4 hours ago, turbomax said:

7900X3D has only 6 v-cache enabled cores, i.e. 2 less than the 7800x3D, therefore a pretty useless version for gaming.  the non-v cache cores in the 7950x3D could be disabled in the BIOS to avoid any Windows scheduler problems but then why get it in the first place, unless you can make use of the 7950x3D's 700 MHz higher clock speed of the non-cache cores in other productivity apps.

The 7800x3D is clocked lower than the 7950x3D so I would expect the latter to be the fastest. Did the the tester disable the second CCD on the 7950X3D when testing games?
That makes a big difference although it should not be needed if the proper drivers are installed and Windows can distinguish between games and production so it can park the cores on the second CCD when games are run.

GamerNexus pointed out that testers should do a complete re-install of Windows before switching these CPU's on the motherboard: the AMD software messes with Windows so once the OS is "branded" for a specific CPU it cannot be optimised for another. 

I feel sorry for the 7900X3D though: too expensive for pure gamers and not enough oompf for those who want the absolute fastest.

 

 

55 minutes ago, willy647 said:

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

Most probably only in specific scenarios. BUT: a processor providing 30% more FPS in such a scenario most probably also provides those 30% more FPS in a scenario with much lower FPS, e.g. huge airport with AI traffic. And suddenly we talk about 30 vs 45 FPS, and latest at that point it should be clear, why a CPU upgrade might make sense even if those benchmarks seem to be telling not much at first glance...

1 hour 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 ?

If you have a monitor that’s capable of 90hz or higher it’s def noticeable

And then there's me who, just two months ago without researching upcoming tech properly, ordered a 5800x3d to upgrade my 9700k. Still. I've tripled my FPS in places and the experience is incredible. So I'll bury my head in the sand for this new data!

22 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Most probably only in specific scenarios. BUT: a processor providing 30% more FPS in such a scenario most probably also provides those 30% more FPS in a scenario with much lower FPS, e.g. huge airport with AI traffic. And suddenly we talk about 30 vs 45 FPS, and latest at that point it should be clear, why a CPU upgrade might make sense even if those benchmarks seem to be telling not much at first glance...

LOL.  : 30 fps + 30% = 45 fps …. 🥳

But seriously, if you already have a fast cpu and have good fps than upgrading is more out of luxury than needed …

My 13900k and 13700k can run at least 60 fps in most scenarios, only at large airports with lots of Live and Parked traffic I see 37-43 fps. So I use 60 hertz / 50% vsync + Frame Generation… 

Bit everyone as he likes …

 

6 minutes ago, GSalden said:

LOL.  : 30 fps + 30% = 45 fps …. 🥳

But seriously, if you already have a fast cpu and have good fps than upgrading is more out of luxury than needed …

My 13900k and 13700k can run at least 60 fps in most scenarios, only at large airports with lots of Live and Parked traffic I see 37-43 fps. So I use 60 hertz / 50% vsync + Frame Generation… 

Bit everyone as he likes …

 

Anything above 50fps is fine by me in the heaviest airports. No doubt both our cpus manage that!

So anyway, back to AMD chips...

I'm tending towards the 7950X3D, mainly because that's not yet available where I shop and the wait for the 7800X3D will be even longer.

I'm also still seeing slightly better results for the 7950X3D in the type of flying I'd be doing in MSFS, and there's a solid chance that Asobo will improve multi-core usage in the coming years.

As both chips are compatible with the same X670E Mobo, it's not too hard to swap between them in the future if needed - or upgrade to the next new X3D chip.

I'm just stoked that after several years of quite boring CPU upgrades, we suddenly seem to have a wealth of these MSFS-suited X3D chips to choose from. 

1 hour 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 ?

In VR and with headtracking it reduces lag between head movement and visuals to the point that it feels immediate. It's debatable whether this happens around 90fps or more, but 60 is a bit on the low side for this. Anyway, reprojection can go a long way for VR, and you don't need to reach 90fps natively. 

For me the main effect is the input lag, which, depending on the engine in use, can be around 3-5 frames. At 60 fps, this translates to 0.05 - 0.08 seconds, which is still noticeable. At 30 fps, it goes up to 0.1 - 0.16 sec, and that feels quite laggy when moving the camera quickly. In a civil flight sim I don't care, I'm fine visually with 40-50fps, I don't need to shoot any fast-moving targets 😉

The most important point is though: Try loading a highly-detailed, busy airport. The average of 90fps will immediately go down to 30-40fps. And MSFS is not a closed system: there are plenty of demanding 3rd party add-ons, if you use several at the same time (demanding aircraft, scenery, traffic add-on), you'll get nowhere near the fps shown in a generic test.

 

I'm curious about the performance with frame generation now, with this new AMD CPU.  I think with frame generation, people are getting 130+ FPS at 4K, with the the 4090, at least 32 GB of RAM, and whatever the top CPU is?

BTW, back in 2021, getting over 100 FPS for a "modern" flight simulator was unheard of.  We were so used to getting 30 FPS in a modern flight simulator and 30 FPS was pretty good not that long ago.  I feel kinda spoiled now. I can't believe I am saying this, but 30 FPS is pretty abysmal for a modern flight simulator in 2023.

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by abrams_tank

Can anyone explain what that difference is that you feel with a better CPU? It's the feeling of much more fluidity at a higher fps. For example the new x3d chips make the game feel silky smooth vs my 9700k, even at an identical framework. Essentially, 70fps on the x3d feels noticably different to 70fps on the 9700k.

 

Is this to do with the frame pacing I've seen people mentioning?

 

 

19 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

I'm curious about the performance with frame generation now, with this new AMD CPU.  I think with frame generation, people are getting 130+ FPS at 4K, with the the 4090, at least 32 GB of RAM, and whatever the top CPU is?

BTW, back in 2021, getting over 100 FPS for a "modern" flight simulator was unheard of.  We were so used to getting 30 FPS in a modern flight simulator and 30 FPS was pretty good not that long ago.  I feel kinda spoiled now. I can't believe I am saying this, but 30 FPS is pretty abysmal for a modern flight simulator in 2023.

Not exactly like that... if the sim is cpu limited(high tlod and ai traffic), frame generation will not help and sim will stutters like crazy. So You should stay at safe side with tlod and ai traffic settings.

22 minutes ago, Bigbluss said:

Can anyone explain what that difference is that you feel with a better CPU? It's the feeling of much more fluidity at a higher fps. For example the new x3d chips make the game feel silky smooth vs my 9700k, even at an identical framework. Essentially, 70fps on the x3d feels noticably different to 70fps on the 9700k.

 

Is this to do with the frame pacing I've seen people mentioning?

 

 

I dont know technically, but going from a 9900K to the 5800X3D there is a substantial difference in overall smoothness and snappyness of the sim. the 9900K was a great chip ( probably a legend in its own lifetime ) dont get me wrong , but iam sure the lower latency the V cache brings is the key . "Instead of the CPU having to pop next door to the ram for info requests , it basically has alot of the info in its pocket ( the v cache ) saving time hense Latency " coupled with more modern technology in the chip and mobo etc alround better performance !

bare in mind if you use your PC for other things like work for example this is not the chip to go for , but for me my PC is Sim only more or less so the X3D is as good as it gets

5800X3D / 3080 12 GB/ 32GB 3600 DDR / Strix Mobo at 2560x1600 on a 4K tv, and everything on NVME , and yep i will be going to a  7800X3D/ 4080 combo later in the year but ssshh dont tell the wife !

 

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by sonny147
added

3 hours ago, pmplayer said:

Until the the next series from Intel, always the same thing

called progress through competition.

2 hours ago, orchestra_nl said:

The 7800x3D is clocked lower than the 7950x3D so I would expect the latter to be the fastest.

no. make no mistake: the 7950x3D will also clock at only 5 GHz when it uses the v-cache cores. those stacked cache devices would overheat otherwise. only the non-cache cores will run at 5.7 GHz, and would still perform worse in MSFS.

2 hours ago, altenae said:

Can we stop the AMD versus Intel war please bases on one review

no we can't, prospective customers and pc builders want to make an educated decision when it comes to spending $ 500-900.

should we also stop comparing fonds, stock market, car and avgas prices, you name it. imagine what Intel would charge if there was no AMD. and what Nvidia charges since AMD can not compete in the GPU market. and what Boeing would charge if there was no Airbus and vice versa.

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax