1 hour ago, V1ROTA7E said:

The numbers you've posted seem really implausible

And why would I post implausible number? Wich motiv? 

1 hour ago, V1ROTA7E said:

So I can see what your system is doing. The numbers you've posted seem really implausible. I've been following these chips and their performance closely, and you must have hit the jackpot. I'd like to see the numbers from "Dev Mode" because other systems with your setup are nowhere near your numbers. A picture of your settings would also show if there's something else going on. For example, if I enable "dynamic performance" in the options, I can achieve your numbers as well...that's because the TLOD isn't really at 200, but acting as a native AutoFPS. I'm very eager to see how your system is performing, because if it is performing that well, I'd like to push mine even further.  You may have inadvertently "found" something that could benefit other people with 99xx CPUs.

https://imgur.com/a/ZBr89UU

Here is the Link to the settings and FPS counters.....

I feel sorry that you can't achieve this at the moment and hope you find a solution. 

I would never ever post implausible numbers. 

9 hours ago, mpo910 said:

Here is the Link to the settings and FPS counters.....

Thank  you SO much for posting. With your identical settings, I'm getting the exact same performance as you. When I was testing, i literary had everything set to its maximum setting.

10 minutes ago, V1ROTA7E said:

Thank  you SO much for posting. With your identical settings, I'm getting the exact same performance as you. When I was testing, i literary had everything set to its maximum setting.

Yes....I saw that some minor settings where not on Ultra! My bad. But I did not know the impact would be big? How many fps where between us? And now, with the exact settings?

Did you managed to get your clock speed up? Higher then 4.8GhZ?

1 minute ago, mpo910 said:

Yes....I saw that some minor settings where not on Ultra! My bad. But I did not know the impact would be big? How many fps where between us? And now, with the exact settings?

Did you managed to get your clock speed up? Higher then 4.8GhZ?

Yes, I actually swapped out my mobo for an X870E during trouble shooting hahaha. Either way, it's future proofed now, but the B650 was actually working well with the 9950x3D for others that may have that board and are wondering bout these chips.

Under load, it's stable running at 5.4-5.6 with the cores that matter. This is with a custom PBO curve, memory OC'd, and extensive stress testing. If I were to guess, I think that "terrain pre-cache" set to high is doing a lot of the heavy lifting with the performance uplift.

Before the settings change, FPS were at 55-67 depending on the view direction (cockpit). After the change, FPS went to 80. I'd be curious to see what your numbers are with everything at Ultra.

Now that we've established a baseline, I am going to try some other things like disabling SMT, tweaking RAM timings a bit further (currently running 64GB DDR5-6000 CL 30.

14 hours ago, mpo910 said:

minor settings

I also just ran a test with SMT off, and it actually showed a 3-5 FPS increase. This was in the most demanding situation I could think of with currently compatible scenery. iniEGLL with all options ON, BATC traffic level 5 (AIG models). All settings back on Ultra. Before the change: 31-33 FPS at gate 223 in the iniA320. After the change 36-38. This is in FS24, haven't tried FS20 yet. Not complaining...70+ FPS with frame generation in this scenario with no noticeable stuttering (unless panning with the mouse really fast in different directions), this is a great generation of chips. Hope I'm not derailing your thread, these two chips perform so similarly...the best bang for your buck would definitely be the 9900x3D from tests so far. The 9950x3D seems unnecessary for flight sim, at least in these early days.


@Noel I also did a comparison with my buddy who has a 7950x3D in FS2020. We had identical systems except he has a B670 board. I believe the 7800x3D is similar in performance, so this may interest you. The scenario was the default discovery flight over New York. Everything on Ultra, TLOD at 400, altitude 1500, from the starting point to just past the world trade center, community folders both empty. 

With his chip, his average FPS was 40, peaking at 48, with the lowest being 38. With the 9950x3D, average FPS were 75, peaking at 88, with the lowest being 59 (when I was GPU limited...after changes it shot up to 70). This is without Frame Generation. Being GPU limited I had to change the graphics to DLSS/Performance to get back to being CPU limited. The nice thing with DLSS4 was that there was actually no overtly noticeable degradation in visual quality.

So, is a 9950X3D worth an upgrade from a 7950X then? 

38 minutes ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So, is a 9950X3D worth an upgrade from a 7950X then? 

Who knows, I would say yes, but it depends on several factors: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d-review/2 On 1080p with a 5090, you see that a 9950X3D is far in front, even slightly faster than a 9800X3D (which is different in other reviews). 

What is your resolution? If it is 4K, you will most probably be GPU limited anyway (what is your GPU?) and then switching CPU does not provide that much. However, there are many saying that the 9950X3D results in extremely smooth gameplay, probably because the 1% low FPS are improved that much (over 40% better compared to a 9950X). 

So in the end, the question is: what do YOU call "worth the upgrade"?

Just bought the 9950x3d for MSRP on Amazon. FYI.

Edit: Amazon cancelled my order. Bummer. 

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by RobJC

7 hours ago, Ianrivaldosmith said:

So, is a 9950X3D worth an upgrade from a 7950X then? 

7950x or 7950x3D? I'd say, yes definitely for the 7950x. For the 7950x3D, I'd lean towards "yes," but it's a hefty fee. The 9900x3D appears to be the overall winner for MSFS...the 9950x3D, however based on multiple games and applications comes ahead marginally, so you'd have to weight that against the $100 difference.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by V1ROTA7E

3 hours ago, V1ROTA7E said:

7950x or 7950x3D? I'd say, yes definitely for the 7950x. For the 7950x3D, I'd lean towards "yes," but it's a hefty fee. The 9900x3D appears to be the overall winner for MSFS...the 9950x3D, however based on multiple games and applications comes ahead marginally, so you'd have to weight that against the $100 difference.

You can get the 9900x3d at msrp so the difference is much more than that, considering the $800+ selling price of the 9950x3d.

On 3/14/2025 at 10:05 PM, Bigmack said:

Looked at price on Amazon, close to $900.00 and only 2 left in stack.

Hi,

I went with the 9950X route for half the price and looking at XP12 and MS2020 the CPU isn't utilized to the fullest. The difference in performance isn't worth the $500.00 price tag. Same goes for the Ram being utilized, usually sits around 24% using 64GB.

Edited March 19, 20251 yr by Mike_CFII_MEL

If you're seeing a price over 699 for a 5950X3D it's a 3rd party marking the price up. 699 is the MSRP similar to 479 for the 9800X3D.  

4 hours ago, RobJC said:

You can get the 9900x3d at msrp so the difference is much more than that, considering the $800+ selling price of the 9950x3d.

Bummer. I was able to get mine for MSRP. The nice thing is, if you’re in the US, many stores sell them, including Best Buy, which is crazy to me. 

On 3/19/2025 at 2:02 AM, V1ROTA7E said:

@Noel I also did a comparison with my buddy who has a 7950x3D in FS2020. We had identical systems except he has a B670 board. I believe the 7800x3D is similar in performance, so this may interest you. The scenario was the default discovery flight over New York. Everything on Ultra, TLOD at 400, altitude 1500, from the starting point to just past the world trade center, community folders both empty. 

With his chip, his average FPS was 40, peaking at 48, with the lowest being 38. With the 9950x3D, average FPS were 75, peaking at 88, with the lowest being 59 (when I was GPU limited...after changes it shot up to 70). This is without Frame Generation. Being GPU limited I had to change the graphics to DLSS/Performance to get back to being CPU limited. The nice thing with DLSS4 was that there was actually no overtly noticeable degradation in visual quality.

What plane, was AI traffic operating, ATC?   Sounds very impressive for sure but to be able to tell how this will work with how I use the sim.   I've always tried to avoid anything but a minimum of 30% increase in performance when upgrading but as said if I could reliably get back to NO frame gen I might have to bend that rule!