the fastest CPU for MSFS has landed

[V1ROTA7E 718]

2 hours ago, Vlooi said:

Because of the dual CCD's in the 7950X3D vs the single CCD in the 7800X3D, and the fact that the V-Cache is only applied on one CCD whether it's the 7800X3D, 7900X3D or 7950X3D.

 

41 minutes ago, Mace said:

If this turns out to be accurate, a lot of people predicted this based on 7700X and 5800X3D, the single CCD design ...all the TDP towards one CCD vs 2.  

Hey, I'm all for it! Can't wait to get it in a system and try this bad boy out. If it's as good as it looks, this paired with a 4090 may just last the life of the sim 😆

[pmplayer 9,569]

Until the the next series from Intel, always the same thing, I'm really too tired to follow such processor comparisons..

It's somehow like a joke to me to get out the people money for a spare count of FPS which you can see on a test diagram and is completely different in real use.

Forget about that...☺️

cheers 😉

[GSalden 4,688]

Now the AMD cpu is the fastest. Next time the Intel cpu.

It’s nice to have multiple options 😎

[AnkH 2,280]

Don't forget that the screenshot on page is a rather nitpicked one, there are many reviews out now and in most, the 7950X3D is still faster in MSFS compared to the 7800X3D. I seriously wonder how the review shown in the screenshot managed to get the 7800X3D so much in front, others do not, for example Toms Hardware:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-cpu-review/4

[styckx 1,872]

4 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I am happy enough with my 9900K mini toaster oven from way back when.  Sure the current 12th gen i5 laptop processor in our work laptops is faster but my ancient i9 does the job for me.

Same.. I'm not spending thousands of dollars for marginable at best improvements. 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

4 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

I am happy enough with my 9900K mini toaster oven from way back when.  Sure the current 12th gen i5 laptop processor in our work laptops is faster but my ancient i9 does the job for me.

I’m in the i9900K club too. Works beautifully in MSFS at 5GHz. But these new processors are just too tempting, so it’s finally time for me to leave the i9900K behind.

[GSalden 4,688]

If you need a new cpu and you have the cash do what you want.

Keep in mind : wheh a faster CPU is released that does not mean that all other CPUs are not good enough anymore …..

🧐

[willy647 193]

Does one really notice the difference between, say 60 fps and 90 fps ? Or is it you 'think' its soooo much better ?

[St Mawgan 1,395]

3 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Keep in mind : when a faster CPU is released that does not mean that all other CPUs are not good enough anymore …..

They should use this as the strapline in the hardware forum here (which is where this thread should be anyway) 😁

 

[OzWhitey 3,353]

1 minute ago, willy647 said:

Does one really notice the difference between, say 60 fps and 90 fps ? Or is it you 'think' its soooo much better ?

Yes most humans can notice it. Approximately 0.00002% of the Homo sapiens species are convinced that 12 FPS is more than enough, and they all seem to be Avsim members. 😉 

However, whilst the infamous Avsim argument about whether frame rates matter comes up all the time in these sorts of threads, they really need a place of their own to avoid derailing what are (hopefully) useful tech discussions. 

[Mark1616 47]

It’s good to have a powerful CPU, if not for FPS then to run the WRF model in parallel on WSL/Ubuntu, in real time on a rather high resolution, over a moving domain centered at the airplane location and then feeding that numerical solution to replace or augment the MSFS live weather.. MSFS uses in average 1.25 cores on my i7-12700k, so plenty of CPU cores for the weather model.

[altenae 171]

7 hours ago, turbomax said:

4K - 3840 x 2160 - no FrameGeneration -

sorry Intel i9-13900K 🤣

Can we stop the AMD versus Intel war please bases on one review. (Which I doubt)

Edited April 6, 2023 by altenae

[St Mawgan 1,395]

26 minutes ago, willy647 said:

Does one really notice the difference between, say 60 fps and 90 fps ? 

No

[OzWhitey 3,353]

Please note that the title of this thread is pretty misleading. You can't take a single review and claim the a new chip is supreme. You need to look at all of the available data and the testing methodology.

I'd personally prefer to see less of these tabloid-style, over-the-top thread titles around here!

The graph in this thread is from Paul's Hardware. 

Paul doesn't describe his testing methodology in any detail, but it appears that he's flown in external view, which is not the best test if we're talking about aviation simulation.

Eurogamer has a better and more relevant review of the 5800X3D: https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2023-amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-review?page=2

Importantly, they're flying in cockpit view and have a video of the flight. They also present their data in more robust form.

In this test which would be more applicable to most Avsimmers, the 7950X3D clearly performs better than the 7800X3D.

Tom's Hardware also found the 7800X3D to be quite a bit slower in MSFS than the 7950X3D: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d-cpu-review/4

In short, the 7800X3D is a great chip for the price and an amazing piece of hardware, but claiming that "the fastest CPU for MSFS has landed" based on a single video with a 10-second external view snippet is misleading.

I know that some here are enthusiasts for one chip over the other. I'm just a humble i9900K owner who, like may of you reading this, wants some quality information to help me make a wise choice for my upcoming CPU upgrade. 🙂

[KL Oo 706]

I appreciate these comparisons - Please keep them coming. 

 

I purchased a 7900X3D because the 7950X3D and 7800X3D won't be available here in Australia for some time. Using Process Lasso to control affinity and tying MSFS to cores 0-5 I don't see the how the 7800X3D would improve on it. The main thread (Core 0) sits around 90% with cores 1-5 progressively getting lower in usage with cores 4 and 5 sitting at about 20% and 10% usage pretty consistently. This is whilst flying in the PMDG 737 over terrain (whilst static at EGLL with full AIG I don't see even that much usage). So my take home is that adding two additional cores really isn't going to give me anything if cores 4 & 5 are only running at 10% themselves... plenty of head room should the sim wish to use it.

 

Of course I'm running Pilot2ATC, A Pilots LIfe CHapter 2. AIG Traffic Controller (or PSXT + RT) on cores 6-11.