6 minutes ago, Mace said:

Hmm...so you can compare and contrast the 12900 with he 5800X3D setup.  And now, the 13900.  Or have you done that already and I just missed it?

No, you have not missed it. I have not used the 13900 enough yet (just installed it last night, and today was my first time using it). That said, my early impressions are that it is indeed faster and smoother in MSFS than those two other CPU's (the 12900 and the 5800X3D). Is it fast enough to warrant a purchase for someone? That, I cannot answer, as it comes down to everyone's personal setup and situation. As an example, I already has a Z690 motherboard and DDR5 RAM, so all I had to purchase was the 13900 cpu itself. For others, they might have to buy a new MB, RAM and CPU. Same could be said if one is looking at transitioning from an 8700K to a 5800X3D or 12900. You would need new MB's, RAM and CPU's. I can say that for all of these three CPU's I am discussing I have had great experience with in MSFS.

1 hour ago, sniper31 said:

No, you have not missed it. I have not used the 13900 enough yet (just installed it last night, and today was my first time using it). That said, my early impressions are that it is indeed faster and smoother in MSFS than those two other CPU's (the 12900 and the 5800X3D). Is it fast enough to warrant a purchase for someone? That, I cannot answer, as it comes down to everyone's personal setup and situation. As an example, I already has a Z690 motherboard and DDR5 RAM, so all I had to purchase was the 13900 cpu itself. For others, they might have to buy a new MB, RAM and CPU. Same could be said if one is looking at transitioning from an 8700K to a 5800X3D or 12900. You would need new MB's, RAM and CPU's. I can say that for all of these three CPU's I am discussing I have had great experience with in MSFS.

Are you using DX12 mode?  Are the extra cores of the 13900K being well used?  

What would be interesting to me....would a lesser-core 13600/13700 possibly clock higher than a 13900K and thus getting a bit more performance in the sim?   You obviously can't answer that as you don't have a 13600 or 13700, so it is more of a rhetorical question.

1 hour ago, Noel said:

Way back when people were saying there was a big perf penalty having to do w/ 3D PG Cities or something like that, I tried with and without and I agree it's not bad at all, the autogen.  In fact often I can't tell the diff.   I wish I knew what real performance increases come from a new CPU vis a vis my 9900K.  15% is kind of hard to fathom considering my CPU is ~3y/o now.  I understand the modest increases in single-thread come from running into limits on maximum clock speed.  In fact if you look at clockspeed for my [email protected] v 13,[email protected] or 5.8Ghz, it's right in there around 15%.  Which implies, at least w/ Passmark, there really is no IPC improvement to hang your hat on.

Right and it's also why AMD's X3D cpu's are so interesting.  On Passmark's charts they are way down the list but we know in the sim they outperform many cpu's listed ahead of them.  I've been trying to guesstimate how a 7900X vs. 7900X3D would rate by looking at the difference between a 5800X and a 5800X3D.   It's probably a fool's errand though.

34 minutes ago, Mace said:

Are you using DX12 mode?  Are the extra cores of the 13900K being well used? 

YES, and YES. And you are correct, I do NOT have access to a 13700 or 13600. I have not tried overclocking my 13900 yet, but I will soon. Right now I have it running at 5.6 Ghz on Turbo boost mode, and my temps are very low. So, I am interested to see how high I can push it. I should have some time in the next week to find out 😉 

1 hour ago, Mace said:

Right and it's also why AMD's X3D cpu's are so interesting.  On Passmark's charts they are way down the list but we know in the sim they outperform many cpu's listed ahead of them.  I've been trying to guesstimate how a 7900X vs. 7900X3D would rate by looking at the difference between a 5800X and a 5800X3D.   It's probably a fool's errand though.

We read DX12 improves multicore performance so perhaps single-thread is no longer the Achilles Heel.

My problem (ahem...) is that frame rate is my least sought after improvement.  What matters to me is ultra-smooth animation, which I already have and that I describe as perfect, and complete freedom from any macrostutters, which I don't quite have yet, but very close.  KSNA>FT's KLAS from gate to gate frametime variance of <2ms 99.79% of the entire flight.  Ultra smooth.  That was no PG, in the AS CRJ700, but very busy areas w/ RT traffic.   I had one stutter I noticed (if I notice it it's a macrostutter by definition).  Microstutters I feel come from poor frametime variance so we perceive them as less than ultra smooth animation but otherwise w/o stutters.  It's all very complicated 🙃

13 hours ago, Noel said:

In fact if you look at clockspeed for my [email protected] v 13,[email protected] or 5.8Ghz, it's right in there around 15%.  Which implies, at least w/ Passmark, there really is no IPC improvement to hang your hat on.  So I guess the real perf benefits come to those apps that are very multicore threaded.

IMO, multithreading performance is something not to disregard. Prior to DX12, MSFS used a maximum of 4 threads on my 12900KF. That was before SU10 beta. The first beta iteration brought multithread performance (and smoothness) never seen before in MSFS. Then that was nerfed due to the DX12 VRAM issues, but after the release of new NVIDIA drivers, DX12 performance is back on par with that amazing first SU10 beta. In DX12 MSFS is now using all of the P-cores/threads on my 12900. 

Like I've mentioned before, I'm getting very good results tweaking core affinities with Process Lasso. For me it's an advantage having those extra 8 E-Cores, and through Lasso, MSFS has 16 P-Core threads available to it. With the 13900 I imagine it would be even better with even higher turbo speeds. 

TL;DR: DX12 multithreading has done a lot for smoothness and being able to use more addons and scenery. 

Having said that, it's probably a tricky time for a CPU upgrade as the AMD "joker" 7900x3D is due for release sometime early next year, and the extra cache could be a game-changer. 

9 hours ago, Noel said:

We read DX12 improves multicore performance so perhaps single-thread is no longer the Achilles Heel.

Exactly. I read this sentence after writing this post. But this pretty much sums it off. DX12 brings a new era of performance, and I'm very happy that Asobo extended the SU10 beta period to fine tune DX12, then further improvements in collaboration with nVidia. 

I don't think the days of IPC are necessarily in the past, but we've seen a clear trend over the recent years with diminishing returns in terms of IPC (and overclocking headroom) and more cores/threads. At least with Intel CPUs. 

Investing In Secular Trends: The End Of Moore's Law And The Future Of Computing

Edited November 11, 20223 yr by Cpt_Piett

It looks hopeful thanks.  I will wait and see how the Joker performs and decide if my cooling system will work well enough and it certainly will for 13,900K.  What comes after 13,900K from Intel?

12 hours ago, sniper31 said:

Right now I have it running at 5.6 Ghz on Turbo boost mode

I've always immediately o/c my last several CPUs and the 9900K is at 5.0 on all cores.  Does turbo boost only run at 5.6 when the demand is there, so it's really no different than leaving them always at 5.6gHz?  What kind of core voltage is standard for the 13,900K if you know?

11 hours ago, Noel said:

We read DX12 improves multicore performance so perhaps single-thread is no longer the Achilles Heel.

I seem to have a little stability problem with DX12 lately, as in a CTD after a couple of hours sim session.  But this morning I updated to the latest nvidia game ready driver so we'll see.  And with SU11 coming on today I'll give DX12 mode another whirl.

 

2 hours ago, Noel said:

I've always immediately o/c my last several CPUs and the 9900K is at 5.0 on all cores.  Does turbo boost only run at 5.6 when the demand is there, so it's really no different than leaving them always at 5.6gHz?  What kind of core voltage is standard for the 13,900K if you know?

Off hand, I don't know the core voltage, but I can check that out later if you like. Turbo boost is just an easy, quick way to minimally overclock. On my system, it holds the P-cores to 5.6 Ghz. I do dive deeper into overclocking though, I don't just turn on Turbo mode and call it a day. I want to see where I can push this. I am not an extreme overclocker, but I am definitely someone who has been overclocking for many years and enjoys it. I like to get it as far as I can and still have it stable in my flight sim. That is the bench mark I shoot for. My 12900K I was able to get it to run stable at 5.5 Ghz in all situations EXCEPT for MSFS. I had to back it down to 5.4 Ghz fo MSFS, and then it ran stable without any CTD's in MSFS. There are those out there that swear MSFS doesn't "like" overclocking, but my experience is totally opposite. MSFS can handle overclocking fine, IF you take the time to find a stable setting. It's like everything we have been talking about in these threads. Balance is the watch word, at least for me.

2 hours ago, Mace said:

I seem to have a little stability problem with DX12 lately, as in a CTD after a couple of hours sim session.  But this morning I updated to the latest nvidia game ready driver so we'll see.  And with SU11 coming on today I'll give DX12 mode another whirl.

Hopefully, DX12 works out for you. It has worked well for me from the get go, but every system is different. It definitely makes a difference with spreading the work out over the extra cores in MSFS.

9 minutes ago, sniper31 said:

There are those out there that swear MSFS doesn't "like" overclocking, but my experience is totally opposite. MSFS can handle overclocking fine, IF you take the time to find a stable setting. It's like everything we have been talking about in these threads. Balance is the watch word, at least for me.

This has been my experience--as overclocking tolerant as FSX/P3D for certain.  Like those sims MSFS is so complex that it's very difficult to come up with certainties about cause and effect in some many aspects of it.  Ultimately it comes down to this:  there but for the grace of God goes....MSFS 😇 

My #1 cause of stuttering that seems to happen out of nowhere: Clouds being set too high for the weather I'm flying in.  Usually I can get away with High or occasionally Ultra.  But when I flying in low clouds Medium or sometimes Low is needed to preserve fps.  Fortunately in those situations the lower settings really don't get in the way of the immersion, other than having to pause the flight and change the clouds setting.   BTW I fly VR and GA exclusively, and as far as overclocking being a good thing...bring it on!

Edited November 11, 20223 yr by TheFamilyMan

2 hours ago, TheFamilyMan said:

My #1 cause of stuttering that seems to happen out of nowhere: Clouds being set too high for the weather I'm flying in.  Usually I can get away with High or occasionally Ultra.  But when I flying in low clouds Medium or sometimes Low is needed to preserve fps.  Fortunately in those situations the lower settings really don't get in the way of the immersion, other than having to pause the flight and change the clouds setting.   BTW I fly VR and GA exclusively, and as far as overclocking being a good thing...bring it on!

Seems like we have similar systems and yet clouds never are an issue in any way in any weather on Ultra always.  

For VR I strongly prefer (it's more like 'must have') MSFS running at 45 fps, NCP limited.  If I ran at 30 fps vsync, running Ultra Clouds at all times wouldn't be an issue for me either, but VR at 30 fps is a solid no-go for me.  Got all my other settings tuned for 45 fps, even in major urban centers.  It's just that detailed clouds matter to me too (except when they tank my performance as described).  BTW, it's really smmoooth for me running driver fps limited, without it MSFS stutters badly though I get "better" fps.

Edited November 11, 20223 yr by TheFamilyMan