3 hours ago, micstatic said:

Hah. Yes. Can’t believe I typed that 

 

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

So, in theory, the 11900K has a non zero chance of actually experiencing a quantum fluctuation, obliterating our universe and creating an entirely new universe. A strange place, a mysterious zone, where PC components can be purchased on the day they are released for an acceptable price. Fantasy you might think, but quantum physics is truly weird. 

23 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

So, in theory, the 11900K has a non zero chance of actually experiencing a quantum fluctuation, obliterating our universe and creating an entirely new universe. A strange place, a mysterious zone, where PC components can be purchased on the day they are released for an acceptable price. Fantasy you might think, but quantum physics is truly weird. 

yeah my post was ironic on multiple levels.  

16 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

Just out of curiousity, If, as an example, the Ryzen5950x gets 110FPS in MSFS, just how significant is the Intel extra 13%.  Will it do the washing up?  LOL

Tony

Depends on the resolution and card. In 4K it will do squat as all cards are gpu bound in 4K. A 3600 performs almost identical to a 10900 or 5950 in 4K. You may get a frame or two in 1440 and possibly a couple more at 1080 though if that’s your preferred flavor. Then there is the cost of a new mobo and cpu to factor in for anyone who will be looking to upgrade.

CaptainNick,

Yes this is my point mate.

I have a 3900 with a 1080ti and I am getting about 49FPS with sliders to the max on 1080p monitors. For me, this is more than adequate and upgrading to a new CPU and Mobo at an enormous cost (for me) to achieve 100 FPS, does not really achieve anything tangible except bragging rights. That however, would still be cheaper than upgrading to an, impossible to get, 3090ti but again, I really do wonder what I would be achieving with either approach.

Putting that into context with MSFS allegedly improving performance and it appears an even less viable proposition.

I can see the sense of it, if someone is in the position of having to upgrade from a Core 2 Duo or similiar setup and wanting to buy the best they can afford., but to invest a significant amount of money to achieve an unnecessary, or insignificant gain of 50 to 60 FPS is not my idea of good economics or sense generally.

Regards

Tony 

11 hours ago, himmelhorse said:

 

I can see the sense of it, if someone is in the position of having to upgrade from a Core 2 Duo or similiar setup and wanting to buy the best they can afford., but to invest a significant amount of money to achieve an unnecessary, or insignificant gain of 50 to 60 FPS is not my idea of good economics or sense generally.

Regards

Tony 

 

Thats a narrow perspective though. Some people (me included) are PC enthusiast's, who enjoy the technology and like building computers. So no diferent to a car enthusiast buying a new car, despite already having one that gets him from a to b.

Its also, often, a combination of both, a performance upgrade that is useful, and an enthusiast's desire to build.

In your case, you may be happy with 1080p and a small monitor, but there are also those who love the prospect of a large screen and 4K.

So its not as simple as "you don't need the FPS".

Martin,

I totally agree with you, but do please note. This is not a narrow perspective, it is, in fact, MY perspective, as in "is not my idea etc"

Regards

Tony

1 hour ago, himmelhorse said:

Martin,

I totally agree with you, but do please note. This is not a narrow perspective, it is, in fact, MY perspective,

Regards

Tony

 

Which by definition is narrow. 🙂

 

 

 

 

 

 

The interesting thing will be heat generation of this chip.  Keeping it cool.  I've read some reports that this thing is blistering hot.  My GPU already dumps a ton of heat into my room, so wouldn't be super thrilled about adding even more.  Atleast when flying during the summer...  

I personally wouldn't touch rocket lake with a ten foot pole. The sheer fact that they're still on 14 nm when AMD is already on 7 nm, thus much higher power consumption makes it a no go for me. I'm not an AMD word not allowed by any means but knowing that 12th gen is also releasing this year, I'd either go for Zen 3 or wait for 12th gen.

3 hours ago, micstatic said:

The interesting thing will be heat generation of this chip.  Keeping it cool.  I've read some reports that this thing is blistering hot.  My GPU already dumps a ton of heat into my room, so wouldn't be super thrilled about adding even more.  Atleast when flying during the summer...  

 

Not sure about that. We don't yet know for sure. All we have is leaked reports and we don't know the details, like if it was overclocked, how it was cooled, or if it was an engineering sample or the finished product.

The only report I saw was that the chip was "rumoured" to be running in the 90's with Aida 64's FPU and no idea if overclocked. FPU of course is designed to absolutely hammer the chip.

I would guess it wont be much hotter than the 10900K, but who knows. 

Worth remembering too that Intel engineers, a while back, where saying that they expected their future chips to be able to run at 98C 24/7 without issues for a decade. may be an exaggeration of course, but the point is that high temps aren't an issue if the chip is designed to cope with it. 

Same with VRM's, in that people often panic if they are hotter than something like a CPU, not realising that they are designed for it. Same for GPU's, that generally run hotter without issue. 

 

 

Edited February 9, 20215 yr by martin-w

Progress! Progress!  In the computer world things move quickly, but how fast do u really need to go with Flight Simulator 2020 ? Soon I will be purchasing the program, but basically u want to get 30 frames, and a smooth flight, and of course that decent video card.  I am satisfied going 4.7, with my 10700KF, and 3080 vid card,   I spent almost 3k for my computer, not going to turn around, by a new processor, motherboard and ram.

Concluding it does make good news for Intel, back in the ball game!!

You know, I'm not simming at the moment but when I did I was never satisfied with 30 FPS. Im very sensitive to frame rate, especially when panning left to right in the cockpit. For me, 40 FPS was the absolute minimum.

This thing about 30 being smooth to the human eye isn't correct, as it only applies to cinematography, due to the blurring nature of the medium.

Its much higher in video games.

The 11900 is faster in single core benchmark but the 10900 is faster in multi core benchmark :

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-11900k-vs-core-i9-10900k-5-2-ghz-overclock-benchmarks-gaming-leak/amp/

31 minutes ago, GSalden said:

The 11900 is faster in single core benchmark but the 10900 is faster in multi core benchmark :

https://www.google.nl/amp/s/wccftech.com/intel-core-i9-11900k-vs-core-i9-10900k-5-2-ghz-overclock-benchmarks-gaming-leak/amp/

 

Well according to that, they needed a chiller to keep the temps in check at 5.2 on all cores. But I note, the voltage was a very high 1.49 Volts ON AUTO! And given that most Intel chips have an absolute max voltage of 1.5, pretty much nobody is going to run at such a high voltage. Looks like the AUTO Voltage, as usual, whacked in an excessive voltage.

So no surprise they needed a chiller. Pretty sure the final product, when we get it in our hands, will be ruining at lower voltage at 5.2, when manually overclocked, dispensing with Auto Voltage. Auto Voltage has to accommodate all manner of chips of course, including those that lost the silicon lottery. 

I guess we should expect the 10900K to be faster in multicore, given it has two extra cores. 

We need to take this with a pinch of salt of course, as with new BIOS updates the 11900K might push ahead more. 

On 2/10/2021 at 3:32 AM, martin-w said:

You know, I'm not simming at the moment but when I did I was never satisfied with 30 FPS. Im very sensitive to frame rate, especially when panning left to right in the cockpit. For me, 40 FPS was the absolute minimum.

Agreed. It’s extremely hard to go from 60 locked at 4K in P3D to mid 30’s in MSFS at 4k. It is a bit jarring. The difference in smoothness when looking around with track ir is night and day as well as the illusion of flight/movement.