2 hours ago, Sethos1988 said:

But it is a fair representation of real-world results, especially when compared to specific cases where that exact power is used. I advise you to take a look at the benchmark I posted earlier, the one featuring ArmA III; http://pclab.pl/art75073-22.html. The difference between the fastest, overclocked Ryzen results with 3200MHz RAM and the fastest Intel CPU is around 25% performance -- Which is a lot. That aligns very well with the results on userbenchmarks, because those are very effective and credible guidelines / rules of thumb for the overall performance of a CPU. The ArmA III results could easily be applied to our flight simulators as they, just like ArmA, are now based on engines that rely heavily on single-core performance.

Again, that's the beauty of hardware, it can be measured and weighed without even having it in your possession because it's based off cold, hard facts. Not anecdotes, not a feeling in your stomach or some subjective reasoning. Just beautiful numbers. I'm just providing a counter-argument against Ryzen, because it is based on every available piece of metric and fact, a poor choice for a flight simmer -- At least if you can afford an equivalent Intel counterpart. 

But I think the point has been made, then OP or whoever pops by can decide what they'd want to base their potential purchase decision off of.

 

I didnt say I was talking about the fastest intel, only the 6600k . The 6600K benchmark score is 144 @4.8ghz.  I just ran the bench on my chip at 3.8ghz (could go to 4.0 but havnt yet), scored a 125 with your sites benchmarking tool , which leads me to beleive that 3200mhz ram isnt showing in the high 118 score they are showing. also,  If I OC to 4.0ghz my score should go up maybe to 130 or so . My 6600k was clocked at 4.5ghz so lets just say that the score would be 7% lower from the 144 score of the max 4.8ghz oc,  which would be  134/135. So we are talking about a 6.5% difference in a bench.... are you sure that the 6.5% difference translates 100% to the results in xp11 or p3d?? Especially when multicore is in use at least on xp11 and partially on p3d? this is where I think the chip is making up some of this single threaded performance gap. I am living the results, I never said this chip is better than a 7700k/7740k , but it is competitive w a 6600/6700k and probably in the ball park w a 7700k as well.

21 minutes ago, wiler said:

I didnt say I was talking about the fastest intel, only the 6600k . The 6600K benchmark score is 144 @4.8ghz.  I just ran the bench on my chip at 3.8ghz (could go to 4.0 but havnt yet), scored a 125 with your sites benchmarking tool , which leads me to beleive that 3200mhz ram isnt showing in the high 118 score they are showing. also,  If I OC to 4.0ghz my score should go up maybe to 130 or so . My 6600k was clocked at 4.5ghz so lets just say that the score would be 7% lower from the 144 score of the max 4.8ghz oc,  which would be  134/135. So we are talking about a 6.5% difference in a bench.... are you sure that the 6.5% difference translates 100% to the results in xp11 or p3d?? Especially when multicore is in use at least on xp11 and partially on p3d? this is where I think the chip is making up some of this single threaded performance gap. I am living the results, I never said this chip is better than a 7700k/7740k , but it is competitive w a 6600/6700k and probably in the ball park w a 7700k as well.

At least make your post legible if you want to post comparative numbers, that right there is an unreadable mess. Some formatting would go a long way.

28 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

At least make your post legible if you want to post comparative numbers, that right there is an unreadable mess. Some formatting would go a long way.

Not sure what part you dont comprehend? Its pretty simple to figure it out. 

4 minutes ago, wiler said:

Not sure what part you dont comprehend? Its pretty simple to figure it out. 

This is not about comprehension, this is about data presentation. This is third grade level of presenting data, in a big blob of text with zero formatting of said data. Imagine if benchmark sites presented their results like that.

It's lazy and makes it more difficult than need be for the recipient to wrap their head around.

Just now, Sethos1988 said:

This is not about comprehension, this is about data presentation. This is third grade level of presenting data, in a big blob of text with zero formatting of said data. Imagine if benchmark sites presented data like that. 

Sorry I'm not a benchmark site. The data is there for you to interpret and pretty simple to follow.  The fact that you cant agree with my findings, well thats not my issue. 

7 minutes ago, wiler said:

Sorry I'm not a benchmark site. 

Heh, that's obvious. Imagine what a mess that would be, good lord. 

It to much Amd  vs  Intel,  and to much hard  feelings nowdays on  this forum.

I  have  stopped posting,  anyway  allready tested  Ryzen on p3dv3  and a fast one  x1950 p3dv4 and Intel 7900, 7820 and 7740 had  a x299 apex Es mobo.

Thanks for the  nice  yeras here at  the  hardwareforum 

 

https://twitter.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/895746289589039104

noone in there right mind would buy a 6600k or even a 7600k for flight sim right now, i am also an 1800x owner and x-plane and p3d are much smoother with 4ghz than a 6600k i owned a couple years ago. the 6600k gave me nothing but stutters. the 20mb of cache on the ryzen certainly helps with load times. i am using a 1800x with 3200 mhz ram and x-plane 11 runs like a dream and p3d runs good, not perfect but good.with the slew of cpu's that have come out and coming out, an i3 and i5 are dead.i can run my flight sim and do so many other tasks at the same time. a 6600k wouldn't be able to handle it, it wouldn't matter if it ran at 7 ghz.benchmarks don't really tell much of anything for flight sims,what matters is smoothness. for someone today, there best bet would be to wait for the 8700k that will be 6 cores 12 threads at 350.00.i chose ryzen for multitasking, and amd is the underdog and needs our support, to push intel prices down. they have cheated consumers now for 10 years, sad.

As I am totally GPU limited in 4K I would go for the Threadripper without a doubt. :-)

7 hours ago, strider1 said:

https://twitter.com/NVIDIAGeForce/status/895746289589039104

yes they do :)

On 8/9/2017 at 9:29 PM, Sethos1988 said:

Ryzens are still behind high-end Intel when it comes to the one thing that matters for the flight sims; single-thread performance. Something like an 1800X still has the same performance as an average overclocked 5960x. 

Can confirm. With X-Plane 11 and P3D, my 1800X performs very similarly to my old, mildly overclocked 4770K.

No flight sim can currently use all those extra threads, other than for pre-loading new scenery as you fly, to prevent blurries and scenery pop-up. If you *only* care about flight sims, a 7700K is the better choice. However all those extra threads you get with Ryzen really help in many applications and some games. It's a shame flight sims haven't caught up with new tech, so you have to handicap your system in other tasks just to cater to the special needs of flightsims.

The performance you mentioned, are you overclocking the 1800X to 4Ghz?

What OC did you have with 4770k?

Nice information to provide, I believe XP11 will have faster support for + cores because they already said they will move to Vulkan API

 

For those who try to discredit my observations. ryzen is competitive.  

 

8 hours ago, wiler said:

 

For those who try to discredit my observations. ryzen is competitive.  

 

Yes, of course AMDs are very good processors. The problem is some people don't want to believe it; so, they bury their heads in the sand and refuse to look out and see what "the other guys" have to offer.  Or they bring you benchmark reports which has very little to do with flight simming.