AMD 3900X verses I9 9900K

[Doug Sawatzky]

Hi Mawson

 

It's very simple and we don't need formulas. The Intel 14nm platform has been maxed out and has come to an end. There is no argument.   

[Mawson]

9 minutes ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

Hi Mawson

 

It's very simple and we don't need formulas. The Intel 14nm platform has been maxed out and has come to an end. There is no argument.   

 

Well then I shall be the first to change Doug as Frames Per Second is my drug of choice but 14MM +++++++ and attched to a car radiator it still is King of the Hill at this point in time . I shall be interested to see how this changes with the experimental simulator .

 

Doug go have a fool around with X Plane 11 and change the flight model per second slider and see what happens to FPS beyond about 5. Have you ever done that?

 

Sorry but what did you think about the graphics posted by IOrbx , I get similar results but not sure the program this is on. 

[Doug Sawatzky]

56 minutes ago, Mawson said:

Doug go have a fool around with X Plane 11 and change the flight model per second slider and see what happens to FPS beyond about 5. Have you ever done that?

 

 

Oh yes,

[Dadtom65]

Question, does anyone use say a 2080 Super in an old machine. Like my comp now is an H170-HD3 with an i5 6600K. So could i use the fore mentioned 2080 Super in my comp. There seems to be room enough in my comp. Just thinking if I could do that then that would help until i could afford the other bits. Thanks Derek.

[I8Orbx]

3 hours ago, Dadtom65 said:

Question, does anyone use say a 2080 Super in an old machine. Like my comp now is an H170-HD3 with an i5 6600K. So could i use the fore mentioned 2080 Super in my comp. There seems to be room enough in my comp. Just thinking if I could do that then that would help until i could afford the other bits. Thanks Derek.

I had an I7 6600K and it was a cracker of a CPU. It would work well with a 2080 super for sure but I would buy a cheap AIO CPU cooler and overclock the CPU on 1 core to 5Ghz.  You wont be far off an I9 9900K for the cost of a cheap All In One water cooling and a 2080 super. I swapped out my 1080TI for an RTX 2080Ti for basically no gain in P3D and X Plane in FPS. Use a Corsaire H60 Cooler and a Vcore of 1.4 on the overclock. Just keep an eye on power as your power supply may not be up to the job, you will need at least a 500W.

[I8Orbx]

Hi everyone here is an objective test to show even under Vulcan that XPlane still only benefits from no more than a quad core processor and ultimately the fastest clock speed you can get . 
 

XPlane core usage under Vulcan

[Doug Sawatzky]

Nobody here has professed that you need tons of cores to run a flight simulator, we all know that, so I don't know why you need to keep trying to tell us that?

[AnkH]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2020 at 12:20 PM, ozboater said:

Speedread,  and consequently misread it tonight on Tom's Hardware (I'll blame my rheumy 30 fps eyes).

 

MSI has released the first 16 Gb GDDR  2080 Ti.

 

Speedread again, this MSI card has 11Gb of graphics memory like any other 2080Ti, the "only" thing that is new is its 16Gb/s speed (normal 2080Ti have 14Gb/s) ;-)

[I8Orbx]

4 hours ago, Doug Sawatzky said:

Nobody here has professed that you need tons of cores to run a flight simulator, we all know that, so I don't know why you need to keep trying to tell us that?

Oh sorry just thought it was an interesting experiment on core usage given the new Vulcan API ( some forums are saying it now uses more cores) and that the sim is still pretty CPU bound on 1  core mostly . I know a lot of people are hoping this might change soon so we can get better use of the current crop of both Intel and AMD CPU's.  Might help people that are thinking of upgrading that there is probably no point at the moment if they have a CPU in the last few generations especially an Intel CPU, sorry for the confusion. Cheers Craig 

[Mawson]

5 hours ago, I8Orbx said:

Hi everyone here is an objective test to show even under Vulcan that XPlane still only benefits from no more than a quad core processor and ultimately the fastest clock speed you can get . 
 

XPlane core usage under Vulcan

Thanks,  great link answered a few questions about this X Plane Beta 

[ozboater]

5 hours ago, AnkH said:

 

Speedread again.

Ha ha...  my mouth was obviously faster than my eyes.

So, I am still disappointed there are no 16 Gb cards yet. I shall join you waiting for 3080 Ti in hope.

 

I'll be putting pics up in 'Screenshots' tomorrow, but I've had a ball seeing how Orbx and France VFR go, with my new 3900X and P3Dv5, maxing the settings to Stupid. I have to try this stuff once, to know what I've got, before I return to my lazy 30 fps.    I can fly with impunity in 4K at stupid max (it's in the pics) all around all Orbx True Earth scenery with no memory problems. However if I try and start in London City at max - poof,  it is gone in an instant with an out of memory error. What I've observed is that everything is fine up to 100% VRAM use (seen that, but rarely)  but the moment you draw on more than you've got, the sim vanishes into thin air. Some 11 Gb Ti guys have commented on the same thing.

 

We've now got sims that I dreamed about withstunning visuals, massive hardware with latest cpus and video cards, but as you progress, there is always another weak link exposed. And the solution is the same as always - drop the settings.

 

FWIW, P3Dv5 seems like a really worthwhile upgrade.

Q8Pilot on YouTube has an utterly brilliant video on settings in P3Dv5.

Cheers, and hope you enjoy v5 as much as I am. (and sorry for the mis-report).

 

 

[ozboater]

@I8Orbx quote "If AMD users are claiming 24 cores maxed out I would like to see that"

And @Mawson, too, you might be interested in this.

 

Warning, this is not synthetic but Real World this afternoon. You may want to cover your eyes.

 

Now, i8, when you showed your cpu load, I could not see any resolution or settings displayed. If I turn my settings down, my cpu load drops, too. And Mawson, check out what IPC means.

So here, I'm not going to show low-res 1920x1080, or even mid-res 2560x1440.

I will show full brawn 4k 3840x2160.

 

Here's the Hardware in my usual settings. The screenshots will show you that I have set this to 'Unlimited' and they show higher than 30 fps (giggle).

Next is some cpu loads from Win 10 task manager while P3Dv5ing.

Then 2 shots from P3Dv5 showing Orbx's stunning tTrue Earth HD Emgland and Netherlands, just as an example.

EDIT - and appols, there is a size restriction. I couldn't upload my screenshots in 4K - too big. I'll be doing an Imgur thing tomorrow and put it in 'Screenshots' or something. You will enjoy how P3D and True Earth look. Too late at night now.

 

If you are not seeing this, then your cpu is not letting you get everythig out of P3D. Not all the work is on 1 thread. And yes, I did see 100% cpu looking down from above the clouds  onto Southampton City while barelrolling the 114 Commander. And yes, that is 24 threads.

 

I'm really happy that I'm getting my money's worth with this motor, and it is a fuzzing good P3D experience. There is no wasted autogen - I get to see EVERYTHING I paid Orbx for. Great, huh. Hope you aren't turning your sliders down.

I know you guys think one max thread is all, but it is only a part of the picture. Not in a Real and Unsynthetic world.

 

What is great news is that DX12 with P3Dv5 appears to have reduced or eliminated the old Intel stutter. Of course. if you are running something like a behemoth 9900K, in P3Dv4, there would be the same momentary drops, just not to a level low enough to see.

 

Eg yesterday I was watching a beautiful YouTube of a guy flying in an Orbx region at middle settings at 1920 with a 5+Ghz watercooled 8700K. And it was just beautiful...

150 fps  150...  beautiful  150... 150...    35 fps WTF...   150 ..  150..   37 - LOOK there it is again (flicker)

Now,, Ive simmed continuously since 1984 and was exclusively on Intel, but by FSX and P3D I was just so irritated by the stutter, 2 years ago I thought I'd try this new Ryzen thing. Dipping my toe in the water, I bought bottom of the 8 core stack. Just 3.0 lonely Ghz.

PutP3D on the new machine, and loaded P3D expecting massive fps increases. I mean, this is 8c/16t right.

I was surprised initially as fps was only a little higher. What's all this power doing then? Then I noticed, P3D was absolutely silky smooth with no more stutter, and I have enjoyed my smooth simming stutter free since. For me, Ryzen was just the ticket.

 

I'm not saying Intel is bad. But it is a different and comparitivly more expensive choice.

Now good news for you guys is that it seems P3Dv5 with DX12 seems to have fixed this for you.

Cheers

 

[I8Orbx]

Thanks let me absorb this but my settings were for VR as I  don't flat screen anymore at all.

The only time I get all cores firing is when its loading scenery, are you sure that's not the CPU load when you are loading scenery as I get nearly 100% for a minute .

 

regards Craig

[ozboater]

Ah, Craig. Unfortunately I have no VR experience, so can't show any VR results.

Also, please don't take offence at my playful essay, I had been getting 'just too serious'. And this is playtime.

Cheers.

 

PS Do watch Q8Pilot's video it's great.

[I8Orbx]

 

No I like your comment and its exactly what this forum is for and I am intrigued with your results . Thankyou

[ozboater]

On 4/19/2020 at 10:31 PM, Dadtom65 said:

Question, does anyone use say a 2080 Super in an old machine. Like my comp now is an H170-HD3 with an i5 6600K. So could i use the fore mentioned 2080 Super in my comp. There seems to be room enough in my comp. Just thinking if I could do that then that would help until i could afford the other bits. Thanks Derek.

Oh I shoulda been in bed 4 hours ago, but flight simming is a drug of addiction,

 

2080 Super is a beast for P3Dv5. More and more testing is showing that so long as you have a near top-end GPU, there is little improvement in blowing the budget on a 2080Ti, Paradigm shift for me to find this out, so I'm happy sticking with my 1080 and I've heard 2070 Super (but not lower) is great, too.

 

Share a thought with you -think about getting a second hand cpu that is the beastliest that your motherboard can take, to use with a 2070\80 Super. Stage your upgrade, then see how the newer motherboards and cpus go after release. Possibly you might not need more of an upgrade for a while. You'll already have the Gx.

 

And P3Dv5 / DX12 seems to improve everything.

Also, I'd pause on a major update if you are interested in the 'experiment', to find out what is really needed. I'd love to tell you about it, but they might shoot me!

But, each update I download  gets better and better. Makes me wet my pants with excitement. And there's a LOT more updates before even reaching Beta.

I'M GONNA NEED A BOX OF NAPPIES

[Doug Sawatzky]

13 hours ago, ozboater said:

So, I am still disappointed there are no 16 Gb cards yet

 

https://www.newegg.ca/asrock-radeon-vii-16g/p/N82E16814930012?item=N82E16814930012&source=region&nm_mc=knc-googleadwordsca-pc&cm_mmc=knc-googleadwordsca-pc-_-pla-_-video+cards+-+amd%2fati-_-N82E16814930012&gclid=CjwKCAjwkPX0BRBKEiwA7THxiFSPVCrUEyAy_m_Csqv7-QNSHOdgXa_FEh9sTu9KgbHHExoTGi_sjBoCNPMQAvD_BwE

[ozboater]

Thanks, Doug. Yes I really did consider the Radeon VII because it meets my new VRAM desires. Several times I've had an impulse to get it. So does a Titan at even more Mega Money.  ( I am secretly looking at used R VII but rare as hen's teeth ans stil exxy).

 

Why not? It is a lot of money (US$999 + delivery from US + GST = 2080 Ti price of $1800 to $2000 in Ozland). Risk\reward, and a look at current circumstances - well my equation has not quite balanced. And it seems it is only one small area I can't load if I stay on Stupid settings.

 

And with 3900X I have PCIe 4.0 potential with MB change. PCIe 4.0 Gx could be worth waiting for.

 

As said to DadTom, 2070 Super has enough power today, and I can wait, as my  vanilla 1080 has enough grunt, and I've got the rest of the world to fly in, so I don't miss Central London. Then again there is the perpetual remedy for nearly 40 years of flight simming - Just Turn Your Sliders Down.

 

If I was buying today it would be a 2080 Super without a second thought.

 

As super promising as it is, the R VII tech is just old enough for me to be wary. It uses a LOT of power (old tech, right?) is still PCIe 3.0 and I now have an efficient computer, even with a powerhouse cpu. I am waiting to see what 3080 Ti, and also AMD Radeon (with both going to a smaller 7nm process) bring to the table, and check their power draw. Hoping the 3080 Ti has at least 12 Gb of VRAM. (What was with 11 Gb ?)

 

Digressing, the 3900X upgrade was a no-brainer for me. Free BIOS update, drop in the new cpu, and away.

No new motherboard - used my existing 2.5 year old X370 AM4  MB.

No extra cooling (new cooler free in the box) - overclock a 9900K and you need to disperse 300W of heat! (extra AU$200)

No extra expense (try that with Intel)

[Doug Sawatzky]

My thoughts exactly! Older tech it is but that 16gb of hbm2 memory is still attractive hahaha.

I might even be able to use my X370 mobo with the Ryzen 4000 series CPU's..wouldn't that be cool! 

[ozboater]

Doug, certainly 400 series MB have been guaranteed for 4th gen.

But I note, even powerhouse 3rd gen Ryzen (16c/32t) , worked even in low end 1st gen A300 boards when they claimed it wouldn't. You couldn't OC as not enough power VRM, but then, you just don't need to OC a Ryzen.

[ozboater]

On 4/19/2020 at 3:41 PM, Mawson said:

 

 <  as Frames Per Second is my drug of choice  >...

Mawson, it is not 'Just' about max framerate for your screen experience.

what is called   1% lows   is a significant factor.

 

Now I've gotta go chainsaw 2 fallen trees, so I'll leave this thread with this. Talking only P3D now.

 

Intel cpus ABSOLUTELY need 5 GHz overclock, because Intel chips do not leverage more than 1 thread. You've got to beat the bejeezus out of that thread to get good performance. Reaching the thread's limit is my guess at the 'stutter' issue. I think dropped frames, but am willing to be educated. Old architecture.

 

AMD Ryzen cpus leverage ALL your threads. You just don't have to smash T1 to get good performance. No OC needed. New architecture.

 

My take on difference in performance - when Intel gets the stutter, my AMD spikes to maintain fps. Result = smoother screen.

 

"B b b but   My OC 9900K doesn;t stutter"  My response - Bullshit, and I've seen it. At least, the momentary drop in fps. I think why you don't see it is because the 9900K is such a behemoth (and it truly is super powerful) that fps are so high that when it does drop, the fps is still high enough with the 'lows' that it is imperceptible. Make sense?

 

I have absolutely no idea why AMD and Intel cpus work so differently. But it is a reality. Nothing synthetic about it. I will spare you guys and gals the 'wall-o-text' discussion.

 

TL:DR      If buying new.  Best bag-for-buck platform for p3D v4 and v5 right now - AMD 3800X on X570 MB (PCIe 4.0) and 2080 Super

Among many advantages - cheaper platform and PCIe 4.0 enabled.

Remember, OCing = need effective cooling = heat and MONEY

 

And note P3Dv5 seems to be fixing this. It's all changing as we read and speak.

Cheers, all.

[andy1252]

Been following this all with great interest. I've been "umming and arrring" for months about an upgrade, initially kicked off by the thought of MSFS at some point later, and then just because I'd gotten fed up with P3D on my system being such a royal pain to use. XP is great, and definitely my sim of choice right now. Like many people I've read lots of stuff, watched loads of yootoobs, and still basically come away feeling that it's another one of those arguments where each "side" has got its disciples and it's difficult to get any real feeling of certainty about which way to jump. So I thought, to hell with it, I've always bought in to the Intel argument in the past but maybe it'll be different now, so I've got a 3950-based system coming  - hopefully, later this week. Air cooled, hopefully near silent, masses of SSD, RAM and HD, and I'll be putting my current Titan RTX in there. And I'm hoping that with DX12 in P3D5 and Vulkan in XP they should both be smooth as silk (I don't care about FPS, but I can't put up with stutters and jitters), and I'm hoping that MSFS 2020 will have been written to take a bit more advantage of multi-threading. And if it all goes as hoped, I'm thinking of getting a 50 or 55 inch Samsung TV to use as the screen.

 

I've already found the Titan to be a really significant improvement on my current system, just because of the memory size. With some of my add-ons around LA and So-Cal I've been hitting 14 or 15 Gb of VRAM utilisation in XP, so the scope to use the (ridiculously over-priced) extra VRAM is definitely real.

 

Bottom line for me is that I want as realistic a world sim as I can possibly get. The fact I get to fly around it is almost just a bonus. And I really do not want to have to adjust my settings/sliders. If it's not possibly to achieve the maximum settings, they shouldn't be available in the sim.

 

So, I guess I'll find out soon if my plan is going to work. If it really sucks, I'll consider forgoing the big screen and getting an Intel CP/MB bundle to swap in in place of the Ryzen, but I genuinely don't believe that will be necessary.

 

And no, I'm not wealthy, but we are retired with no more mortgage and I really don't spend money on anything else. Money is cheap right now - this lot's going on a card with almost no interest for a couple of years (which is also how I bought the Titan).

 

[ozboater]

Andy (and I'll try and keep this brief, and not my usual verbose blather)

BEFORE YOU UNPACK YOUR SHINY NEW COMPUTER

 

Please consider what your main sim is going to be (and here I'll be verbose)

About 50%of simmers use X-Plane - marginally most installed sim

About 50% of simmers use P3D - the most used sim (subtle difference, see?)

 

Because the sims are coded differently, they respond differently to hardware.

Note - I usually preface my Ryzen performance stuff with a disclaimer that it is P3D I'm talking about.

 

Can't tell you anymore about X-Plane, and especially Vulcan with Ryzen as a few months ago I freed up that SSD for 'the experiment'. However, my previous experience is that XP is heavily programmed for single thread, and for this, Intel will give you more fps. They are single thread beasts. Early words are mixed, but in theory there is a little more load shedding to other cores which will close the gap between AMD and Intel cpus for XP. But a Ryzen does OK too. it's percentages. See this with my old R1700

https://imgur.com/gallery/LuU1ruC

 

Remember Bill Gates' comment '640K is all you need'. And still recently, Intel with '4 cores is all you need'. This sort of thinking is living with the dinosaur. All the Intel desktop cpus were designed in the era when Intel did not believe in multi-threading, and programming was single core performance focussed. In the deepest DNA of Intel cpus (yes even the highest level latest model cpus) is an inability to readily shed to other core/threads. Compare current benchmarks, and AMD just whops Intel silly in multi-thread loads, because these old and current Intel cpus have not been fundamentally redsigned, and still are single core focussed. At which they excell, I must add.

 

AMD Ryzen cpus are a much more modern design, born in an era that is moving to multi-threading, and its DNA abundantly demonstrates this. Look at the multi-thread benchmarks. If this wasn't important, then why didn't Intel just stick to 4 cores? Coz just like 640K, life moves on. Why do you think Intel pushes single core software for benchmarking? They are helping keep all those Adobe subscriptions going.

 

You can betcha Intel's new architecture, when it gets here, will be totally different, and I expect, totally beastly. But it ain't here yet, and isn''t even on the horizon. Their latest cpus are just variations of the old single core era, and they are doing a good job of milking more and more out of this old DNA. But it is old and has limits.

 

Also, Intel can't yet give you PCIe4. It is not for right now, but for the M.2 PCIe 4  and PCIe 4 grahics coming down the pipe. Hands up all those running their sim off a HDD. All you serious guys moved to SSD a while back, didn't you. WHY? Flight sims, by their very nature shovel masses of data to and from memory and the cpu. Big difference between HDD and SSD 3.0 performance. Again, future PCIe 4.0 advances will speed this again. And it is comming down the pipe. Industry has it NOW, and it will trickle down to desktop. Samsung is now developing 160 layer NAND for SSDs. One of my M.2s is just 3 layer. See, stuff moves on...

 

Even if you go with X-Plane as main sim, there are platform benefits using more modern AMD stuff.

 

FINALLY, Prepar3D. AMD shines here. Even my old R1700 could max 16 threads in v4, but the Intel guys couldn't. Intel kept you in a single thread experience which just sucked with stutter. That's why they OC and bang the blazes out of their one working thread. And miss all the Autogen they paid for by turning down sliders, coz if you don't, that stutter don't stop. BEEN THERE, but I changed to Ryzen which got rid of it.

 

I wish I could talk to you about 'the experiment' but I can't and won't. I have too much respect for Asobo and MS, and what they are working to bring us. What I can say is this is also a 'future' coming down the pipe, and being future prepared is a good thing.

 

Lastly, as LM, and MS with DX12 are improving P3D experience with more multi-threading, now the Intel guys will see a closing of the gap as more of their cpu gets used rather than wasted. So they can see the Autogen they've paid for but been missing (chuckle).

Cheers

[I8Orbx]

51 minutes ago, ozboater said:

Andy (and I'll try and keep this brief, and not my usual verbose blather)

BEFORE YOU UNPACK YOUR SHINY NEW COMPUTER

 

Please consider what your main sim is going to be (and here I'll be verbose)

About 50%of simmers use X-Plane - marginally most installed sim

About 50% of simmers use P3D - the most used sim (subtle difference, see?)

 

Because the sims are coded differently, they respond differently to hardware.

Note - I usually preface my Ryzen performance stuff with a disclaimer that it is P3D I'm talking about.

 

Can't tell you anymore about X-Plane, and especially Vulcan with Ryzen as a few months ago I freed up that SSD for 'the experiment'. However, my previous experience is that XP is heavily programmed for single thread, and for this, Intel may give you more fps. They are single thread beasts. Early words are mixed, but in theory there is a little more load shedding to other cores which will close the gap between AMD and Intel cpus for XP. But a Ryzen does OK too. it's percentages. See this with my old R1700

https://imgur.com/gallery/LuU1ruC

 

Remember Bill Gates' comment '640K is all you need'. And still recently, Intel with '4 cores is all you need'. This sort of thinking is living with the dinosaur. All the Intel desktop cpus were designed in the era when Intel did not believe in multi-threading, and programming was single core performance focussed. In the deepest DNA of Intel cpus (yes even the highest level latest model cpus) is an inability to readily shed to other core/threads. Compare current benchmarks, and AMD just whops Intel silly in multi-thread loads, because these old and current Intel cpus have not been fundamentally redsigned, and still are single core focussed. At which they excell, I must add.

 

AMD Ryzen cpus are a much more modern design, born in an era that is moving to multi-threading, and its DNA abundantly demonstrates this. Look at the multi-thread benchmarks. If this wasn't important, then why didn't Intel just stick to 4 cores? Coz just like 640K, life moves on. Why do you think Intel pushes single core software for benchmarking? They are helping keep all those Adobe subscriptions going.

 

You can betcha Intel's new architecture, when it gets here, will be totally different, and I expect, totally beastly. But it ain't here yet, and isn''t even on the horizon. Their latest cpus are just variations of the old single core era, and they are doing a good job of milking more and more out of this old DNA. But it is old and has limits.

 

Also, Intel can't yet give you PCIe4. It is not for right now, but for the M.2 PCIe 4  and PCIe 4 grahics coming down the pipe. Hands up all those running their sim off a HDD. All you serious guys moved to SSD a while back, didn't you. WHY? Flight sims, by their very nature shovel masses of data to and from memory and the cpu. Big difference between HDD and SSD 3.0 performance. Again, future PCIe 4.0 advances will speed this again. And it is comming down the pipe. Industry has it NOW, and it will trickle down to desktop. Samsung is now developing 160 layer NAND for SSDs. One of my M.2s is just 3 layer. See, stuff moves on...

 

Even if you go with X-Plane as main sim, there are platform benefits using more modern AMD stuff.

 

FINALLY, Prepar3D. AMD shines here. Even my old R1700 could max 16 threads in v4, but the Intel guys couldn't. Intel kept you in a single thread experience which just sucked with stutter. That's why they OC and bang the blazes out of their one working thread. And miss all the Autogen they paid for by turning down sliders, coz if you don't, that stutter don't stop. BEEN THERE, but I changed to Ryzen which got rid of it.

 

I wish I could talk to you about 'the experiment' but I can't and won't. I have too much respect for Asobo and MS, and what they are working to bring us. What I can say is this is also a 'future' coming down the pipe, and being future prepared is a good thing.

 

Lastly, as LM, and MS with DX12 are improving P3D experience with more multi-threading, now the Intel guys will see a closing of the gap as more of their cpu gets used rather than wasted. So they can see the Autogen they've paid for but been missing (chuckle).

Cheers

All I know is that I use VR in both X Plane 11.50 B4 and P3D V5 and DC and on my Vive Pro with graphics maxed out to use my VR displays and high setting on almost every other setting I am getting 45 FPS in P3D and Xplane which is the max 90 FPS for the VR Headset I understand . I have no stuttering ( though I had did in P3d V5 but that added a hotfix for VR) and its so good I don't know how it could be better unless I had a 5k or an 8K headset. Certainly at this point I am completely satisfied which has never occurred to me in flight simming until this point. I actually run an i9 9900KS with all cores Oclocked to 5.3Ghz and an RTX 2080TI Oc to 2095 Mhz. For the first time in my life the hardware has mostly caught up to the software. I make the point that I don't fly big cities and like all the Orbx Country airports as I fly Helicopters and find this a much better experience as I tend to just fly around locally rather than airport to airport hauls like most larger fixed wings. I am unable to replicate other than when new scenery loads the use of more than 2 cores near 100% utilisation  on either P3D or Xplane . Just to be clear I do max out all threads for a minute at loading but not during flying.  There is a minute on both sims when you load a new scenario all the cores can get close to max out but it soon drops back to just 1 core at 100% and maybe a few more loaded up to 40 or 50 but I think that Steam VR . So I am stumped as to how your cores are all being worked to a reasonable load but even if my cores were all heavily working I don't see that it would increase the performance of my sim ATM in VR.

 

I follow Michael Brown whose company makes computers X Force flight sim computer rigs and I find him the most scientific of all YouTube Xplainers

 

He says no more than 3 cores with the highest GHz you can clock. 

 

 

Cheers

[AnkH]

On ‎4‎/‎21‎/‎2020 at 2:30 AM, Doug Sawatzky said:

 

https://www.newegg.ca/asrock-radeon-vii-16g/p/N82E16814930012?item=N82E16814930012&source=region&nm_mc=knc-googleadwordsca-pc&cm_mmc=knc-googleadwordsca-pc-_-pla-_-video+cards+-+amd%2fati-_-N82E16814930012&gclid=CjwKCAjwkPX0BRBKEiwA7THxiFSPVCrUEyAy_m_Csqv7-QNSHOdgXa_FEh9sTu9KgbHHExoTGi_sjBoCNPMQAvD_BwE

 

Just doesn't really help until LM gets their issues with AMD cards sorted: https://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=136854

 

There is a nVIDIA Titan with 24GB btw., it is just non-affordable ;-)

[ozboater]

Hi  i8 - I am certain you will be completely correct with VR - I cannot add any comment at all with no VR experience.

 

Please may I answer a question you had asked before, and I overlooked.

Yes, cpu load is up with loading, but is also up when flying, at different times. However, flying in a small circumscribed location over TE Southampton City where I stayed in a tight area while trying to provoke 100% 24t cpu usage (which I did a couple of times, I don't think new scenery was loaded (but also don't know). Staying in a tight area, it would be already loaded, especially after looking in every direction berorehand, wouldn't you think ?

 

I am leaving this learning behind to spend more time simming and having fun. It'll now be a few days before my screenshots go up (buggered from the trees, and other stuff urgently awaiting.

Cheers

[ozboater]

2 minutes ago, AnkH said:

 

There is a nVIDIA Titan with 24GB btw., it is just non-affordable ;-)

Oh, I have wet dreams about those.

 

One comment (here or elsewhere- Ive been reading a lot of boards lately) was that Titan shows 15 Gb VRAM use in TE GB London. I'll never be able to load that on Stupid settings.

[I8Orbx]

34 minutes ago, ozboater said:

Hi  i8 - I am certain you will be completely correct with VR - I cannot add any comment at all with no VR experience.

 

Please may I answer a question you had asked before, and I overlooked.

Yes, cpu load is up with loading, but is also up when flying, at different times. However, flying in a small circumscribed location over TE Southampton City where I stayed in a tight area while trying to provoke 100% 24t cpu usage (which I did a couple of times, I don't think new scenery was loaded (but also don't know). Staying in a tight area, it would be already loaded, especially after looking in every direction berorehand, wouldn't you think ?

 

I am leaving this learning behind to spend more time simming and having fun. It'll now be a few days before my screenshots go up (buggered from the trees, and other stuff urgently awaiting.

Cheers

Thanks I enjoyed the discussion, look forward to your screen shots. Thankyou.

[ozboater]

@I8Orbx   "I follow Michael Brown"

 

Thanks, just watched his video. Loved his lucid, thorough and logical explanation. I subscribed to keep an eye on his experience.

Sadly for me, XP is a few months gone for me, as I just didn't have a spare M.2 or SATA slot for an extra drive. I put each sim on its own SSD. I just counted 24 TB currently on my machine. I've even taken out my DVD for another SSD.

 

Actually, Michael has piqued my curiosity, and when I next update my MB and get ability to add even more drives, I will surely install X-Plane again. It will have matured even more by then. X-Plane itself doesn't take up much space, but (first world problem) all my scenery does. And each sim has its own drive.

 

I do note that Michael re-inforces your comments about XP, and in my previous missal I agree with you about clock rate and XP. So all is staying straight in the universe.

Cheers

[I8Orbx]

55 minutes ago, ozboater said:

@I8Orbx   "I follow Michael Brown"

 

Thanks, just watched his video. Loved his lucid, thorough and logical explanation. I subscribed to keep an eye on his experience.

Sadly for me, XP is a few months gone for me, as I just didn't have a spare M.2 or SATA slot for an extra drive. I put each sim on its own SSD. I just counted 24 TB currently on my machine. I've even taken out my DVD for another SSD.

 

Actually, Michael has piqued my curiosity, and when I next update my MB and get ability to add even more drives, I will surely install X-Plane again. It will have matured even more by then. X-Plane itself doesn't take up much space, but (first world problem) all my scenery does. And each sim has its own drive.

 

I do note that Michael re-inforces your comments about XP, and in my previous missal I agree with you about clock rate and XP. So all is staying straight in the universe.

Cheers

Added 2 of these M2 Pcie cards to spare pcie slots with two times m2 2TB on each.

 

Michael owns X force computers and all his videos are well researched and produced.

 

 

 

https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/M-2-NGFF-to-Computer-SATA-Dual-SSD-PCI-PCIe-x4-x8-x16-NVMe-Express-Adapter-Card/202756622178?_trkparms=ispr%3D1&hash=item2f353c8762:g:CYsAAOSwokxdU80M&enc=AQAEAAACYIQvEcHUrT7nmUC3yY5qbPyaBN1nJEDYW8MyypsJPgXKxIntehGqQQl8nLx%2FEZs3RuwNQ8dlJNR5TN9RmkFovaezast285DyUofQPycEN0Nuakeu13c5Hei3r706uPlWWVQS5RIjX0bSxfkSv%2BhufXOs2qSQzeBAqfEa%2FL%2FE%2B12tdXmb4ltTz%2B20%2BCvWBUjyQvHDsYx85HdI%2B3W09oNB%2F0MmU4FcYUT6BcoOvIdn3wKhCHeBVC5BmlCi%2FCf0dWrXPf0xX7E8wBERSdri4%2BNJfDMslI%2Faur2U5OTk226MW7iPGzV4ZXkhj7sVZUirCGb42Xr0SXrh5IY8zIrRrRciFfh63pfrBsakP9A1%2B2W%2ByKSg%2Fjer%2BAdrqIDt%2FB1RSDaP2Dc8giDl2tLHb4UVDsn0FhpGS1VEKZJJ374FqGlu%2FnwUL3Bss70LbqXnXYaWFFMOHZuAwmKQBIw%2FPJNTEx3edTyH3pOyCtOHZQ6zWCboxwJVn1CnWntStDlDVnU0eKlHkHPgBgqSNrp3tD8as4LwdjyMDUSc69pI1cJUSg7R%2Fwck7ecd%2FZU2cmQBDbLPY4dnx%2Fi5hxTw4FLDQNn31VfIl%2FKT2TAh8iyMygiMoyWR5cHItiWwJpPq8LZ7K%2F24Ho89ax97VkO69sxXy%2BNIqUpH2FOx6nUYZvpLmbPeAJF3SCpF%2BsXBy9oCgeJE33yw60LnAHLIqHWfSl7Yt%2F7dZZb85CKQbLHyJ0kgF26Jg%2BtHo7tCD%2BRlXJrfVnNUKnF5MQmT4mtpIbT%2Frx9rMIKQqeDbEgytdTdEowNhE%2FiQQ9qpcCXe&checksum=2027566221782dc7ecacba3949dfb03625d306b51072&frcectupt=true

[ozboater]

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

 

Just doesn't really help until LM gets their issues with AMD cards sorted: https://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=136854

 

Ouch.. just read that thread. Glad I'm using nVidia.

At this current moment in time, simming seems best experienced with nVidia Gx.

AMD Radeon is pitched at mid to high level gaming, but nVidia has more in the high to super (and even massive, vis: Titan)

 

I do read a trend to their Radeon problems settling down, and it may be just new sim sorting and fettling. One guy using a plane with latest v5 installer for his plane (Mitsubishi MU-8) has no probs. Am interested in this as in RL, I actually once briefly contemplated buying one of these aircraft.

 

Forgive the diversion (my mouth has no limits or respect for others) but the MU 8 is an intriguing aircraft, as it does not have ailerons. It uses spoilers to kill lift on a wing to drop it into a bank to turn. They got quite cheap for a while as many had crashed in the pattern from stalling in the turns. Slow speed manoevering is no place to kill even a bit of lift. These planes needed highly skilled, type-rated pilots to stay in one piece. They are fast though, and my ego thought 'yeah I can handle this where others can't'.

So, sigh... being v5 compatible, this a a few more buccaroons to leak from the coffer.

[Doug Sawatzky]

1 hour ago, AnkH said:

 

Just doesn't really help until LM gets their issues with AMD cards sorted: https://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=136854

 

There is a nVIDIA Titan with 24GB btw., it is just non-affordable ;-)

 

There is a huge difference between the Radeon VII architecture and the RX5700 architecture.

 

[ozboater]

Wow, Doug, that's confirmation for you.

Missed that screen and didn't even speedread it - too much time on other boards, even more time needed on Tech Alpha board. I'm just busting myself between home stuff, board reading, indulging in v5 and 'the experiment'. What a bloody marvellous problem to have.

 

I'd looooove to run a VII to see what happens, but I'll leave the remaining few VII cards for others to experience.

Now that PCIe 4 is in my reach I'll wait and see what falls off the tree there. Unfortunately all 'knowledge' is just rumours as far as I've seen. But it is in the pipeline and there's no going backwards for me.

 

And, not to forget you @I8Orbx  thanks for that, and what a cost effective solution!!  AU$12. Gonna get one. It must be the only good thing that is cheap in Ozland (aka 'Straya')

Obliged. Cheers, guys.

[andy1252]

3 hours ago, ozboater said:

Please consider what your main sim is going to be

 

3 hours ago, ozboater said:

my previous experience is that XP is heavily programmed for single thread, and for this, Intel will give you more fps.

At the moment, XP is pretty much 100% as I can't abide the way my P3D runs, but that should hopefully change with v5 and the new machine. I've got a lot of scenery and planes for that sim and it would be great to be able to feel comfortable using some of that again.

 

Ax for XP and Intel/OCing etc, I'm already pretty happy in XP at 4k, sliders maxed out, on my current old 4790 processor - the Titan is what made the difference here. I'll be extremely surprised if the 3950 can't hold its own there.

 

2 hours ago, ozboater said:

One comment (here or elsewhere- Ive been reading a lot of boards lately) was that Titan shows 15 Gb VRAM use in TE GB London. I'll never be able to load that on Stupid settings.

That may have been me (can't remember). That card is (was?) the only one available with over 12Gb VRAM and that IS necessary in some environments. I hit those sort of numbers both in TE environments and with the Forkboy/Mister X combinations around So-Cal all the time. But I am, as I say, running a 4k display at maxed settings in XP. And it's smooooth (even with the 4790)

[ozboater]

Ooooh more Titan envy...

My scenery is turning green.

[ozboater]

So, pondering all this collated experience, a really interesting pattern emerges.

In broad (and I'd best make it very broad) terms

 

XP runs best with 1.) high cpu clock

                                2.) at least 3 compute threads

                               3.) performance scales with graphics grunt

                               4.) more VRAM - 16 GB min for max res and detail

 

P3D runs best with 1a.) If Intel - high clock

                                   1b.) If AMD - just use ya threads and don't bother with OC it happens automatically no work involved

                                   2a.) Intel - core number is irrelevant. Just stick to MHz

                                   2b.) AMD - more cores gives more screen performance

                                   3.) Performance scales minimally with graphics grunt - so long as 2070 Super and above

                                   4.) More VRAM - 16 GBmin for max res and detail

 

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. Please refine and correct as desired.

 

HEY MUM -  see this table. I coulda been a scientist ("Just STFU, stupid")

[ozboater]

Were your screens jiggling?   Sorry guys, I'm bouncing here, enough to shake the planet.

And dayumm, that table is ALREADY out of date.

And thanks (ironic)  @I8Orbx, I should be sleeping, but watching Michael Brown, then drifting into Austin's explanation of Vulkan and its massive effect on XP, then Q8Pilot and another so lucid explanation and example of sliders - this time for XP...

 

For XP users, Vulkan is a paradigm shift in getting your sim to screen. Go watch Austin's video. I'm re-downloading the latest XP as I type, and am busting to give it another run. Will admit, I sure do like the XP flight model.

 

You Intel guys will get a 20 to 30% bump in frame rates at every level.

Us AMD guys, coz the OpenGL machine just SUCKED big time for us in XP - we get up to 100% improvement. Twice as good as before. This will put it within the screen parameters I enjoy. So bring on X-Plane.

 

2019 was a bore for simming - same ol' same ol' but more candy on display.

2020 - what an amazing year and still more to come...

 

All this should probably be in another thread, but I'll make it relevant to the OP.

We are now entering a simming world where you can be CPU agnostic. It won't matter what you run, you'll have a good experience.

 

Now I just need 2 lives to play with all these toys, as schizophrenia  alone is clearly not cutting it!

MUM - "Shuddup ozboater and go play with your toys"

DAD - "mumble, mumble. Where was that darnned chlorine when we needed it..."

[I8Orbx]

16 hours ago, ozboater said:

So, pondering all this collated experience, a really interesting pattern emerges.

In broad (and I'd best make it very broad) terms

 

XP runs best with 1.) high cpu clock

                                2.) at least 3 compute threads

                               3.) performance scales with graphics grunt

                               4.) more VRAM - 16 GB min for max res and detail

 

P3D runs best with 1a.) If Intel - high clock

                                   1b.) If AMD - just use ya threads and don't bother with OC it happens automatically no work involved

                                   2a.) Intel - core number is irrelevant. Just stick to MHz

                                   2b.) AMD - more cores gives more screen performance

                                   3.) Performance scales minimally with graphics grunt - so long as 2070 Super and above

                                   4.) More VRAM - 16 GBmin for max res and detail

 

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions. Please refine and correct as desired.

 

HEY MUM -  see this table. I coulda been a scientist ("Just STFU, stupid")

Nice summary buddy get an upvote for that! I hope this thread never ends as I feel there is a lot more coming. I also found that anymore than high in Special effects (HDR) slider brings VR to its knees from max 45 to 20.... trying to work out why.

[ozboater]

Finally the pics are up. I will be posting to the screenshots forum tomorrow, but you can get a preview here

 

https://imgur.com/gallery/hP2Yucq

 

Rookie mistakes, and I got the picture order mucked up, but hey, it flows well enough.

I tried hard to do a good job for you guys, for all of your enthusiasm and earnestness.

Please, when it's up in Screenshots, let me know your favourite. Please.

Last one is my favourite for emotional reasons.

All are 4K images, and you can click to enlarge and see detail and fps.

 

And you've all got thick skins, right? The Screenshots text will mildly tease.

The Imgur text says what I humbly and truly feel.

Cheers, all

[AnkH]

Looks great, not really surprised that you have such great results with a 3900X, which is the CPU I would go for nowadays. What I really wonder is how you are below 6GB of VRAM in most scenarios with 4K and all sliders to the right. Is it due to very low shadow settings (you do not show them)? I am way above 8GB VRAM usage on some scenarios even without having all sliders to the right and just using 1440p as resolution.