Feeding a 3090

[sluflyer06 32]

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

If you have any frame-rate limiters on, it will often report the limit is CPU even when it's really GPU. You probably already know this, just noting it.

If I'm seeing under the frame limit, and GPU is not at 98%+ load then I know it's waiting on the CPU to feed it 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

10 minutes ago, sluflyer06 said:

If I'm seeing under the frame limit, and GPU is not at 98%+ load then I know it's waiting on the CPU to feed it 

Gotcha. The 11900 would be the simplest upgrade for you, it will work in some motherboards without changing the board. Not sure it will help much, but it may make some difference in 4k with that video card. If it's like the new Ryzens, it may be 2 months or so after release before the motherboards offer a new BIOS flash to support the CPU, but it is supposed to work on several older boards. It's supposed to be out any day now though.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

 

Found this though too:
From what we can see, the Intel Core i9 11900K performs slower, than the Core i9 10900 in Cyberpunk 2077, Shadow of the Tomb Rader. Cyberpunk 2077 can be a really heavy-CPU game (with High crowd), and eight cores may simply not be enough, even for gaming at 1080p. Our Intel i9 9900K was also maxed out when playing it at lower resolutions. As such, these results do not really shock us as – in its current state – the game needs a lot of CPU power. Similarly, Shadow of the Tomb Raider benefits from CPUs that have a lot of CPU cores/threads.

I'm guessing the 11900 would be a tiny bit faster in MSFS since higher per core performance, but not much, probably not worth it.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[Virtual-Chris 682]

8 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

 

Found this though too:
From what we can see, the Intel Core i9 11900K performs slower, than the Core i9 10900 in Cyberpunk 2077, Shadow of the Tomb Rader. Cyberpunk 2077 can be a really heavy-CPU game (with High crowd), and eight cores may simply not be enough, even for gaming at 1080p. Our Intel i9 9900K was also maxed out when playing it at lower resolutions. As such, these results do not really shock us as – in its current state – the game needs a lot of CPU power. Similarly, Shadow of the Tomb Raider benefits from CPUs that have a lot of CPU cores/threads.

I'm guessing the 11900 would be a tiny bit faster in MSFS since higher per core performance, but not much, probably not worth it.

Intel 11th Gen is not the answer... An extensive review of a retail 11700k was published on Friday.  The added core-to-core latency kills any advantage the added IPC was going to offer, making it perform the same or worse than 10th gen in most cases.  And it was running very hot and consuming twice the power of the 5800x.  The 11900k will only be worse in this regard, and its added 200Mhz will matter not.  I'm not going to reward Intel for this effort with any of my money.

I think the 5800x is probably going to be the best you can do for now as far as CPU goes.

AMD also seems to perform 5-10% better with 4 RAM sticks vs 2 which means an upgrade to 64GB might be worth it on that platform.  

And then there's the added performance from going to a PCIe 4.0 m.2 drive (double the storage I/O of my current SSD)... and that has to matter for something, at least in terms of load times.

I think I'm going 5800x, 64GB (4x16), 1TB PCIe 4 and see what happens.

 

Edited March 11, 2021 by Virtual-Chris

[KL Oo 700]

3 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

And then there's the added performance from going to a PCIe 4.0 m.2 drive (double the storage I/O of my current SSD)... and that has to matter for something, at least in terms of load times.

I think I'm going 5800x, 64GB (4x16), 1TB PCIe 4 and see what happens.

 

I’m planning an upgrade and am of the same mind. Been loyal to intel for over 10 years now and was waiting for the 11th gen to upgrade but think it’s going to end up being AMD

[Seth2021 291]

 

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-leak-hints-at-core-i9-11900k-cpus-gaming-performance

 

[Virtual-Chris 682]

10 minutes ago, Seth2021 said:

 

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-leak-hints-at-core-i9-11900k-cpus-gaming-performance

 

I’m sceptical based on the results published in the AnandTech review of the 11700K. But it would be good if this is true. 

[Maxis 1,864]

If it were me and i was insistent on upgrading and i had no limitations as to what cpu i was using i would simply wait till the launch day reviews come out. As far as im concerned anyone can concoct a graph. Anandtech at least has the "retail" cpu in hand but even then i would wait for official release and the onslaught of reviews on launch day than going off leaked charts pre release.

Whole bunch of leaking going on.

Right now i decided on the platform  from last year and im overall very happy with my 5900x/6800xt so no more upgrades for me unless the upgrade can substantially increase fps or improve and smooth out frame time for the sim.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Maxis

[simon747 185]

If you are in 4k, it is all pretty pointless CPU wise.

[Virtual-Chris 682]

18 minutes ago, simon747 said:

If you are in 4k, it is all pretty pointless CPU wise.

What do you mean?

[simon747 185]

If you are in 4k, you are generally GPU bound in most areas.  0-5% improvement in certain CPU-bound areas really won't convert to a worthy  CPU upgrade in terms of an FPS increase if you are using 4k and have a 9 series, 10 series overclocked to around 5 ghz as they generate similar gaming fps, regardless of core count. 

This graph is not 1080p to show a true CPU comparison, but gives some idea at 2k. 

Edited March 11, 2021 by simon747

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

26 minutes ago, simon747 said:

If you are in 4k, you are generally GPU bound in most areas.  0-5% improvement in certain CPU-bound areas really won't convert to a worthy  CPU upgrade in terms of an FPS increase if you are using 4k and have a 9 series, 10 series overclocked to around 5 ghz as they generate similar gaming fps, regardless of core count. 

This graph is not 1080p to show a true CPU comparison, but gives some idea at 2k. 

I didn't get near that bump even that this graph shows. From a Ryzen 5-3600 to a Ryzen 7 5800x in 1080p, I got 1-2 FPS bump. This shows an 8 FPS bump between those 2 CPU's, guess with a better video card I might see a bigger difference (in 1080p at least).

Edited March 11, 2021 by Alpine Scenery

[virtuali 4,421]

3 hours ago, simon747 said:

This graph is not 1080p to show a true CPU comparison, but gives some idea at 2k. 

Something seems odd: the overclocked i5-10600k outperforming the overclocked i9-10900k. Most likely, overclocking was made without proper cooling, so the 10900k must have thermal throttled.

Edited March 12, 2021 by virtuali

[simon747 185]

6 hours ago, virtuali said:

Something seems odd: the overclocked i5-10600k outperforming the overclocked i9-10900k. Most likely, overclocking was made without proper cooling, so the 10900k must have thermal throttled.

I noticed that.  Flight sim and other games under dx 11 really use 6-8 cores well and the rest not so much; from what I have read, they will all feel and bench similar in 4k once oc'd.  It will be good to get some reliable data and benchmarks on the 11 series cpu's as they are the first major arhictetcure change from intel in quite a few years.

[sluflyer06 32]

13 hours ago, simon747 said:

If you are in 4k, it is all pretty pointless CPU wise.

This is false, absolutely false.  I'm still CPU bound at 4k ultra the majority of the time on my rig, this sim is simply too hard on some threads. I'm running a 5900X that hits 5.1ghz on multiple cores, 2x16GB dual rank 3600mhz at CL14, trio X 3080 at 2.1ghz and ram at +700, both on custom loop cooling. There are areas that are gpu bound this is 100% true, but the VAST majority of the time the gpu is under 100% load waiting on CPU.