Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

16 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

671 profile views
  1. The big thing to consider is VRAM. I think the 1060 has 6 Gb whereas the 1080 has 8 Gb. You won't go wrong with the 1060+ cards. https://pcpartpicker.com/list/FYmyfH Worth the extra $$$. Damn the crypto-miners causing GPU prices to rise.
  2. Try it on and off, and see which is smoother/faster. Go with that. Due to how HT works, it is hard to say how YOUR system will handle it, as it depends on a lot of factors.
  3. Trolling? LOL Tried X-Plane lately? Try disabling cores and see where it gets you... I halve the cores available, I get half the frame rate. GPU is GTX 1080 Ti. CPU is AMD FX-8350 (4 GHz). I set the resolution to 1K first (I usually run it at 4K - I get about 50 FPS at high detail/HDR). XP 11.20b1. At 1K, all cores, FPS = 55 At 1K, cores 0-3 only, FPS = 25.
  4. Correct. https://www.networkworld.com/article/3253285/hardware/amd-plans-silicon-fix-for-spectre-vulnerability.html
  5. Did you read the link? Intel have said they are NOT fixing this in silicon, relying on software patches instead. I quoted the relevant section. https://www.bit-tech.net/news/tech/cpus/intel-details-spectre-meltdown-silicon-fixes/1/
  6. Will that be with or without Meltdown? Intel can release higher core count CPUs, but their multi-thread performance is woeful compared to AMD.
  7. No, Intel appear to not want to fix this in their hardware. I'm talking NEW processors released after today - they appear that they will keep this vulnerability as part of the design, because to properly fix it would hurt performance. https://www.pcworld.com/article/3251171/components-processors/intels-plan-to-fix-meltdown-in-silicon-raises-more-questions-than-answers.html https://www.bit-tech.net/news/tech/cpus/intel-details-spectre-meltdown-silicon-fixes/1/ (March 16th)
  8. Intel went with TIM because it is cheaper, not because it is better. If you run the CPU as designed then it shouldn't be a problem, but there are reports of it delaminating after some time, causing reliability issues. AMD still solder theirs, and it is unlikely to change in the future. De-lidding wouldn't be necessary at all had Intel not made this retrograde step. Their CPUs run hot enough as it is.
  9. http://hwbench.com/cpus/amd-ryzen-threadripper-1950x-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k You can knock 10-15% off the difference in single-thread performance thanks to all the security patches the Intel chip requires. I would like to quote Linus Torvalds about now, but his colorful use of language towards Intel would get me banned.
  10. The most expensive Intel processor you can find. Note: they aren't the fastest. ;) Writing off the AMD processor line is pretty silly. Running a flight sim isn't only about raw single-thread performance. As many videos show, the AMD ThreadRipper just kills the Intel processor, by allowing you to game, video encode, and stream AT THE SAME TIME, with no performance loss. The Intel chips just die in this scenario. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mwecv1wm3rU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQnCWQDlQA4
  11. I find it hilarious how people say how great Intel are, then they risk destroying their CPUs to fix serious design flaws. AMD users don't have these problems. ;)
  12. These problems affect the secure processor that is embedded in the AMD processor core (made by ARM). It is in no way anything like the major Intel screw-up. Not even close. Most of these exploits require administrator privileges on the local computer, and direct hardware access (they can't even work in a VM). Most security vulnerabilities are of this class ("local privilege escalation leading to code execution"). A small patch, and it will be fixed - WITHOUT a performance impact. ;) What Intel did (bypass security checks) is not only extremely serious, but it must be a deliberate design decision. How they couldn't see what they were doing, is stretching credulity. Maybe this is why AMD have trouble in the performance side of things, because they don't go breaking fundamental security structures??! As for the security flaws the paper exposed: while the flaws may be real, the intent certainly isn't. It looks like a major attempt at market manipulation. They are now under investigation by the SEC.
  13. The sad part is, Intel doesn't appear to want to fix this problem in their hardware. It's thought the next-gen of processors will have this flaw "designed in", for the simple reason that by ignoring the security isolation they can increase performance. Who cares that hackers can steal your data, when gamers just want 10 FPS more? Right now, Intel are even refusing to work with OS developers to add flags to later CPUs so that they can bypass the patches when they aren't required.
  14. No. :D As a user of the 2010 Pro, no PMS version would represent a loss of functionality. :) Great! Thank you!! :D "Multiplayer module" - is this the shared cockpit functionality?
  • Create New...