Ryzen 7 5800X3D - Brilliant MSFS performance

[Sethos]

15 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Here is the link to the article, read the bottom about "duping consumers".

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X/m1817839vs4085

The AMD 5800x3D is the biggest marketing sham in history when it comes to CPU's, not that it's bad, it's very good and is likely a nice tad bit faster in MSFS.

 

userbenchmark is the biggest Intel shill site on the internet, that site's data is completely useless and biased. 

UserBenchmark should be banned : buildapc (reddit.com)

Edited July 23, 2022 by Sethos

[Alpine Scenery]

8 minutes ago, Sethos said:

userbenchmark is the biggest Intel shill site on the internet, that site's data is completely useless. 

Intels are still a bit faster across the varying games on average, but not usually worth the trouble or extra cost since usually better to allocate. He's that way because AMD has been using some shady marketing lately.

That's NOT even close to the biggest shill, the biggest shill is all the stuff posted in this thread showing 50% increases from AMD 5800x to 5800x3D.
This thread is truly "the emperor has no clothes" type of thing.

I own all AMD stuff right now (CPU and GPU), but have also owned Intel, but AMD is definitely contributing in the duping by marketers.

I can post 20+ more sites showing similar results, but my point is sure in some games it will jump ahead because of the cache issue, but it's not the norm, and it's certainly not 50% increase when using proper benchmarking tools.

Look people can argue and say whatever they want, but anyone using common sense knows that a CPU using the exact same architecture except more added cache cannot jump another CPU by 50% in MSFS. 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[chapstick]

13 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Here is the link to the article, read the bottom about "duping consumers".

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X/m1817839vs4085

The AMD 5800x3D is the biggest marketing sham in history when it comes to CPU's, not that it's bad, it's very good and is likely a nice tad bit faster in MSFS.

 

Not only are you using userbenchmark.com (lol) to make your argument, you're also going full hyperbole with this "biggest marketing sham in the history of CPUs" statement. Come on. Plenty of reputable outlets have shown that the extra cache makes a significant difference in MSFS, as have users here on AVSIM and elsewhere. I have no idea why you're so mad about this product existing and people being satisfied with it, but I guess if that's how you want to spend your time, you do you. 

[Alpine Scenery]

9 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

Not only are you using userbenchmark.com (lol) to make your argument, you're also going full hyperbole with this "biggest marketing sham in the history of CPUs" statement. Come on. Plenty of reputable outlets have shown that the extra cache makes a significant difference in MSFS, as have users here on AVSIM and elsewhere. I have no idea why you're so mad about this product existing and people being satisfied with it, but I guess if that's how you want to spend your time, you do you. 

Again, I own all AMD. 

I have seen this same story unfold over the past 5 years many many times. 

You can mouth at me all you want, but the posts up to my posts are the REAL shams. The FPS tests themselves are shams, always have been.

As always, follow the money trail.  

I have no motive, as again, I own all AMD stuff.

When people resort to personal attacks, I know I hit the nail on the head.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[Sethos]

3 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I can post 20+ more sites showing similar results

Then do that. Userbenchmark is a trash can of a website that should never be used to make an argument. 

[Alpine Scenery]

3 minutes ago, Sethos said:

Then do that. Userbenchmark is a trash can of a website that should never be used to make an argument. 

No thanks, Google is your friend. Not going to argue hyperbole on the Internet.
50% increase in FPS is the trash can.

As a programmer, I know that's impossible at those clock speeds with the same architecture (except cache), anyone knows that.

I'm not going to argue at 50 sub-tech levels below my understanding.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[Sethos]

You sound very insecure, having to cite your experience and merits to prove arguments and you can't even bring up credible sources to back up your arguments, in a debate that is very factual and easy to prove / disprove, only give off a lazy 'just Google it'. 

Odd, childish behaviour. 

[Alpine Scenery]

3 minutes ago, Sethos said:

You sound very insecure

Odd, childish behaviour. 

Yet, you are the one throwing mud, I am simply stating what the majority of people already know.
More personal attacks...

Easy to prove/disprove, hardly, and with an FPS counter that is a-typical of result averaging such as percentile methods.

Ever have a statistics course, this is not easy to prove, but you only need common sense to know from the start what the truth is...

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[chapstick]

1 minute ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Again, I own all AMD. 

I've been a programmer for 35+ years and also know rendering, program in 7 different languages, have a built a few airports, etc...
You can mouth at me all you want, but the posts up to this point are shams. The FPS tests themselves are shams, always have been.

As always, follow the money.  

I have no motive, as again, I own all AMD stuff.

When people resort to personal attacks, you know you hit the nail on the head.

You do realize that it's possible to accurately conduct apples-to-apples comparisons of hardware, right? Please tell me you know that after 35 years of programming experience. 

2 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

No thanks, Google is your friend. Not going to argue hyperbole on the Internet.
50% increase in FPS is the trash can.

As a programmer, I know that's impossible at those clock speeds with the same architecture, anyone knows that.

You literally just called the release of the 5800X3D the biggest marketing sham in CPU history, and now you're offended by hyperbole? 

5 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm not going to argue at 50 sub-tech levels below my understanding.

This is gold. Rarely do we see such a deluge of cringe. 

[Alpine Scenery]

Just now, Chapstick said:

You do realize that it's possible to accurately conduct apples-to-apples comparisons of hardware, right? Please tell me you know that after 35 years of programming experience. 

You literally just called the release of the 5800X3D the biggest marketing sham in CPU history, and now you're offended by hyperbole? 

This is gold. Rarely do we see such a deluge of cringe. 

I am not using words like "you" or this, that is all you guys, I am simply directing it at the marketers not the product.

BIG DIFFERENCE...

Are you the CPU?

Do you wear the CPU on your head?

 

[Alpine Scenery]

55 minutes ago, Chapstick said:

You do realize that it's possible to accurately conduct apples-to-apples comparisons of hardware, right? Please tell me you know that after 35 years of programming experience. 

Games are complicated to compare performance when you get a CPU that has a different attribute that is off the norm because the benchmarking and performance tracking tools algorithms are not designed to factor in this type of comparison, because the fact the CPU has more cache and uses it in a different way throws testing off quite a bit. I trust some increase is possible (which likely varies widely game to game), but 50% is pretty much an impossibility, short of a bug in the game design or a bad setting. It is possible if the game had a very severe caching bug, some games have in the past.

It's the most complicated thing to attempt to compare, because the results cannot be normalized or standardized, as would normally be required.

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[Greggy_D]

1 hour ago, Alpine Scenery said:

No thanks, Google is your friend.

That’s not how it works. YOU made a claim. YOU provide proof. Post the 20+ sites YOU claimed would show similar results. 

[Alpine Scenery]

It's a lot of work, but I already pre-faced it with find the 250 FPS in RDR 2 at 1440p on a GTX 3060-3070 or AMD 6800, it's ridiculous what people show with FPS counters.

Many of them were Youtube results from sponsored sites showing 10% to 15% in MSFS, and we have passmark, we have 3D Mark, we have other sites I have already posted. That alone is about 10-15 of them, not really planning on looking for more, sorry too busy designing free airports to waste my time anymore on this.

I just know the results aren't trustworthy, if someone wants to send me an AMD 5800x3D for testing and I find I was wrong, I'll apologize.
Until then, there is a sucker born every minute, and we've all been that sucker a few times.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[Noel]

On 4/14/2022 at 9:19 AM, bean_sprout said:

My 5900X falls asleep when running MSFS. 🙂

ns

Are you running Terrain LOD at 400 all the time?

[bbsmitz]

9 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Yup, MSFS performs fairly well unless you need Ultra, but never hurts to get a bit more performance for crowded areas.

This test actually shows the 5800x3D to give worse results...

https://overclock3d.net/reviews/cpu_mainboard/amd_ryzen_7_5800x3d_vs_ryzen_7_5800x/10

 

Here is the text posted with that graph.

"Time Spy is, by contrast, a benchmark that is significantly heavier in the physics department than Fire Strike, and thus leans much harder on absolute clock speed instead of any architectural improvements."

So it's absolutely unsurprising that the 5800x outperforms the 5800x3d in that case since both its idle and boost clocks are higher.  The improvement will come in games where the CPU cache plays a larger role; e.g. MSFS.  That's not that surprising is it?