19 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

Alright, can't argue with numbers I guess.  Seems backwards to me - interesting.

 

At 4k, the cpu can only do so much. The GPU is doing all the heavy lifting to pump out the most amount of pixels leaving the CPU waiting as the CPU is only having to pump out the lower number of calculations to meet the frame demands of the GPU. This is why they test at the lower resolutions with the biggest GFX card they can. In this situation the GPU is waiting for the CPU to do do its job and lets the CPU do the heavy lifting of having to pump out more info in the same amount of time (ie higher FPS).

Is their a difference in 4k with a 4790 and a 11900k or 5800x etc? Of course there is. Massively better architecture helps. But the difference isnt as big as it is at the lower resolutions. I saw a solid jump when I went from my 3600x to my 5800x in 4k, but I also dont have everything on ultra with 400lod etc. I prefer keeping it as close to 60fps as possible for track ir use and it just looks better to me. I saw a 5-10fps difference with my same settings when I swap.

The I5 12600K looks like a sweet spot.

4 minutes ago, Ixoye said:

The I5 12600K looks like a sweet spot.

Interesting 12600K with DDR4 looks like the best option for MSFS

1 minute ago, Ixoye said:

The I5 12600K looks like a sweet spot.

Probably is.

That is probably the market that is going to be most swayed here for anyone sitting on the fence. A 12600k with a well rounded motherboard costing around 200 bucks and decent ddr4 (until ddr5 matures) would be a good entry point. 

Anyone heavily invested in a high end Ryzen 9 system probably wont switch at this point yet.

12 minutes ago, psolk said:

Interesting 12600K with DDR4 looks like the best option for MSFS

Yep. But I've seen other software benchmarks where the DDR5 variant was outperforming the DDR4. I guess it depends on the test, and what operating system.

Friend of mine says to wait for the upcoming Pron Lake CPU's

15 minutes ago, Republic3D said:

Yep. But I've seen other software benchmarks where the DDR5 variant was outperforming the DDR4. I guess it depends on the test, and what operating system.

Exactly as Mr. Alder thread director likes and works better with windows 11. 

2 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Have you posted your findings anywhere?  I'd love to see your results at 2K or 4K res.

Ryan- I’ve been running 4K for years… but I locked at 24 in P3D and now at 30 in MSFS. Butter- never bothered with benchmarks.

C

1 hour ago, ryanbatcund said:

Alright, can't argue with numbers I guess.  Seems backwards to me - interesting.

You simply dont get it, do you? Help: dont fix yourself on the absolute numbers, but on the relative difference. And this difference is best illustrated in a scenario where GPU limitations are as small as possible, hence using the fastest available card but only 1080p. Gold standard in CPU testing for decades...

1 minute ago, cavaricooper said:

Ryan- I’ve been running 4K for years… but I locked at 24 in P3D and now at 30 in MSFS. Butter- never bothered with benchmarks.

C

Thanks.  30 fps steady in MSFS at 4K is very very good imo.  Wonder how that would translate to VR.  Feels like we're still a few years off

3 hours ago, Maxis said:

No .. Don't find it weird. The 5950x has x2 ccx with 8 cores and a slower base clock of 3.4ghz  but a theoretically higher boost clock of 4.9ghz/ both the 5900x and 5600x have higher base clocks of 3.7ghz with the 5900x having 6 active cores in its double ccx layout and a boost clock of 4.8ghz and with the 5600x having only 1ccx of 6 cores so no inter ccx latency to deal with and a boost clock of 4.6ghz.

However 

Based on the boosting algorithm and power management heat has to be factored in and after enabling PBO and +.2 ghz boost overclock you have situations where the 5950x is not as efficient as the other two counterparts because more cores + its accompanying heat are factored in. Example .. After tuning my chip 5900x can reliably operate at 5 to 5.1ghz. I have tuned 5600x chips to operate at 4.825ghz with no issues. 

Have to choose the correct chip for the job .. Especially when it comes to AMD cpus .. More isnt necessarily better. Most review sites acknowledge that for all practical purposes the 5900x is AMD's fastest gaming chip. 

Good job on intel for catching up. However from these benches i guess there is no reason for me to sell and switch .. (Especially with those motherboard prices)

Waiting on the 3dvcache 5900x equivalent.

Cheers

thanks. Amazon has the 5900x at $524  (Amazon USA). Apparently, I'm guessing, they sell so fast that normally if you order, its a 5 day or so preorder, in other words a 5 day wait or so before they ship.

https://www.amazon.com/AMD-Ryzen-5900X-24-Thread-Processor/dp/B08164VTWH/

Here is one where there's a massive difference between DDR4 and DDR5.
 

 

I’d like to see the performance numbers of the not so talked about 17-12700k and DDR4 combo. The i7 looks like it should theoretically perform better than the i5-12600k but without the quirks such as high heat of the i9-12900k. 

4 hours ago, DylanC said:

For many who are running older hardware (I'm running a 6700K), this test doesn't matter.   The benefits far outweigh the negatives.  I bought it (12900K) regardless.  In fact many of the reviewers are already saying if you have anything less than a 9900K, this upgrade is worth it.  In fact the I5 12600K looks like a sweet spot for budget gaming.

 

I have a 9900k and a 3090 gpu so I'm good then.

I'm really happy with my 3080Ti, but I think my 8086K (basically an 8800) is lagging behind a bit now, as even a 11900k is nearly 40% better on single thread performance. 

Also, one of my USB ports seems to have blown on the board.

OK...  I am looking for an excuse to update!  

I could keep my 3600 DDR4 at least.