious for me to give them more info. Perhaps I've managed to convert a few gaming over clockers into checking out flight simming!

Since Moore's Law has been on holiday for nigh on 6 years or more now I'm actually OK w/ this.  Gone are the days you put together a nice new box only to have it surpassed just 2y later w/ something dramatically better. Glad I can get 5-6y out of a build now which I'm on track for currently as I just hit 5y on a 3930K/Titan box, and clearly performance is more than good.  I hope P3D V4 is 64 bit and that they have come up w/ some innovations to exploit lots of ram since I decided to future-proof my current box w/ 32g of DDR-2400 as I would love to get to finally get to use some more of that before the entire box goes belly up!

James, what vCore on your 3930K for most of its overclocked life?

3 hours ago, warbirds said:

Sorry but I am going with the guys that know. I get great fps with my 5930k at standard clocks and keep well up with a buddy that has a 7700k.

Even if the 7700k would give me 5 fps more it is not worth the expense or time to switch and waiting for a better cpu than the 7700k is the proper choice. 

 

Trust me, Westman DOES know. One of the most experienced round here. And tests a plethora of CPU's and motherboards. I've been doing this stuff for many years and would pay attention to what Westman has to say every time.

 

But of course, if you are happy with your rig you'd be foolish to upgrade.