16 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

So his sim was objectively worse but subjectively better by using AMD? Right. And you say my post is pointless? Do you want to do a poll, who's running intel vs. who's running AMD for flight simming, and their relative performance?

No point. Vast majority are going to be using Intel.
What does a poll tell anyone, apart from more people chose Intel CPUs because that's what they know best and that has been what has traditionally worked better?

Ryzen Zen 2 can boost all cores unlike all but the very high-end Intel CPUs.
Their single thread performance isn't bad compared to Intel either.

These comparisons give the 3600X the win against the 9600KF:
- https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-Intel-Core-i5-9600KF/3494vs3443
- https://versus.com/en/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-vs-intel-core-i5-9600kf
- https://technical.city/en/cpu/Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-Core-i5-9600KF

The biggest wins for Ryzen 3600X are:
the larger L3 cache, larger L2 cache, faster supported RAM, being able to process all that data with lower power draw (Intel official TDPs are a joke), across all cores and without nearly as many stutters or long pauses as Intel.

You can run higher settings with Intel on their best CPUs, but you'll get a smoother experience on Ryzen.

2 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

The topic discussing this is lost in the ether of the first week or two after the v5 release, but basically in v5 there are two 'helper threads' that are dedicated to the third and fifth LPs exposed to P3D, so in a default situation cores 2 and 4; there was also a topic on the prepar3d.com forum and Beau chimed in which helped clarify things.  These threads appear to just assist the main thread in v5, whereas in 4.5 these would have been terrain loading threads. The result is that the sim is smoother, but there are now two fewer terrain loading threads.  So on my 9600k, core 0 is the usual main thread, core 1 I haven't quite figured out, but appears to to a mix of admin and terrain, but whereas in v4.5 cores 2-5 were all terrain loading threads, in v5 cores 2 and 4 are not loading terrain, but are rather scaling utilization based on core 0 utilization, leaving cores 1, 3 and 5 usually running at close to 100% when flying loading terrain.  So i long for just one or two more cores to help with terrain loading.  That said, I don't have any problems...I only notice it in really dense areas and/or when slewing.  So, my takeaway is that unlike in v4.5, where I was often CPU limited in my performance, I have yet to be CPU limited in terms of framerate in v5, which leads me to believe that a well setup CPU with similar clock speeds but more threads would actually benefit v5, whereas in v4.5 THE most important part of a smooth experience was Core 0 speed (which is why I chose the 9600k in the first place, because it was the easiest current gen CPU [at the time] to get to 5Ghz).  This is what I and bunch of others were seeing in that thread:

The moral of the story for me is that if I were building a new machine today, I'd be building an i5-10600k with a 5GHZ OC and HT on, with an AM dedicating a full core to each of the first and second threads, and letting P3D have all the LPs on cores 2-5; basically the same that I'd be doing with a 9900k without the two extra cores.  But I think a 3600X or 3600XT with a similar AM setup would provide excellent performance in v5.

So, basically, disable HT on core 0 and core 2 and leave it enabled on the remaining cores? 

30 minutes ago, mtr75 said:

So his sim was objectively worse but subjectively better by using AMD? Right. And you say my post is pointless? Do you want to do a poll, who's running intel vs. who's running AMD for flight simming, and their relative performance?

You obviously lack the basic understanding in what the difference between +3FPS and smoothness is...

I also stated that your post is useless because you did not specify anything related to that build. There are a plethora of reasons why it could have stank....

7 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So, basically, disable HT on core 0 and core 2 and leave it enabled on the remaining cores? 

Well, I'm not sure if you can disable HT on individual cores (don't know), but you can set an AM in P3D to ignore those logical processors. But I'd be blocking core 0 and core 1 from using more than one LP for starters.  So basically for a 10600, HT on plus this for AM:

11 11 11 11 01 01 (am=4085)

Which is not really different from what was advised for v4.5.

Edited June 9, 20205 yr by cwburnett

6 minutes ago, GEKtheReaper said:

You obviously lack the basic understanding in what the difference between +3FPS and smoothness is...

I also stated that your post is useless because you did not specify anything related to that build. There are a plethora of reasons why it could have stank....

Yes, I obviously lack the ability to perceive someone else's subjective opinion. Great comment. You're just arguing to argue.

Had a 3800X, same program, same build, same planes, low settings, and terrible performance. Switched to 8700k, same program, same build, same planes, way, way, way, way, way higher settings, excellent performance.

Not that hard to understand.

18 minutes ago, F737NG said:

No point. Vast majority are going to be using Intel.
What does a poll tell anyone, apart from more people chose Intel CPUs because that's what they know best and that has been what has traditionally worked better?

Ryzen Zen 2 can boost all cores unlike all but the very high-end Intel CPUs.
Their single thread performance isn't bad compared to Intel either.

These comparisons give the 3600X the win against the 9600KF:
- https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/AMD-Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-Intel-Core-i5-9600KF/3494vs3443
- https://versus.com/en/amd-ryzen-5-3600x-vs-intel-core-i5-9600kf
- https://technical.city/en/cpu/Ryzen-5-3600X-vs-Core-i5-9600KF

The biggest wins for Ryzen 3600X are:
the larger L3 cache, larger L2 cache, faster supported RAM, being able to process all that data with lower power draw (Intel official TDPs are a joke), across all cores and without nearly as many stutters or long pauses as Intel.

You can run higher settings with Intel on their best CPUs, but you'll get a smoother experience on Ryzen.

Please note that I said "and their relative performance?" I'm not talking about a popularity contest. I got the 3800X because it had the better benchmark numbers. Guess what? It was terrible at running P3D. Could it run 18 programs at the same time? You bet. That's what it's now my work PC.

Single-core speed is still king in this sim. Just search the forum for people with AMD complaints and issues. (Example here).

OP asked for opinions, I'm free to give mine. My opinion is AMD is garbage for this sim. Because I've tried them both. It isn't even close.

1 minute ago, mtr75 said:

Please note that I said "and their relative performance?" I'm not talking about a popularity contest. I got the 3800X because it had the better benchmark numbers. Guess what? It was terrible at running P3D. Could it run 18 programs at the same time? You bet. That's what it's now my work PC.

Single-core speed is still king in this sim. Just search the forum for people with AMD complaints and issues. (Example here).

OP asked for opinions, I'm free to give mine. My opinion is AMD is garbage for this sim. Because I've tried them both. It isn't even close.

Yes, you are free to give your opinion. But don't confuse the issue with your confirmation biases.
You just linked a thread regarding issues with AMD GPUs - that's not what the OP asked.
I've linked 3 comparisons where the 3600X beats the 9600KF in tests, based upon measurable facts.

Raw single core speed is no longer the prime factor in making P3D work well and hasn't been for some time now.
Both my 1700X and now 3700X have shown full use of cores to give a smoother and clearer flight.

As I've shown in my earlier post, I can get a complex payware airliner on approach to AS EGLL, using ASP3D weather and TE GB over Central London, without dipping more than 2 FPS below 30. I can also say that I did it without stutters.

Blurries are less of an issue with more cores and threads.
For that reason, the 3600X is a better choice than the 9600KF, in my own opinion.
 

I know this is P3D, but in X-plane one of the recent dev's said that the AMD was better now as it has a bigger cache and it totally smoothed things out. Food for thought going forward with P3D and that 'new sim'.

@F737NG just leave him. He's obviously flaming and beeing combative from he's first post. Let him enjoy the sim with way way way etc higher settings that the best new CPU's are unable to handle.

44 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

I know this is P3D, but in X-plane one of the recent dev's said that the AMD was better now as it has a bigger cache and it totally smoothed things out. Food for thought going forward with P3D and that 'new sim'.

This is correct. P3D (up to v4) and MANY other games are still higly bound to the single core performance. Inel always kept the upper hand by providing the highest clocks. This is also the case with the latest 10th gen CPU's. Unfortunately intel slept enjoying popularity. Since 8th gen all CPU's were more or less rebrands with a bit increased clocks and nill innovation.

AMD went a new way optimizing multi core performance and with the newest Matisse refresh they will also gain the missing 100 to 300 MHz towards Intel.

Let's hope that this competition will keep on so we can enjoy better prices.

5 hours ago, GEKtheReaper said:

This post is more or less pointless. I know a guy who went the other way around and was "impressed" by the performance gain. I wrote "impressed" because he had ~5 FPS less but the sim was fluid...which was enough for him to be impressed.

All MB manufacturer do push things. Just search reviews about the new Z490 MB and be amazed how MSI pushed voltages without interference from intel. Intel specifies an envelope exactly as AMD does. Articles are biased by their sponsors....

What sponsors ????

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/hwinfo-application-beta-introduces-power-reporting-deviation-sensorcpu-lifespan-reducing-mobo-enhancements.html

9 hours ago, G-RFRY said:

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/hwinfo-application-beta-introduces-power-reporting-deviation-sensorcpu-lifespan-reducing-mobo-enhancements.html

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3590-dont-run-z490-motherboards-with-default-settings-for-your-build

It's exact the same with intel.......

18 hours ago, GEKtheReaper said:

@F737NG just leave him. He's obviously flaming and beeing combative from he's first post. Let him enjoy the sim with way way way etc higher settings that the best new CPU's are unable to handle.

Yes, I'm obviously flaming because I disagree with you. All of my comments have been about the subject at hand. Remind me, who said the following:

22 hours ago, GEKtheReaper said:

This post is more or less pointless.

Was that me or you?

I had a top of the line AMD CPU and GPU and it ran P3D like garbage. And I'm allowed to say that.

My recommendation would be Intel.

Thanks.

 

Edited June 10, 20205 yr by mtr75

19 hours ago, F737NG said:

You just linked a thread regarding issues with AMD GPUs - that's not what the OP asked.

Would you recommend paring an AMD CPU and a nVidia card? I'm assuming he's going to have an AMD GPU as well.