Interesting to see how many of my fellow members of the i9-9900K gang have held off upgrading for the last 4-5 years, and are now convinced to do so by the latest AM5 releases.

I imagine most of us were waiting for the next big thing from Intel, but I guess AMD it is. 🙂

2 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Interesting to see how many of my fellow members of the i9-9900K gang have held off upgrading for the last 4-5 years, and are now convinced to do so by the latest AM5 releases.

🙋‍♂️

13 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Tom's Hardware also found the 7800X3D to be quite a bit slower in MSFS than the 7950X3D

145/156 , 181/194 fps = just 7% at 1080p, and will melt down to meaningless 2-3% at more realistic 4K resolution. performance wise the 7800x3D is great for MSFS and easier to handle than dual chiplet versions like 7950x3D, price/performance wise the 7800x3D is the new king. until 8000x3D later this year. 🤣

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

14 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

Interesting to see how many of my fellow members of the i9-9900K gang have held off upgrading for the last 4-5 years, and are now convinced to do so by the latest AM5 releases.

I imagine most of us were waiting for the next big thing from Intel, but I guess AMD it is. 🙂

What performance benefit would you expect from a 7950X3D (or a 7800) in VR with a 3090? Obviously GPU bound with VR but given the 9900K is beginning to show its age a beefy new CPU would certainly make a good difference nonetheless, right?

9 hours ago, 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.

it's more than theory, it's benchmarking. the 7950x3D's clock speed is only marginally higher than the 7800x3D's (and I suppose purely for marketing reasons)  when 3D V-cache cores are in use. only 5.088 GHz on average game testing (versus 5.7 GHz in non-caches scenarios). this would explain why the 7950x3D may run a mere 5-7% faster in MSFS @1K resolution than the 7800x3D:

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

32 minutes ago, Nixoq said:

given the 9900K is beginning to show its age a beefy new CPU would certainly make a good difference nonetheless, right?

my i9-9900K + RTX 4090 is often at 95% load on main game core in VR. upgrading to the 7800x3D is the only way to increase performance I can think of.

52 minutes ago, OzWhitey said:

I imagine most of us were waiting for the next big thing from Intel, but I guess AMD it is

agree. been waiting for Intel's allegedly super-Meteor-Lake that got quietly cancelled because it simply couldn't compete with latest AMD's. hard to believe but true. Intel's vintage 10 nm lithography killed them and gave AMD this unprecedented lead through their stacked v-cache technology.

2 hours ago, B777ER said:

Tell me you have no clue without telling me. New mobo, 32gb ram and 7800x3d all for under $1,000

From s 9900k? under 1000$? Are you buying from Wish and AliExpress exclusively?

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

90 frames per second is the native refresh rate of the Reverb G2. Meaning that that is the frame rate that you would ideally want for maximum smoothness.

agreed, to quote you "90 fps = the frame rate you would ideally want" but not getting. I use a HP G2, my VR fps are far from it. 50% of 90 fps. just like you can nicely play at 80 fps on a 120 Hz monitor.

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

it's not "the fastest CPU for MSFS" as claimed in this thread title.

ok, I plead guilty. 🤣

not THE fastest but

"the pretty much nearly very close 2nd fastest for under $ 699 that does not require specific windows/BIOS updates."

I tried but that didn't fit in the thread title window. 😀

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

8 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

10 hours ago, Christopher Low said:

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".

OzWhitey “Nobody needs”

Thats a bold statement in a world where many simmers use VR HMDs with 90 Hz refresh rates, or monitors that works best at 120 Hz

does Christopher Low use 4 K resolution? I doubt it. nobody needs more than 1K but most want-ed 😀

31 minutes ago, styckx said:

From s 9900k? under 1000$? Are you buying from Wish and AliExpress exclusively?

655,- + tax. (will keep case, power supply, SSDs etc and GPU from current pc)

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

So, I can actually get a 7800X3D in about a week, which is sooner than I can get a 7950X3D.

The $64 question: Is there ANY review other than Paul's that shows the 7800X3D outperforming the 7950X3D in MSFS? I've been looking, and so far I haven't found any. So it's Paul (external view only) vs Eurogamer and Tom's hardware.

I'm genuinely interested in any further data, because I'm ready to drop the hammer on this, either way.

My take is this.  I don't trust any of the tech reviewers to test MSFS properly.  It's not that I don't value Paul's Hardware or GN or any of them.  I do value them very much.  It's just that, we don't really know if they did, for example, fresh-OS cpu installs (a known problem for testing X3D parts), and we don't know if the provisioning driver parked cores it should not have, etc.    If we do know their exact methodologies then I must have missed it.

And just operating the sim at Ultra preset or whatever they used isn't a typical use case for any of us, who know, to varying degrees, the ins-and-outs of the various sim settings and gpu settings that produce the smoothest sim.  And of course then there's the age-old problem of where is the test run in the sim world?  We know testing over London is going to be a whole different ballgame compared to Algeria.

18 minutes ago, Mace said:

it's just that, we don't really know if they did,

however they tested it, from the miniature 5 - 7% higher clock speeds of the 7950X3D I expect an even lower difference in fps over the 7800X3D in MSFS, considering higher price and special Windows/BIOS updates and potential future hassles, I prefer the 7800X3D. I share your views re. Pauls Hardware, GN and friends, they just are not MSFS experts enough and don't have the time needed for in-depth benchmark scenarios setup with inside/outside cameras, weather, traffic addons etc.. they were all under enormous pressure to have their results ready by April 5th after the NDA deadline fell.

Edited April 6, 20233 yr by turbomax

I too lean towards not wanting to rely on a combination of Windows updates, a provisioning driver, etc. to work well in concert, long-term on a sim rig.