5 minutes ago, turbomax said:

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.

lol

https://www.avsim.com/forums/forum/326-mobo-ram-cpu-hdd-ssd-desktops-laptops-tablets/

A very good forum for just this sort of discussion 

53 minutes ago, sonny147 said:

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

it is constant frame times that will make MSFS stutter free. they can best be achieved by highest clock rates.

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

.

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

4 minutes ago, turbomax said:

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

we should also stop comparing fonds, stock market, car and avgas prices, you name it.

Yes, unlike sims, it's unlikely that you're average flight sim enthusiast will buy both an i9-13900K and an 7800X3D so a comparison is both valid and useful.

But this isn't really an Intel versus AMD thread. It's more about where the upcoming 7800X3D fits as a MSFS CPU, and the competition is other X3D chips, not an i9.

I'm flying Intel right now, and have been a proud Team Intel member for as long as I can remember. I did a build with an AMD chip back in the 90s, ugh, never again...

Until these new X3D chips came out, which are clearly better for MSFS then the best that Intel can do. I've talked to my therapist, worked through my past AMD traumas and am now ready to build an AM5-based system. There's plenty of reasons to buy an i9-13900K, but If we're talking peak MSFS performance in April 2023, I think it's got to be an X3D CPU that goes in your system.

5 minutes ago, St Mawgan said:

A very good forum for just this sort of discussion 

it will eventually move to the special hardware sub-forum. but while the 7800x3D currently rules the gaming headlines world wide I think it deserves a prominent place initially even in this general forum.

24 minutes ago, turbomax said:

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.

That's theory, maybe. Theory is not as good as real-world testing.

See the links I posted to sources other than "Paul's Hardware"'s cursory external-view flight test, the 7950X3D seems to perform better than the 7800X3D for in-cockpit flying in MSFS.

Just now, OzWhitey said:

That's theory, maybe. Theory is not as good as real-world testing.

See the links I posted to sources other than "Paul's Hardware"'s cursory external-view flight test, the 7950X3D seems to perform better than the 7800X3D for in-cockpit flying in MSFS.

but at what price !

2 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

the 7950X3D seems to perform better than the 7800X3D

that's theory, may be.😊

the performance difference is negligible, the price difference is not.

3 hours 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 ?

I think the real point is that nobody needs more than 60fps. The human eye probably can tell the difference between 60 and 90fps, but as far as I am concerned, if I could get 60fps absolutely everywhere in my flight simulator, I certainly would not be thinking about wasting more money just to try and match the "big boys".

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by Christopher Low

Those tests do not match with the real users reporting these several days their fps and videos with the 7950x3d, in their real personal benchmarks and e.g. NY and the A310, compared with 12/13xxx´s, the same performance or maybe a bit more.

10 hours ago, scotchegg said:

It's not a huuuuge difference. And probably if you're getting a new CPU you're thinking about a new GPU anyway, and with frame generation on the newest cards, CPU choice is probably even less important.

Hence why I stuck with my 7950X. With FG, no need to switch a 3D variant. 

18 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

I think the real point is that nobody needs more than 60fps.

Not this again. 120FPS is way better than 60 FPS. In terms of a fluid, motion feeling. I can tell, and anyone that says that they cant tell is telling porkies. 

3 hours ago, KL Oo said:

I purchased a 7900X3D because the 7950X3D and 7800X3D won't be available here in Australia for some time.

I ordered a 7950X3D last Fri from PCByte and it arrived today. I see MWave & JW Computers also have them. They seem to be dripping in slowly 🙂

2 hours ago, GSalden said:

LOL.  : 30 fps + 30% = 45 fps …. 🥳

Well, you did get the point, didn't you? But I agree, if (!) you already have a fast CPU, upgrading makes no sense, but in this case we rarely speak of an 30% increase...