Jump to content

Recommended Posts

 

 


While the language is hyperbolic the sentiment has validity. Intel charges more money than the competition. A lot more.

 

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

 

Thats what I was saying in the Ryzen thread.  You can get the 7700k for £320 if you look around


P3D v4.5 MSFS2020 Hisense 50" 4K TV

Ryzen 5800X, 32gb DDR 3600mhz, MSI B550 PRO VDH WiFi, MSI 6900XT Z Trio, Gammaxx L360, 1TB NVMe Boot/FS2020 Drive, 1TB NVMe P3D Drive, 1Tb Crucial SSD Storage Drive, Saitek Yoke, Pedals, Radio Panel, Switch Panel, 2 x FiPs

UKV6427

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

if you decided on a GTX1080Ti it could be pricey

 

It certainly will be, considering that the standard GTX 1080 is around six hundred quid!! :blink:


Christopher Low

UK2000 Beta Tester

FSBetaTesters3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really ?,

These UK Ryzen prices do not look all that great compared to the Kaby Lake 7700K

 

Ryzen 1700X 3.8 Ghz £389

Ryzen 1800X 4.0 Ghz £488 (wow, not that cheap after all)

 

I7-7700K 4.2 Ghz £359

 

 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/amd/amd-socket-am4

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/pc-components/processors/intel/socket-1151-kaby-lake

The 7700k is a 4 core/8 thread chip.  It's great for FSX.  The Ryzen 1700/1700x/1800x are 8 core/16 thread chips, with the 1700 being cheaper than the 7700k.  Multi-threaded applications like photo and video editing, 3d modeling, etc. will run better on Ryzen.  X-Plane may already run better on Ryzen under some scenarios (lots of AI traffic for example).  The question is: will P3D some day run better on Ryzen due to a change in the code base?  

I forget the name of the ACES developer, but he posted on his Blog a long time ago it was actually 5Ghz single core CPUs that they were targeting and they did not foresee the multicore phenomena. Thus the original release of  FSX was primarily single threaded. Over the Service Packages they added some multicore capability to the software, but like DX10 is was hastily and poorly implemented. It was not limited to just FSX, allot of entertainment software from that period had very poor multithreaded optimization. 

The 10GHz remark was tongue-in-cheek.  The point was that FSX is largely dependent on single thread performance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 7700k is a 4 core/8 thread chip.  It's great for FSX.  The Ryzen 1700/1700x/1800x are 8 core/16 thread chips, with the 1700 being cheaper than the 7700k.  Multi-threaded applications like photo and video editing, 3d modeling, etc. will run better on Ryzen.  X-Plane may already run better on Ryzen under some scenarios (lots of AI traffic for example).  The question is: will P3D some day run better on Ryzen due to a change in the code base?  

 

Bulldozer and Piledriver were 8 core chips, look how that turned out.

If P3D runs better on an 8 Core chip sometime in the future then Ryzen may turn out to be the chip of choice but who would pay those prices today when the I7-7700K seems to hit 5Ghz reasonably easily.

 

Overclockers.uk  are discounting Ryzen already and they are only on pre-order, what do they know that we dont ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulldozer was an 8 core chip, look how that turned out.

If P3D runs better on an 8 Core chip sometime in the future then Ryzen may turn out to be the chip of choice but who would pay those prices today when the I7-7700K seems to hit 5Ghz reasonably easily ?

 

The 52% IPC increase AMD has mentioned is compared to the final iteration of Bulldozer, aka Excavator (which itself was 15% faster than the original Bulldozer chips).

 

Ryzen is *not* another Bulldozer.  The benchmarks we've seen to date prove that much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 My advised for the OP is to wait and see what AMD brings us. Why pay over $500.00 more to a company that has been cheating and stealing from its customers for the past 10 years + ? 

 

$500 more?  I paid $260 for an i7-7700k, a very strong Intel CPU that overclocks to 5 GHz without any effort at all.

 

Cheating and stealing?  Sounds libelous to me.  Not giving you what you want at the price you think you should pay is neither cheating nor stealing.  A company that makes a better mousetrap can charge whatever price the market will bear--AMD has been bringing up the rear for a long time now, and without real competition, Intel has been free to demand a premium for their (much better) products.  Don't like that?  Don't buy it.  Your choice, but no foul on Intel's part.  I have never once had a CPU from Intel that failed to perform to spec.  I have had a few that didn't live up to the hype of others regarding suitability for overclocking.  Not Intel's problem.

 

Regards


Bob Scott | President and CEO, AVSIM Inc
ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System1 (P3Dv5/v4): i9-13900KS @ 6.0GHz, water 2x360mm, ASUS Z790 Hero, 32GB GSkill 7800MHz CAS36, ASUS RTX4090
Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz,
3x 2TB WD SN850X 1x 4TB Crucial P3 M.2 NVME SSD, EVGA 1600T2 PSU, 1.2Gbps internet
Fiber link to Yamaha RX-V467 Home Theater Receiver, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf speakers, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro
PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensor retrofit, Thermaltake View 71 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Sys2 (MSFS/XPlane): i9-10900K @ 5.1GHz, 32GB 3600/15, nVidia RTX4090FE, Alienware AW3821DW 38" 21:9 GSync, EVGA 1000P2
Thrustmaster TCA Boeing Yoke, TCA Airbus Sidestick, 2x TCA Airbus Throttle quads, PFC Cirrus Pedals, Coolermaster HAF932 case

Portable Sys3 (P3Dv4/FSX/DCS): i9-9900K @ 5.0 Ghz, Noctua NH-D15, 32GB 3200/16, EVGA RTX3090, Dell S2417DG 24" GSync
Corsair RM850x PSU, TM TCA Officer Pack, Saitek combat pedals, TM Warthog HOTAS, Coolermaster HAF XB case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the language is hyperbolic the sentiment has validity.  Intel charges more money than the competition.  A lot more.  In the past they have offered significantly more performance for this higher price.  That appears to be about to change for the majority of workloads.  FSX is a special case as it was designed to run on hardware that never came to being (10GHz Pentium 4s).  I wouldn't base my view of a CPU's performance prowess solely on such an archaic application.  

 

 

$500 more?  I paid $260 for an i7-7700k, a very strong Intel CPU that overclocks to 5 GHz without any effort at all.

 

Cheating and stealing?  Sounds libelous to me.  Not giving you what you want at the price you think you should pay is neither cheating nor stealing.  A company that makes a better mousetrap can charge whatever price the market will bear--AMD has been bringing up the rear for a long time now, and without real competition, Intel has been free to demand a premium for their (much better) products.  Don't like that?  Don't buy it.  Your choice, but no foul on Intel's part.  I have never once had a CPU from Intel that failed to perform to spec.  I have had a few that didn't live up to the hype of others regarding suitability for overclocking.  Not Intel's problem.

 

Regards

 

See above comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KenG said:

 

 

 

I forget the name of the ACES developer, but he posted on his Blog a long time ago it was actually 5Ghz single core CPUs that they were targeting and they did not foresee the multicore phenomena. Thus the original release of  FSX was primarily single threaded. Over the Service Packages they added some multicore capability to the software, but like DX10 is was hastily and poorly implemented. It was not limited to just FSX, allot of entertainment software from that period had very poor multithreaded optimization. 

 

 

Phil Taylor is the guy you were thinking of. His old blog is still around I recall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about  any number of Z270 boards with a couple of M.2 slots and an i7 7770K or  a comparably configured AM4 X370 board with a Rizen 7 1700X. A recent test of this Ryzen chip beat a single thread test with the i7 7770K and of course in multi-threaded it beat the pants off the other $1700 Intel chip in multi-threaded tests.\

I mean those are your two MOBOs and CPUs going forward (or the Ryzen 1800X for example). What memory you get, drives etc is the secondary consideration because you've already settled on a good 1080 card.


 Ryzen 7 5800x, 32gb, RX 6900XT 16gb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
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...