Cores/threads use in P3Dv4

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Hello all,

A very specific question here and this is probably best for Rob Ainscough ( I really don't know). I have read many, many, topics on this and mostly they have just contributed to my ultimate confusion.

Will P3Dv4.5 use all cores in i9 9900k and/or Ryzen 9-3900x ie 8 vs 12, and their associated threads ie 16 vs 24.

I am very much aware that the i9 is the fastest (overclocked @ 5ghz as opposed to 4.6ghz) I am unsure whether or not the Rsyzen overclocks to 4.6ghz on all cores or not.

My question is ... is 4.6ghz over 12 cores going to process P3Dv4 or 5, better than 8 cores at 5ghz and, in all reality, is the difference going to condemn anyone to a lifetime of regret for buying AMD.

I am also aware that AMD and Xplane do not play well together but, that may change with the advent of Vulkan, which I guess, at this stage is still largely supposition.

Given that the price difference here in beautiful downtown Blitar, Indonesia is a mighty AUD30.00, which in your opinion is the best buy for now and for P3Dv5 and Xplane 12 (Vulkan)

Regards to all and looking forward some simple but informed advice,

Tony

 

[Rogen 1,087]

Hey, I use an AMD Ryzen and I'm fine with it.

Note I also use the workstation for such items as a degree of gaming (FPShooters, Skyrim with over a hundred mods, the Fallout series) and I perform a lot of video transcoding with it among other things.

And yes P3D does use all cores / threads, that said P3D will hammer one core particuarly heavy and here is where the highest clock rate comes in handy.

If the default scenery and planes are all you use you can expect very good frame rates.

Unfortunately as Rob has mentioned P3D tends to hit a level of diminishing returns especially when scenery enhancements have been added and at times it is just not possible to get the fps up to what I call a satisfactory level of being enough to vsync @ 30 hz (30 fps), despite having hardware that is practically what once not so long ago would have been called super computer performance.

You'll see it in instances where the P3D fps is lower than expected yet the CPU and GPU are not even close to maxing out and it won't matter what your CPU is in those instances.

Here's hoping LM will be able to get past those performance issues sooner rather than later given the sudden and unexpected potential competition of the new MSFS.

I've found the best trick for performance is to have a monitor that will allow vsync @ 30 Hz, P3D can then run unlimited with vsync for a very smooth experience, alternatively RTSS can help by vsyncing @ half the monitor refresh rate.

With P3D running @ 30 fps there is then room to ramp up the GPU based settings and achieve the best in looks and performance.

This pic shows both Ryzen with core use (I have SMT or multithreading turned off for overclocking purposes) and also shows how much P3D is driving the 1070Ti GFX card (@ 30 fps vsync'd). With vsync off the fps is in the high 50s to low 60s however such rates overload my GPU and induce heavy stuttering unless i tone down (by a lot) the P3D GFX settings.

I've also made a few videos all with the Ryzen series processor and Nvidia 1070Ti card and some, like the one linked below, also display the P3D settings used.

https://youtu.be/VyNVJjhfLeE

Maybe someone else with an Intel can chime in on their experiences.

 

 

 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Rogen

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

Just to add to the above, that the first P3D core is the one that determines the frame rate.  The other cores assist with scenery loading etc..

More cores will not get you better frame rates, but may give you smoother flight and visuals.

 

[vv1918 12]

1 hour ago, Bert Pieke said:

Just to add to the above, that the first P3D core is the one that determines the frame rate.  The other cores assist with scenery loading etc..

More cores will not get you better frame rates, but may give you smoother flight and visuals.

 

Is this confirmed by LM? Do you have the source for this statement? 

I am not saying it is not the case, but eager to really find out what is best; speed, cores. Who has the facts?

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

58 minutes ago, vv1918 said:

Is this confirmed by LM? Do you have the source for this statement? 

I am not saying it is not the case, but eager to really find out what is best; speed, cores. Who has the facts?

I am not sure this is in dispute for P3DV4... but one word of caution... LM continues to develop and optimize P3D, so P3DV5  may present us with a different situation.. who knows? 

If you want to explore this further, suggest you ask your question on LM's P3DV4 Client forum.

Most importantly, smooth flight and visuals are really what you should be aiming for, so if you can maintain 30 fps in your chosen flight scenario, additional overclocking really does not improve your flight.. keep that in mind, as you chase the illusive "best configuration".

Last but not least.. the CPU is only one component of the "best configuration".. the GPU, RAM, motherboard, storage all play a part.. 

Edited September 23, 2019 by Bert Pieke

[Mace 1,902]

13 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

My question is ... is 4.6ghz over 12 cores going to process P3Dv4 or 5, better than 8 cores at 5ghz and, in all reality, is the difference going to condemn anyone to a lifetime of regret for buying AMD

 

Right now, I'd take the 8 cores at 5 ghz over 12 cores at 4.6. 

That is as simple and to-the-point as I can answer your question.  The others have posted good info as to the specifics.

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Hello all, 

Many thanks to you all for adding to my confusion LOl.

Rob, I am going to summarise what I have (rightly or wrongly) deduced from your input.

1. More than Intels 8 cores is "at this time" largely superfluous.

2. Intel OC'd to 5ghz on all cores is better for flight simming than Ryzen ... at this time.

3. The OC'd speeds of Intel ... 5ghz, and Ryzen ... 4.6ghz is almost negligible ... at this time.

4. My GPU (1080ti) is very likely to be the "bottleneck" in a new system with either Intel or Ryzen ... at this time.

Future-proofing. 

I know that very few (LM and LR staff and now MSFS) know precisely what effects increased cores/threads are going to have on the newest upgrades and, collectively, they are not likely to widely distribute any real glimpses into the future.  

I am now thinking about, whether or not, the difference in OC speeds, at this time, is going to be as significant, with the new anticipated platform upgrades. ie is the slightly slower performance of the Ryzen going to become an advantage with the new Engines. At this time, I think everyone is, at best, guessing the significance (except the Devs of course) of the new cores/threads in the new platforms.

Mace,

I do not think anyone would disagree with your comment but the "how/why and what the hell"  lies in, as you said, "Right Now"

Rogen,

I take your point that you are "happy with AMD" Again, I do not believe that anyone should be unhappy with the AMD product.  Which one do you have by the way?

Bert,

I think you have very concisely hit the nail on the head, but again, the devil in the detail lies in "More cores will not get you better frame rates, but may give you smoother flight and visuals" with an emphasis on "MAY give you." and, 

Way of topic here ... could you please PM me with your GTN mod for the Carenado Phenom 300. you have previously given it to me but I have lost all my P3D Addons etc due to an HDD failure.

In the end, my head is saying Intel for now, but the heart is saying "what if" for Ryzen in 2020/2021. Given that this is probably going to be my last computer upgrade for Flight simming due to my age, I am sorely tempted to go with the Ryzen 3900x mainly because it is half the price of the Intel equivalent, and so represents better value, and with more cores may well be (based on a VERY large assumption) a better option in the long term. 

If anyone wants to point out any flaws in my reasoning, please do so as my decision is not yet cast in stone.

Lastly, I really do have to thank you all for your comments, none of which, I can find fault with.  For Rob particularly, thanks for your very detailed response, which clarified a lot of my assumptions, but added to my confusion in many areas.

Regards

Tony

 

  

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Rob,

Thanks again mate.

With my current system i7 2600k 32gb RAM and GTX1080ti everything is absolutely pegged to 100%. As such everything is "sliders to the left" at the moment and will remain so until my hardware upgrade. I am getting acceptable performance and P3D is taking a temporary backseat to XPlane11. Neither, however, are at par with FS9 at the moment.  That, too, is understandable.

Hence the anticipated upgrade. I am just aiming at getting good performance with both P3D4 and P3D5 as well as Xplane11 and Xplane12 and hopefully moving sliders to the right somewhat.  If I can do this, I can see FS9 getting little to no use, but, remaining on my system.

I have to say that the upgrade is going to be very significant (performance wise) with either system. For now, I would have to go for Intel .... for 2020/2021, maybe ???  Ryzen would be the better choice. Ultimately, that is the decision, I have to make.

Regards,

Tony

 

[Evros 310]

Gents, keep in mind that CPU speed is not a performance metric, but a factor. There is lots more to the architecture than clock speed. And lets take a reality check about those processor speeds. 9900k operates at clock speed of 3600MHz with all-core boost to 4700MHz. 3900x operates at 3800MHz with all-core boost to ... no one really knows, somewhere around 4000MHz.  Depending on your BIOS settings, that boost will last only minutes, and that is if thermal criteria, among others, is met. Those single core boosts don't matter anything in constant, high load environments like P3D.

Fact is that 9900k has a better architecture for gaming, including P3D, and can achieve around 50% overclock, where performance scales linearly. That is very significant. 3900x usually does manual overclock to around 4000MHz, which is basically nothing and you might as well leave it stock. There is no headroom with AMD.

 

If you have workloads that can leverage 12 cores, and time is money for you, get 3900x. If you want best performance in games, get 9900k. Oh and 1080ti is plenty strong graphics card to drive just about anything in P3D, depending on your monitor setup.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Evros

[Mace 1,902]

4 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

4. My GPU (1080ti) is very likely to be the "bottleneck" in a new system with either Intel or Ryzen ... at this time.

 

A 1080ti will not be a bottleneck for either of the cpu's you mentioned.

[Rogen 1,087]

There will always be better, faster processors, and better, faster GFX cards and they will always be just around the corner.

As the question was asked, the Ryzen I have is the 2700X, a 2nd Gen model spec'd with a base clock of 3.7 Ghz supporting a Max Boost Clock of up to 4.3 Ghz.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-7-2700x

In reality multicore CPUs will typically be lucky to achieve sustained max boost rates across all cores as every core will have its own silicon lottery, one core maybe really good and achive the rate, others not so good and achive less than the max boost rate. Luck of the draw really.

I sumise the X series Ryzens are those that have passed testing at the highest clock rates AMD is willing to warranty, where the base rate keeps it reliable and the boost rate gives performance.

I don't really think they'll (Intel/AMD) be able to keep up raising the Ghz bar while shrinking the die size, at least not with their current technology, there are just so many transistors (4,800 million in the 2700X) and pathways and their size is so tiny, probably why cores are the in thing for CPUs, than again performance is amazing and I think it is just Windows (and P3D) that makes us think our hardware is slow

I've very happy with the Ryzen, it was cheap and performs very well for my mulitple uses, so much so for my next build I'll be looking towards another Ryzen, the 16 core/32 thread 3950X, although it will likely be obsolete in just a couple years anyway.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-ryzen-9-3950x

In any case the 2700X is OC'd to 4.3 Ghz (as the base clock speed), that said I've disabled SMT (multi-threading) because less heat is generated and the rate is more sustanable.

And having plenty of cores to throw @ P3D does help in overall smoothness and keeping the blurries away, try affinity masking so that P3D is only running on a couple of cores and you should be able to easily see the improvements additional cores provide.

Cheers

 

[himmelhorse 1,276]

Mace,

Thanks for your response.

As this upgrade is strictly and solely for Flight Sim, very probably, my last hardware upgrade and with so much happening in the virtual flight world in the next 6 to 12 months, I am thinking more and more, that this decision should be deferred. That is what a wise man should and probably would do. However, I have always been fairly impetuous, impatient and as a result have made a few questionable decisions in my life (I am, however, handsome LOL) and this is somewhat compounded by the fact, that, one never knows their life time limit. I fear, HMMMM??? that this will lead me to a decision in favour of Intels' i9 9900k  and I believe that it will most likely be a decision which I will not regret .... at least I hope not,  

Decision time, however, is not until December (deferred from October for financial reasons and a lot can happen in that time.

I would like to say, that after following a recent topic relating to the perceived decline of the AVSIM forum, that I am constantly amazed by the depth, quantity and quality of the conversations here.

My sincere thanks to all

Tony

[mikeymike 357]

On 9/23/2019 at 7:01 PM, Mace said:

Right now, I'd take the 8 cores at 5 ghz over 12 cores at 4.6. 

That is as simple and to-the-point as I can answer your question.  The others have posted good info as to the specifics.

I just installed my new build 

i9 9900k and aorus master z390

32gb ram at 3600 mhz

my question is.. is there any point of Overclocking all my cores to 5ghz?

as it has the first 2 at 5 4.8 4.7 to follow? Which is still quite high. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I intend on keeping hyper threading  on also

regards

mike

[bbuckley 133]

9 hours ago, mikeymike said:

my question is.. is there any point of Overclocking all my cores to 5ghz?

as it has the first 2 at 5 4.8 4.7 to follow? Which is still quite high. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I intend on keeping hyper threading  on also

regards

I also have the I9 9900K and have it OC'd all cores to 5.0GHz. I can't quantify what gain that gives, but why pay for the K if you don't OC? 5.0GHz on my system is perfectly stable and temps stay ~75 - 80C all the time during P3D heavy usage. Why leave that performance on the table?

I also have HT on. Just subjective, but I think the scenery loading is smoother that way on my system. YMMV.

[newtie 533]

On 9/23/2019 at 12:06 PM, Rob_Ainscough said:

f you have more than 4 "real" cores on an Intel CPU, turn off Hyperthreading (less heat, less power, more stability)

In my case, HT on w/AM 252 works best (4770K). I get micro-stutters with HT off. Heat isn't an issue for me as I'm water cooled.

There are a lot of variables with P3D. I just started trying one change at a time and flew with it. Takes time but reveals the troublesome variables on each individual machine.

Cheers,

Mark