Which one will be the better choice for my P3Dv4.5 sim, perfoemance, graphics (GTX 1080), smoothenss. Intel i9/9900 or the AMD Ryzen 9/3900?

Thanks.

9900KS@5

If you only game or Flightsim i'd get the I9 but if you use multiple apps on your PC i'd get the Ryzen 3900x, you can't go too far wrong as they're both wonderful Cpu's. 

Do you need to buy now? Because MSFS or even P3D V5 could shake things up again, e.g. making core count more important than single-core clock speeds. 

1 hour ago, Chapstick said:

Do you need to buy now? Because MSFS or even P3D V5 could shake things up again, e.g. making core count more important than single-core clock speeds. 

If core count is more important, then what? Are you suggesting to move to AMD?

JJ

I am on the fence right now - Intel mobo do not even have PCIE 4.0 and AMD has 4.0 (even though pcie 5.0 is finalized).  Just wait few more weeks till Comet Lake Cpus out.  I would wait till reviews are out etc.  

Just wait till next version of P3D is out - they are on a approx 6 month cycle (next one is probably in March-Apr) time frame.

I9 9900k without a doubt.

im loving mine!!

and haven’t even overlooked all my cores yet.

cheers

mike

Same, i9-9900K

Edited January 15, 20206 yr by Jude Bradley

Michael,

Lots to consider here.

1. If you are only using for gaming, I have to agree with the majority of respondents here.  I will qualify that with a "for now"

2. If you can afford it, and settle for AMD, I would recommend the Ryzen 9 3950X in lieu of the 3900X

3. The i9 9900ks is the fastest kid on the block and I think most sim platforms want speed in lieu of cores .... for now. Bear in mind new Intel CPUs are on the near horizon.

4. Also bear in mind, that the newly announced MSFS platform is on the horizon  (this year??) No-one yet knows if that will require more core performance or more speed.

5. The same applies to XPlane11 Vulkan update.  Some people are expecting up to 50-60% performance increase due to better utilisation of cores. Speed of cores will, obviously, still be applicable as well. AMD is a little slower in Overclock speeds.

6. Very, very, few people have a clue about what P3D are doing, but to expect them to idle quietly in the background is somewhat ludicrous, given the coming competition. I believe the next iteration of P3D will be mind blowing, or, as some have suggested, they will quietly withdraw to concentrate on the military aspects. That in itself, suggests to me that, if they do withdraw, the programme will either become unavailable to the general public or largely uncompetitive.

7. Moores Law followers have intimated that core speeds are at their maximum or close to it and all gaming platforms will utilise more cores more efficiently.

8. If gaming is not your first priority then AMD is an obvious choice for heavy duty multi core chores.  

I think the relevant aspect here, is that, NO gamin platform is going to utilise 16 or more cores (with or without Hyperthreading) at least for a number of years. It may well be that core i9 9900ks overclocked to 5ghz all cores is going to be more than sufficient, at least, for the time being.

Another point that I believe is often overlooked, is the fact that if you are averaging 50 or above FPS using AMD and you can get 55 or above FPS with Intel, is that really a significant or deal breaking aspect to either CPU. With any Flight platform platform, both CPUs are going to provide a silky smooth and enjoyable experience.

Both CPUs are very capable and I think it is very largely a personal choice.

I went with the Ryzen 9 3900X and I am very happy, but I do wish that I had waited for the 3950X 

Regards

Tony

 

Definitely need to wait. Problems are:

• The Ryzen 3950x is 300$ more than the i9900k in my country
• Only two cores of the 3950x hit 4.7GHz otherwise all cores 4.3GHz
• What will simulators go for? Will they stick to doing the hard computation on the two fast cores leaving the slower cores for rendering?
• Will the simulators prefer higher all core clocks?
• Will the simulators prefer more than eight cores?

My guess is that more work should fall on the GPU in the future so eight CPU cores should be enough for simulation going forward.

If the clock/heat ceiling has been hit with 5GHz then the best buy would be an overclocked i9 9700k (i9900k HT is not necessary) saving the money on CPU for the next gen GPU which would be the 3080TI which rumours say will be more price competitive than the 2080TI.

I have both a 9900k and a 3900x system.  They seem to both run the same in an flight sim sense as it is still the GPU that will limit you.  My 3900x has a 1080ti while my 9900k has a 2080ti so of course the 9900k seems smoother but I really need another 2080ti in my ryzen system to test.

 

1 hour ago, sgreen91 said:

I have both a 9900k and a 3900x system.  They seem to both run the same in an flight sim sense as it is still the GPU that will limit you.  My 3900x has a 1080ti while my 9900k has a 2080ti so of course the 9900k seems smoother but I really need another 2080ti in my ryzen system to test.

 

you can swap the cards lol

5 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

I think the relevant aspect here, is that, NO gamin platform is going to utilise 16 or more cores (with or without Hyperthreading) at least for a number of years.

I would definitively put that in question. I am not entirely sure about the next generation of console hardware used in PS5 and the new XBox, but I am pretty sure that it will be something with a lot of cores. Means: the direction is fixed, more and more cores will be needed and software will be more and more capable of using them. Not only in "a number of years", but most probably already after the release of the next console generation, which is always a driving factor for consumer PC hardware...

Chris,

You have no idea how much I hope you are right and I am off target. I was going on 2 reasonably prominent fight sim people. One was Michael Brown from xforce PC (Xplane 11) and the other who was P3D orientated and I really cannot remember who it was so this is unqualified. Michael Brown, I am pretty sure, stated categorically that XPlane 11 was single core intensive but would not comment on the advent of Vulkan other than he did not know how it would handle cores available now.  He also stated that he could not see any game (did not mention Consoles) utilising 16 cores in the near future.  I hope he is wrong too LOL. As I said, I cannot remember who the P3D guy was, but from memory he said much the same thing.

I do not know anything about consoles as I have never had one, but rewriting games code to handle many more cores, I would have thought, was not really a speedy thing, whether for console or PC.

Again, as stated, if Moores Law dictates CPU speed is nearing its end of life time, then obviously more cores is probably the only way to go. AMD seems to be proceeding that way anyway. However, getting back to maximum CPU speeds, it is hard for my tiny little brain to imagine that the US Defence computer is running flat out at just above 5ghz. They probably won't be taking out a full page add in the New York Times to let us know just what their system is either.

So that is where I got it all from.  Please note however, that I did say I regretted not buying the 16 core 3950 in lieu of the 3900.  

I am quite sure, in any event, that either the 9900 or the 3900/3950 is going to make the OP a happy little vegemite which ever way his mop flops.

Regards

Tony

 

 

@portanav I think you should try to read between the lines and take more things into consideration. Some of the answers are more or less based on the "fan base" of each vendor (Intel or AMD).

My 2 cents:

1. Core count: There are very very few games out there who can realy make use of a high core count. Current Flight Sims are tight to single thread performance then multi thread performance.

2. Boost Clock: All CPU's have a standard clock and a boost clock. The standard clock can be reached by ALL the cores, the Boost clock mostly by 1 or 3 cores depending on CPU temperature.

Combine the 2 above and you should search for a CPU with a high base clock and highest boost clock, the core count not beeing that important.

The i9 9900 has 8Cores / 3,6 base clock / 5,0 Boost clock (costs in Germany 510€ and has no cooler)

The 3900x has 12Cores / 3,8 base clock/ 4,6 Boost clock (413€ with cooler)

So if your budget alows it, you should go for the Intel CPU!

IF there will ever be a SIM that will use ALL cores (or at least 4..8) you will be better suited with the AMD CPU because it's higher base clock 😉

I would throw in another AMD CPU as a suggestion: R7 3800x with 8 Cores (same as the i9 9900) but with 3,9 Base clock (the highest of these 3 CPU's) and a Boost of 4,5. This CPU costs 360€ in Germany which makes it AT LEAST 150€ cheaper then the i9 (consider that you have to buy a cooler for the i9).

So why not make use of the saving and upgrade the 1080 with a 2070 super card???

Regards

 

Edited January 16, 20206 yr by GEKtheReaper