2 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

This isn’t a classic car, it’s a modern sim.

Earlier you said the above despite me saying I am using P3D.

9 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

That’s the whole point in a forum, to debate and question. Why make a statement if you don’t want people to question it? 

You seem to be under the impression I'm running MSFS. I'm not. Surely the same rules about the fastest CPU you can afford apply to all sims, not just MSFS. That's been the rule for the 30 years I've been using flight sim. They still apply.

29 minutes ago, turbomax said:

wouldn't you agree that 30 fps is kind of wasteful, wouldn't 20 fps suffice and our planet could be a cooler place?

You practice what you preach I assume. 🙄

19 minutes ago, turbomax said:

if you really prefer fewer cores, how about Intel Core-2-Duo-E7000.

You clearly can't discuss things in a sensible manner. I won't be wasting my time with any further replies to you.

59 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The reason I'm favouring the AMD is it has fewer cores. I don't need the number the i9-13900K has.

The reason I changed my 13700K for an AM5 rig is for the 100mb+ of cache. The only scenario on MSFS that I get 60 FPS is on major hubs with 100s of AI Aircraft. I expect this to change with the new CPU. 

That and also for some strategy games that I play...

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by GCBraun

1 hour ago, GCBraun said:

The reason I changed my 13700K for an AM5 rig is for the 100mb+ of cache. The only scenario on MSFS that I get 60 FPS is on major hubs with 100s of AI Aircraft. I expect this to change with the new CPU. 

Comparing the cache on the i9-13900KS to the 7950XD3 the Intel has 512Mb more L1, same L2 and 92Mb less L3.

Reading this article L1 would appear to be the fastest and most important. So given that, shouldn’t the Intel be the better choice?

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-cpu-cache/

34 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Comparing the cache on the i9-13900KS to the 7950XD3 the Intel has 512Mb more L1, same L2 and 92Mb less L3.

Reading this article L1 would appear to be the fastest and most important. So given that, shouldn’t the Intel be the better choice?

https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/what-is-cpu-cache/

Where are you getting that data? The 13900KS has 80kb of L1 cache per core, 2mb of L2 per core, and 36mb of total shared L3 cache.

The 7800X3D has 64kb of L1 cache per core, 1mb of L2 per core, and 96mb of shared L3 cache.

So while it's true that Intel has more L1 and L2 cache per core, the L3 cache is the big deal as the latency between the various cache levels is *much* lower than between Cache and RAM - so the more you can store even in L3 cache, the less you need to swap between cache and RAM, boosting performance in certain applications like MSFS and P3D as proven by the benchmarks.

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by StAgre

19 minutes ago, StAgre said:

Where are you getting that data?

From this site…

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5234vs5160/AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-Intel-i9-13900KS

Thanks for clarifying the importance of L3 cache.

9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

From this site…

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/5234vs5160/AMD-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-vs-Intel-i9-13900KS

Thanks for clarifying the importance of L3 cache.

But there they show the correct figures:

7950X3D vs 13900K

Cache

L1: 1,024KB, L2: 16.0MB, L3: 128MB

L1: 1,536KB, L2: 16.0MB, L3: 36MB

18 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

But there they show the correct figures:

7950X3D vs 13900K

Cache

L1: 1,024KB, L2: 16.0MB, L3: 128MB

L1: 1,536KB, L2: 16.0MB, L3: 36MB

The numbers I posted earlier are confirmed with this post.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The numbers I posted earlier are confirmed with this post.

But this is also correct...the 13900KS has a bit more L1 (measured in kb, not mb), same amount of L2 and much less L3 when compared to the X3D.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The numbers I posted earlier are confirmed with this post.

 

Yeah that makes more sense, the L1 cache is Kilobytes, not Megabytes. Also, L1 and L2 are divided by the cores, so anything running on multiple cores needs to be copied across every core utilizing it - L3 is shared and so the larger size is more useful as there is less duplication of information

6 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

But this is also correct...the 13900KS has a bit more L1 (measured in kb, not mb), same amount of L2 and much less L3 when compared to the X3D.

Yes, my mistake in Kb, not Mb.

6 minutes ago, StAgre said:

Yeah that makes more sense, the L1 cache is Kilobytes, not Megabytes. Also, L1 and L2 are divided by the cores, so anything running on multiple cores needs to be copied across every core utilizing it - L3 is shared and so the larger size is more useful as there is less duplication of information

Ye gods this does get complicated. 😳 But after watching the Dutch lady’s review the AMD Ryzen 7 7800XD3 looks a worthy competitor. Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/bgYAVKscg0M

 

13 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Yes, my mistake in Kb, not Mb.

Ye gods this does get complicated. 😳 But after watching the Dutch lady’s review the AMD Ryzen 7 7800XD3 looks a worthy competitor. Thoughts?

https://youtu.be/bgYAVKscg0M

 

The confusing thing about the 7800/7900/7950X3D is that if you care about the Cache size and gaming performance only, the 7800X3D should perform the best, outperforming the 7900x3d and at least on par with the 7950x3d as the 79xx chips have two compute units, only one of which has the 3D cache. So it's up to the scheduler to properly allocate tasks, which it's not particularly good at.

 

I think if your computer is purely dedicated to gaming and otherwise only used for lighter workloads, there's very little reason to buy the 7900 or 7950. With regards to the 13900KS, the 7800X3D should perform on par in gaming at the worst case, and vastly outperform it in the best case while using significantly less power and costing $250 less. On top of this, B650 motherboards are generally cheaper than Z790 boards as well.

However, for tasks that don't utilize the cache or are highly multithreaded, of course the 13900KS will crush the 7800X3d, but these tasks are generally more on the video editing/compute side of the spectrum, and less on the gaming side.

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by StAgre

31 minutes ago, StAgre said:

With regards to the 13900KS, the 7800X3D should perform on par in gaming

not SHOULD but DOES in MSFS:

 

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by turbomax

While this graph is quite interesting, I believe most of these mainstream reviewers just don't know how to properly test simulators. They are surely just flying around with a default aircraft at 10k feet over NYC without significant amounts of traffic.

Therefore, the difference could be even bigger when using higher end add-ons on major hubs with lots of AI...

This efficiency chart is also quite amazing:

 

Edited April 7, 20233 yr by GCBraun

21 minutes ago, StAgre said:

I think if your computer is purely dedicated to gaming and otherwise only used for lighter workloads, there's very little reason to buy the 7900 or 7950.

Thank you for confirming the same conclusion I came to watching that video. I use my flight sim PC for flying exclusively. And doing backups of course.

8 minutes ago, GCBraun said:

While this graph is quite interesting, I believe most of these mainstream reviewers just don't know how to properly test simulators. They are surely just flying around with a default aircraft at 10k feet over NYC without significant amounts of traffic.

Therefore, the difference could be even bigger when using higher end add-ons on major hubs with lots of AI...

Even if they don’t know how best to test a flight sim you would hope they run the same test each time.

It’s always a good idea to check more than one review and one important aspect she didn’t cover is overclocking. Maybe the Intel and 7950XD3 can be overclocked higher than the 7800XD3.