1 hour ago, Aamir said:

Definitely have one of these chips on order myself!

I would still wait for the 7900x3D or even 7800x3D, wouldn't be surprised if fps were pretty similar. seems Cache is what counts, more then a few more MHz. and his resolution wasn't 4K, "only" 3440X1440P = 4.953 Mpixel insteaad of 3.840 x 2.160p = 8.294 Mpixel. = only 60% of full 4K resolution. still, the tests were run with DX11 and without FrameGen, so some 100% headroom left for FStraffic etc.

https://youtu.be/wUjXsoG4xkk

https://youtu.be/xSWO4dSfag4

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by turbomax

1 minute ago, turbomax said:

I would still wait for the 7900x3D or even 7800x3D, wouldn't be surprised if fps were pretty similar. seems Cache is what counts, more then a few more MHz. and his resolution wasn't 4K, "only" 3440X1440P = 4.953 Mpixel insteaad of 3.840 x 2.160p = 8.294 Mpixel. = only 60% of full 4K resolution. still, the tests were run with DX11 and without FrameGen, so some 100% headroom left for FStraffic etc.

I do a bunch of production stuff so the other CCD is still quite useful for me!

yes, go ahead. the videos you posted were very impressive. but since this is the MSFS forum I will only refer to that application.

Numbers look good with AMD 7950X3D but I'll stick for a while with Intel...

Couldn't resist those +5 fps and ordered a 13900KS and an EK Velocity 2 cpu waterblock (Intel evil laugh intensifies)... 😂

I hope the gamble pays off with the 4090... Still waiting for the gpu waterblock... but man... switching components will take some work... 😒

Will I delid the cpu and put a copper ihs?... to be continued ===>

Again it is Main thread limited without ai traffic but response times is getting closer to 4090. I'm using 10700k with 4090, my cpu response time at kmia is like 25 ms... so just for comparison this is nearly doubled performance.

 

15 hours ago, turbomax said:

I would still wait for the 7900x3D or even 7800x3D, wouldn't be surprised if fps were pretty similar. seems Cache is what counts, more then a few more MHz. and his resolution wasn't 4K, "only" 3440X1440P = 4.953 Mpixel insteaad of 3.840 x 2.160p = 8.294 Mpixel. = only 60% of full 4K resolution. still, the tests were run with DX11 and without FrameGen, so some 100% headroom left for FStraffic etc.

https://youtu.be/wUjXsoG4xkk

https://youtu.be/xSWO4dSfag4

The decision I'm trying to make now is go for the 7900x3D or wait until April for the 7800x3D. I've seen some statements that not only would the 7800x3D be best value for gaming/MSFS, but also that it might in fact perform better because of concerns about latency from CCD - CCD. I have some time off coming up, perfect for setting up a new build. I can afford the loss in value, but can anyone tell me that 7800x3d might perform better with regards to MSFS than the 7950x3d/7900x3d or is this unfounded?

1 hour ago, CIKSSFMO said:

but can anyone tell me that 7800x3d might perform better with regards to MSFS than the 7950x3d/7900x3d or is this unfounded?

simulated 7800x3D performance forecast, starting minute 13:00

 

 

Edited March 3, 20233 yr by turbomax

2 hours ago, CIKSSFMO said:

 

The decision I'm trying to make now is go for the 7900x3D or wait until April for the 7800x3D. I've seen some statements that not only would the 7800x3D be best value for gaming/MSFS, but also that it might in fact perform better because of concerns about latency from CCD - CCD. I have some time off coming up, perfect for setting up a new build. I can afford the loss in value, but can anyone tell me that 7800x3d might perform better with regards to MSFS than the 7950x3d/7900x3d or is this unfounded?

I don't think it's unfounded at all, as turbo points out above with the...I think it was Hardware Unboxed -- testing.  They're usually pretty credible and reliable.

Another factor is heat.  With the 7900X3D and 7950X3D, you have two physical CCD's under the same Integrated Heat Spreader (IHS).  Whereas, the 7800X3D will only have the 1 CCD under the same IHS.   Now you can say that will not matter if the other cores are parked, but, the HU testing seems to indicate that something is resulting in the vcache CCD performing faster, and if that is indeed latency fine, but it's also possible some heat is still generated there. 

I think that could mean 1 less hotspot on the 7800X3D and more headroom in general for that cpu.   We already know how the 5800X3D behaves in this regard.  Or it could all be latency-related.  Or, we could discover that all three 7-series 3D cpu's perform about the same in MSFS, once the actual 7800X3D is released.

Anyway, this is why I am in wait of the 7800X3D results.

For @Aamir I can definitely see the advantages of the 7950X3D, as he would need a fast compile as well as MSFS performance.  But for guys like me who only might encode an Mp3 every once in a while, we might welcome a couple of percent faster MSFS performance in exchange for the slower compile/encode times.

Just dropped in the 7900x3d. Theres a million bios updates and settings that are new for this chip. Finally got it to boost during cinebench now will test msfs.  

Coming from a 5900x running 4k w 3080 10gb. I lock at 30fps to get buttery stutter free experience but in bigger airports it can dip below 30fps due to cpu limits. Im hoping the 7900x3d can boost frame time enough so I dont ever drop below 30fps. we will see! will report later

21 minutes ago, wiler said:

Im hoping the 7900x3d can boost frame time enough so I dont ever drop below 30fps. we will see! will report later

Looking forward to your report!

Maybe this is just me, maybe not; but aiming for 30 fps with AM5 especially 3D versions, just seems silly. Again, just my opinion. Whatever floats your boat. 

a very quick  dirty comparison of take off from my usual base KDTW, main thread frame time went down to 14/15ms from 18/19ms .

DX11  same  game settings , scenery pmdg 737 and frame time reduced by 25-30% roughly.  Expected a bit more TBH but this is just a very quick test. 

All 12 cores are boosting although 6 cores are running 5.2Ghz constantly (boosting to 5.6ghz sometimes) while 6 other cores boost up and down from 3.6ghz to 5.1Ghz. It seems 6 vcache cores are being used and sometimes the other 6 but not sure if MSFS is using the other 6 or other windows tasks. the fact the others are boosting up to 5.1ghz leads me to believe the other cores are also being utilized by msfs... not sure.  

Will try other areas as well but the sim runs silky smooth and im running the newest beta. 

I went w the 7900x3d because I want the extra cores that the 7800x3d wont have( maybe it will run a bit better but probably not by much) for me its a good trade off of good perf in msfs and not losing productivity performance that you would w the 7800x3d.   I would only consider upgrading from a non 5800x3d because the chip is super expensive here in the EU w the VAT

3 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

Maybe this is just me, maybe not; but aiming for 30 fps with AM5 especially 3D versions, just seems silly. Again, just my opinion. Whatever floats your boat. 

Im not against aiming for higher but w my old setup locked 30 fps got me super stutter free experience which is more important then the fps counter. maybe its just me though... If this new setup can go higher w no stutter im not against it. 

2 hours ago, wiler said:

Im not against aiming for higher but w my old setup locked 30 fps got me super stutter free experience which is more important then the fps counter. maybe its just me though... If this new setup can go higher w no stutter im not against it. 

Agree. In MSFS i still use 30Hz which is an absolutely fine rate for that kind of simulation. Even though my hardware would be capable of much higher. Just because my car has 400 HP doesn't mean i have to go full throttle the whole time.

In other games like Red Dead Redemtion 2, Hogwarts Legacy for example i go 120Hz 4k and still my Hardware is barely sweating. Its just good to know i can if i want to.

2 hours ago, wiler said:

If this new setup can go higher w no stutter im not against it.

For our benefit, could you unlock your framerate and tell us whether you're CPU limited or GPU limited in your demanding areas? From your signature, you're running a 3080, correct? I think a lot of folks are still on the fence about upgrading to a 40 series card just yet, so this would be a great way to see an upgrade comparison CPU v GPU.