27 minutes ago, pgde said:

If you can get the 8086k for 480 pounds, I would buy a whole lot and resell them since here (USA) they are from $738 - $888.

Yep.  You can have my 8086K when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands!

To the OP... if the primary purpose of your new build is productivity, and you'll also use it for simming then the new Ryzens are a great option.  But if you're building a new computer for simming that will also be used for productivity then Intel is best. 

A curious thing we're seeing in a number of reviews now after the Ryzen release yesterday is testers telling folks to stop overclocking manually... IOW simply use the Turbo feature (one/two cores) to overclock the Ryzens.  Sadly, the Ryzens don't overclock well on all cores, and for simming we want a high CPU speed on all cores.  Intels, as they always have, still overclock better than AMD.  And manually overclocking an Intel "K" processor on all cores is relatively easy these days (it's more about the cooling solution).

HTH,

Greg

1 hour ago, pgde said:

If you can get the 8086k for 480 pounds, I would buy a whole lot and resell them since here (USA) they are from $738 - $888. Are you sure about that price?

Overclockers UK 8O86K £479.99 10+ in stock fill your boots.

I cannot past a link on AVSIM it will not let me but you can check it out yourself.

Edited July 8, 20196 yr by rjfry

3 hours ago, lownslo said:

Yep.  You can have my 8086K when you can pry it from my cold, dead hands!

To the OP... if the primary purpose of your new build is productivity, and you'll also use it for simming then the new Ryzens are a great option.  But if you're building a new computer for simming that will also be used for productivity then Intel is best. 

A curious thing we're seeing in a number of reviews now after the Ryzen release yesterday is testers telling folks to stop overclocking manually... IOW simply use the Turbo feature (one/two cores) to overclock the Ryzens.  Sadly, the Ryzens don't overclock well on all cores, and for simming we want a high CPU speed on all cores.  Intels, as they always have, still overclock better than AMD.  And manually overclocking an Intel "K" processor on all cores is relatively easy these days (it's more about the cooling solution).

HTH,

Greg

I will wait some weeks and see what happens with those chips, im not on a rush, but i really want to upgrade my 6600k, it is bottlenecking my 1080ti so hard. and using traffic breaks the game from 50-60 fps to 20 fps give or take.  I thought that multithreading was the best solution for simming and seeing that 12c/24t it was eye candy, but I have been reading about it, and now I know that is all about first core high clock speed and other cores to load scenery. So i think it is better to sit a little bit, get down of the hipe train, and wait to see more results and make a better decision on what to do. As I said I have been using intel after the first Athlon FX, so i have a lot of doubts switching back to AMD again. Also there is coming a new sim next year (lets hope is not another M. Flight c**p), and if i am going to upgrade now, i want to get the best things so i dont need to upgrade my stuff in the next two years.

 

4 hours ago, F737NG said:

 

i5-8600K: £257.55 / i7-8700K: £379.98 / i7-8086K: £439.98 / i9-9700K: £379.98 / i9-9900K: £469.98

Ryzen 3600: £189.99 / Ryzen 3600X: £239.99 / Ryzen 3700X: £319.00 / Ryzen 3900X: £479.99 


Unless you are a gamer and streamer, I don't see the need for a 3900X.
Ryzen 3600, 3600X and 3700X are going to be the majority choices for gaming.

The 3600X matches the 8700K in most gaming tests (https://youtu.be/n0uB17Io2is). The 3700X brings AMD into range of the top performing Intel CPUs.

If you're on a good Intel CPU, there's zero point in changing for AMD for gaming.

If, however, you're on a low- or mid-tier Intel or AMD CPU, then the new Zen 2 is well worth looking at, especially if you're already on a Zen 1 / Zen+ CPU.
The AM4 socket is still being used across all generations and most Mobos only require a bios update to make them ready for the new CPU - a worthwhile saving.
 

Indeed my fellow sim pilot! that is why I am going to wait for better benchmarks driver/bios upgrades, and see what is the better solution from those chips, and after that make a decision

 

 

Edited July 9, 20196 yr by CesarSMX

PC Perspective early test conclusion;

" In short, these new Ryzen processors continue along the disruptive path AMD has followed since early 2017, and if you crave more cores for your money, and aren’t after the last word in gaming performance (Intel appears to retain its advantage after our early testing), it’s an easy choice to make right now. "

https://pcper.com/2019/07/amd-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x-review/#ftoc-heading-18

12 hours ago, Greggy_D said:

AMD and the board makers have discovered a flaw in the reviews and the BIOS used during the reviews.  Wait another week or two for true benchmarks.  The numbers should go up for the new Ryzen chip.

you ref to the allcore max boost or single, its more likley do nothing for the sim

the allcore max boost is more depending on chip quality (termal and power)

as you know the sim use all cores .

and second iam not a intel or amd , i have overclocked on a hi level for more then 20years

some examples one of the first to brake 4ghz with Fx57 and member of 8ghz club fx8320 8.4ghz.

i know what i do and wich cpus i have tested, i have not tes the ryzen in p3d not time for it the sample i tested for short time was only the OC  water ,chiller, ln2

no iam out from this infected intel amd thing, 

Don't forget the fact that at least at the moment, those X570 mainboards are pretty darn expensive and usually eat up the full price advantage of the 3600X or 3700X over the Intel CPUs.

And no, you do not want to put this novel Ryzen CPUs on a cheap 100$ B450 mainboard like the guy in the YT video...

And you most probably also don't want to put the Ryzen CPU on an old X470 mainboard and as such being unable to use PCIE 4.0 and other new stuff.

To be fair, the 8700K is almost two years old and yet on par with the 3600X. Personally, I would not go below a 3700X if I would now build an AMD rig. The 3900X on the other hand is by far not as cheap as people hoped...

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Don't forget the fact that at least at the moment, those X570 mainboards are pretty darn expensive and usually eat up the full price advantage of the 3600X or 3700X over the Intel CPUs.

And no, you do not want to put this novel Ryzen CPUs on a cheap 100$ B450 mainboard like the guy in the YT video...

And you most probably also don't want to put the Ryzen CPU on an old X470 mainboard and as such being unable to use PCIE 4.0 and other new stuff.

To be fair, the 8700K is almost two years old and yet on par with the 3600X. Personally, I would not go below a 3700X if I would now build an AMD rig. The 3900X on the other hand is by far not as cheap as people hoped...

I wouldn't touch a X570 mobo now. They run hot (needing on-board fans which have propensity to fail), they're hot because they draw a lot of power (higher electricity costs) and PCIe 4.0 isn't going to be a thing for the majority of users for a long while.

3900X is like the I9-9900K, unnecessary for pure gaming. Getting a cheaper CPU (3600X, 3700X, 8700K or 9700K) and OC it will give comparable performance and save people a ton of money.

I admit, due to last month's Zen 2 presentation at CES, I'm a little disappointed by the gaming benchmark deficit. But as PCGamer.com pointed out

Quote

For all the people buying Radeon RX 5700 XT and lower graphics cards—or GeForce RTX 2070 and below from Nvidia—any differences in CPU performance when it comes to gaming are going to be mostly meaningless. A few percent slower or faster won't really matter

I'm not getting a 2080Ti, 2070 or a 1080Ti anytime soon, therefore a 3600X or 3700X is perfect for me to catch up on performance to you guys running on top Intel CPUs.

53 minutes ago, F737NG said:

Getting a cheaper CPU (3600X, 3700X, 8700K or 9700K) and OC it will give comparable performance and save people a ton of money.

If you read the tests carefully, you will realize that those novel Ryzen are basically running already at the limit with extremely little potential to overclock (https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,27.html, Citation "you are better off with these processors at default, as one or two cores can Turbo higher"). For the two Intels, yes. And a 8700K running at 5.0GHz on all six cores plus HT will again outperform a 3600X easily...

Quote

I'm not getting a 2080Ti, 2070 or a 1080Ti anytime soon, therefore a 3600X or 3700X is perfect for me to catch up on performance to you guys running on top Intel CPUs.

True for most games, but especially not true for Prepar3d and other CPU-heavy simulators. You will not catch up to an 5.0GHz Intel CPU when using a 3600X, maybe the 3700X will enable this, but there again, the price for the 3700X is 329USD, the 9700K for example is 365USD. For both you get decent mainboards at around 150USD (as long as you do not go for the X570 as you suggested). Remains a price difference of 30-40$, not a lot considering the rest of the rig in most cases, no?

13 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Remains a price difference of 30-40$, not a lot considering the rest of the rig in most cases, no?

Remember that you also need to add the price of a good CPU cooler to the cost of the Intel parts which can then make the price difference well over $100 (the Ryzens come with the Wraith Prism Cooler).

I saturate all my 6C/12T on my 8700K when flying with large LOD and high texture resolution. In that case my FPS starts dropping not because of single core IPC but because of all thread saturation. In those cases I am sure a the extra 2 cores of a 9900K while help, but I what point the number of cores stop helping in texture processing. The 100$ question is: Can we fully utilise the threads of a 3900x when loading textures. Can we fully utilise the thread of the upcoming 3950x?

38 minutes ago, vincentrouleau said:

I saturate all my 6C/12T on my 8700K when flying with large LOD and high texture resolution. In that case my FPS starts dropping not because of single core IPC but because of all thread saturation. In those cases I am sure a the extra 2 cores of a 9900K while help, but I what point the number of cores stop helping in texture processing. The 100$ question is: Can we fully utilise the threads of a 3900x when loading textures. Can we fully utilise the thread of the upcoming 3950x?

My i9-7900X uses all 10 cores very well, when it is busy in P3D they hover around 50 to 65%. I want to add some more add ons and hive them off with project Lasso to other cores as I do now on the 10 core so I am watching the 3900X with some interest. I will certainly wait till September for the 3950X reviews and also to gauge how Intel reacts with its price in the meantime.

For me, geekbench single core scores have correlated pretty much linearly with p3dv4 fps. 3900x scores 10% lower than a 5ghz coffee lake (refresh), in my case the 8600k scores 6200 in geekbench single core.

Judging by that, the 3900x will score 10% lower than a 9900k, 9700k, 8700k, 8086k, 8600k, 9600k at 5ghz.

But, maybe texture loading will be significantly faster, but there’s no way of saying for sure unless someone tries it out.

Edited July 10, 20196 yr by Anshu

On 7/9/2019 at 8:44 AM, Uteman said:

My i9-7900X uses all 10 cores very well, when it is busy in P3D they hover around 50 to 65%. I want to add some more add ons and hive them off with project Lasso to other cores as I do now on the 10 core so I am watching the 3900X with some interest. I will certainly wait till September for the 3950X reviews and also to gauge how Intel reacts with its price in the meantime.

50 to 65%, so not 100%. Have you been able to maximize the CPU usage to 100% by doing heavy scenery load cases? Set texture resolution to the max and LOD to 6.5 and fly/slew around at FL350. My big question  is just have many threads can P3D really make use of: 16  in a 9900K, 20 in a 7900x, 24 in a 3900x, 32 in a 3950x ??

Edited July 10, 20196 yr by vincentrouleau

for now i prefer the 9900k for P3D v4.5, 

run a 7920X at 5ghz Htoff for close to one year , on that one i see no difference in senery load with hton 12 or 24 treads have a bench cpu that a test in p3d 7980XE 18cores 36 treads clocked with htoff to 5.0ghz all cores sync  , the best performance i get from this cpu i run it at 5.1ghz disabled 6cores in bios 12 cores used i see no difference at all on 18 or 12 in scenery load times only lower cpu usage on the cores that used for scenery main core at 95-100% during tests.

for now it seems that more cores then 8-10 is a sweet spot adding more do not much or anyting exept less load on the cores exept the one on main tread.

For main tread its one thing that counts  raw speed or as high overclock as possible, 

Tested my work horse AMD 1800X in p3d clocked to 4.1ghz with 3600mhz c16 mems the diff was quite big 10 15 fps , with locked 30fps the 1800X strugled with dips to 20-25fps the 9900k hold the 30fps all the time , that with same settings in p3d.

I hope that AMD can fix the OC headrom and get even better IPC 

Edited July 11, 20196 yr by westman

Considering a Ryzen 3700x because I recently upgraded my graphics card to the RTX 2060 but it is bottle necked by the CPU.  I have an Intel i5-7500 3.4 GHz; 16GB DDR4-2133 RAM; 1TB HDD + 250GB SSD,  I have 3 monitors, the primary is a new Dell 1440p.  I am flying a PMDG 737 with P3D v4.5.  I will have to get a new motherboard also.  Opinions on whether I will see a significant improvement with this upgrade?  My sim runs smoothly with frames in the 40's but it would be nice to move some of those slider further to the right.    

Bob