7 minutes ago, Dexter1979 said:

At the end of the year when Intel rolls out the 14th gen clamming a 40% increase in performance

that was the plan, but has been scrapped. Meteor Lake will only come for laptops, that says it all. no "40% increase in performance" for the desktop nowhere near in 2023.😀

"Meteor Lake for desktop is “maybe” cancelled because Intel sees it as uncompetitive. If you scroll up and look at those roadmaps, you can see Meteor Lake has disappeared from the 2023 timeline."

https://www.hardwaretimes.com/intels-14th-gen-meteor-lake-s-desktop-cpus-cancelled-mobile-chips-ported-for-mainstream-market-report/

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/341788-intel-rumored-to-cancel-meteor-lake-desktop-cpus-in-favor-of-raptor-lake-refresh

 

I picked one up at Microcenter this morning and got some time at end of day to upgrade.  Also have a 4090. 
 

At iniscene KLAX with the Fenix. Ultra 200/200 3840x1600 live weather I got right at 60 FPS on the ground and it shot up to 75-80 in the air pretty fast. That’s only about 8 or 9 framers better than the 5800x3D on the ground at least. 
 

I did frame generation at KAPA with C152 on the same settings and I was 180 FPS with no VSYNC. Crazy numbers. 
 

Anyway, I turned off 8 cores and performance didn’t change. The 7800x3D is going to be by far the winner here I think. Would not recommend spending $799 on this unless you render things for work and also flight sim. My guess is that turning off one CCD will be the long run winner even for the 7950x3D.

15 minutes ago, TravelRunner404 said:

I picked one up at Microcenter this morning and got some time at end of day to upgrade.  Also have a 4090. 
 

At iniscene KLAX with the Fenix. Ultra 200/200 3840x1600 live weather I got right at 60 FPS on the ground and it shot up to 75-80 in the air pretty fast. That’s only about 8 or 9 framers better than the 5800x3D on the ground at least. 
 

I did frame generation at KAPA with C152 on the same settings and I was 180 FPS with no VSYNC. Crazy numbers. 
 

Anyway, I turned off 8 cores and performance didn’t change. The 7800x3D is going to be by far the winner here I think. Would not recommend spending $799 on this unless you render things for work and also flight sim. My guess is that turning off one CCD will be the long run winner even for the 7950x3D.

Very interesting thanks for the tests especially with the fenix and iniscene scenery I just hate it when people only show default stuff no wonder amd put the  7800x3D till april lol. but  7950x3d is still a great chip for everything and less power then intel.

Edited March 1, 20233 yr by Silverbird

1 hour ago, TravelRunner404 said:

I picked one up at Microcenter this morning and got some time at end of day to upgrade.  Also have a 4090. 
 

At iniscene KLAX with the Fenix. Ultra 200/200 3840x1600 live weather I got right at 60 FPS on the ground and it shot up to 75-80 in the air pretty fast. That’s only about 8 or 9 framers better than the 5800x3D on the ground at least. 

I take it you installed the AMD's POD (Perf Optimizer Driver) and their PPM Provisioning File Driver?

8-9 frames better does seem to scale with the performance uplift from AM5

5 hours ago, Dexter1979 said:

Futureproof... funny word... At the end of the year when Intel rolls out the 14th gen clamming a 40% increase in performance or AMD early next year, we'll meet again in a new topic about how great is a 5% - 7% increase in fps @ 4k... 😆

At the rate prices are spiraling up maybe the 14th gen (K, KF,KS) and Ryzen will be around $1000...

At least it's possible to futureproof now as long as you don't care about being on the absolute leading edge all the time. Back in the day I'd upgrade my system every 2 years minimum because the beast I'd bought just 24 months ago already was so hopelessly outclassed that it couldn't run just about anything that was new. 

I just replaced a 7 year old video card today, and I'm toying with the idea of replacing the 7 year old Ryzen 7 2700X I'm plodding along with, but I don't really need to because in testing, I'm pretty impressively smooth anywhere but the major airports, and even those aren't bad.  Back in the day, you'd get a 386, and then the next year the 486 "smashed" it, so you'd get that and then the next year the Pentium "destroyed" it so you'd get that and eat Ramen for awhile.  Then the PII came out along with 3dfx cards and you just had to get that because, well just LOOK at Unreal! So a couple of years after you spent $1,000 in 1990s money on a Pentium box, you spent another grand just to keep your head above water.

The vid card I just replaced was a 1080Ti, so my system was definitely long in the tooth, yet I was still able to run every modern game I wanted to at pretty high settings. The only exceptions were MSFS under VR, and Kerbal Space Program II, which it's looking like even a supercomputer would struggle with that hot mess. 

 

So with ai traffic, tlod 300, Taa, Fenix, heavy weather and big hubs(like klax) at 4k with ultra settings on ground we still cannot maintain 60 fps, Right?

• the grass is green
• the sky is blue
• each new MSFS version brings the hardware to its knees

Valid in my Commodore C64 days, valid today🙈

3 hours ago, spitzer45 said:

So with ai traffic, tlod 300, Taa, Fenix, heavy weather and big hubs(like klax) at 4k with ultra settings on ground we still cannot maintain 60 fps, Right?

It’s doubtful. The heavy weather, TAA 4k and ultra settings aren’t the issue though. That the 4090 can destroy. And flying even 1,000 feet over KLAX you can maintain it just fine in the Fenix. 
 

The AI and MSFS TLOD being an unmitigated performance dumpster fire are the big hold outs. No amount of power will get us over 60 FPS until that is sorted.

That being said the frame generation maintains over 60 FPS.

2 hours ago, hhbrbg said:

• each new MSFS version brings the hardware to its knees

Valid in my Commodore C64 days

"each new MSFS version brings the hardware to its knees"

that's the way it should be.

the only difference:

the knees in your Commodore C64 days were 640 x 480, 16 colors @ 10 fps

the same knees today are 3840 × 2160, true color, 100 fps

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by turbomax

^ Hardly looks like the K was 'demolished'.

Hope everyone ends up happy with their purchases and enjoys the insane performance Frame Generation has granted us.

30 minutes ago, kiwikat said:

^ Hardly looks like the K was 'demolished'.

4K is the great equalizer though, it flattens all charts and would look like that against other cpu's as well.  The 13700K would be up there, too for example, if it were in that chart.

 

On 2/28/2023 at 2:01 AM, TravelRunner404 said:

Yeah, it should be noted how frustrating it is that the 7950x3D is basically $600+ USD to get acceptable performance during taxi, take off and landing.  Granted those are the most important and exciting parts of flight sim for a lot of us, but really? It's been 20 years and that hasn't' been sorted.

It was proven by a guy on youtube these perf issues are caused mainly by the ground traffic. If you turn that way down or off it improves perf drastically.

But why has performance not been fixed by now for ground traffic.

That's the question.

 

(1) MSFS 2020 - Why better FPS has nothing to do with your Graphic Settings. FPS are 90% affected by ... - YouTube

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by Greazer

surprising how close the $300  5800x3D benchmark results are to the $ 700 Ryzen 7950x3D, which also requires more expensive mobo and DDR5.

here a great explanation how v-cache works, starting 5:40: access to cache memory is 10 times faster than access to standard RAM memory.

 

Edited March 2, 20233 yr by turbomax

5800x3D does still look pretty good. Especially if you're already on the AM4 platform and don't wish to spend a lot on a whole new system for AM5 (RAM, Motherboard, CPU etc)