trevoC

I'm not testing a CPU bottleneck on the Marianas, who said I was. Its why I'm running two (actually three) track files. I think the biggest thing that isn't helping is criticizing things that didn't happen. Everything you have commented on is something I didn't say or is answered in the post. I didn't make claims that vCache gives you 75% gains that's for sure.

haven't settled on anything yet, but I have found that MT is an approvement in general over most situations I've tested even though it doesn't seem to play well with the AMD driver/Windows core assignments. the reference to core parking via registry is just disabling windows ability to core park via the registry, not assigning cores to applications or anything else. In the windows power settings (in the reg.) you can tell windows the maximum number of cores it is allowed to park. If you set this to 0, it will never park any cores.

Its called an honest conversation, and I'm sharing my data as I go. I said "looks like", not it doesn't or I conclude. Its why I'm going back to basics. I do understand that you are looking to nitpick my comments and I find it very strange that you are saying anything about "claims" after yours which you then admitted was false. I stand by everything I say, and If you don't like the process of learning what we have or the information I'm sharing then you can move on. Also... please don't put words in my mouth "you claimed v-cache doesn't give anyone any gains," < I never said anything close to that.

Once I figure out how much an advantage vCache does or doesn't have I can figure out whether its worth it or not to try and properly park the cores in MT and get it running on the vCache or just leave it be. If I'm losing huge gains by not using vCache I want to figure it out. If I'm not... I'm going to move on. You can see some of the other items in the bottom left of the above images that I want to benchmark the effect of. Hope this helps... have a good one. At some point I'm also just going to call a spade a spade and go back to playing and truly enjoying DCS for the first time in VR. How pretty the game is was really missed with my jump to VR on a 1070 ti originally.... I think finally I've got that back.

My latest findings:

I'll address a few things in this post... too many threads on this and don't want to cross post.

I'll address a few things after another few hours of benchmarking. Part of the problem with anyone doing a 7x3D review is that they basically built and started benchmarking the same day or a few before MT dropped. This definitely started to add to the confusion. This confusion was also had by me who right before MT dropped I got the system running long enough to just launch DCS and take a flight. I immediately noticed around an 80% improvement (sometimes closer to 100%) in frames based on a prior benchmark on the old system and I wasn't CPU bound but instead (for the first time in a very long time as my 3090 slept for most of its life) I was GPU bound. Remember, this is just the 7900x3D/4090 upgrade. I only had time for that one flight and then went to sleep. I had seen the update for MT but didn't know it was MT at the time and was trying to keep everything apples to apples. This is a screenshot from the Single threaded DCS (what I saw before going to sleep): Notice I'm GPU limited, all cores are parked nicely and I've really not attempted any optimization for DCS in software yet (windows settings) but have just got my system RAM nice and stable at 6000 and almost 100,000MB/s read and write speeds and got the Ryzen vCache cores and work cores overclocked to a nice 5375/5800 respectively with lots of thermal headroom (I never really see over 60c) nullI was extremely happy with these results but when I woke up and realized it was the MT update dropping, honestly... Eff apples to apples, who could resist. downloaded it and started playing with it immediately. The first thing I noticed is that the CPU was now constantly bound according to the data. That didn't make sense to me as how could spreading the load over more cores when I was GPU limited make me now CPU bound? On top of this the parked cores go wild regardless of what you do (game bar on/off affinity tricks etc..) The best I could do was disable parking completely in the registry to prevent the potential latency of them hopping around... this improved me a few percentage points. On top of this, I have a Huey Marianas track that I run to optimize my play. Basically, if I can get acceptable frames on that track, the rest of my play (I usually play campaigns) is a no-brainer. With the 3090, I'd target no lower than 42 fps on the Marianas in the Huey which would give me easily 60-80 fps in something like an su-25 on another map. When I ran my Huey track, I couldn't see any gains between ST/MT. On top of this, you are now jumping benchmarks all over the place between before and after and ST/MT and weird core parking and behaviors in MT etc... As you can see, MT runs were a hot mess... weirdly parked cores, CPU Bound with GPU at 100% sometimes and other times at 70% depending on the run. No problem with the hardware though... nice cool running overclocked 4090... the first comment about this setup was good... its amazing. Its the MT update that started making me loopy. I have said a lot as I've gathered information to share with other people who are trying to figure it out also, but I stopped it all today and started going through this systematically. Back to basics. and there are a lot of test to still do. The focus tonight was only on one thing. Am I seeing gains between ST/MT version of DCS. Here are some of the conclusions after running two different track files (my Huey and Plazma torture map) in a systematic fashion over way too many hours and logging the data and comparing it. Conclusions/Comments: - Core parking works perfectly (game bar on or off) in ST - Core parking is whacked in MT regardless of dozens of settings (game bar, registry, affinity etc...) - I'm GPU limited in ST and not sure what the eff I am in MT. I would assume GPU limited also but the cores are doing some pretty weird stuff and later conclusions confirm I'm still GPU limited even though DCS would like to tell me otherwise. - the 7x3D/4090 combo is killer in DCS - There is something weird happening with a soft FPS lock of some type... fps should float between whatever numbers the system can get CPU or GPU limited doesn't matter, but all of a sudden it will lock at 60 fps.... then float again, then lock at 90 fps... seems to even lock in the 75 regions sometimes but that might be when its floating there steady. I can't figure this one out. It will lock at 60 fps and CPU nor GPU are working hard, not CPU limited, frame times are basically a flat line at the bottom, not cpu bound and GPU in the 65% range and it will just sit at 60 fps, then start floating freely again and I'll be GPU limited... not sure what is happening here. and finally: - MT is absolutely faster on my system than ST. ST seems to look more stable with the charts as MT looks like a hot mess with stuff parking and unparking and CPU and GPU bound but not... not sure what the hell is happening but here are my results: HUEY Map is mostly what I would consider single-player campaign-type flying. I saw gains on this track file between 1 and 7% while flying it. These gains averaged to about 4 maybe 4.5%. Hey... gains are gains, I'll take it. This translated into 3 or so fps on average. Plazma's torture map was another story. The low gains on that map were 10% and the high gains were 40 or more. I averaged around 22.63% gains across the entire track file but the real story would be those moments that would normally have brought your smooth-running sim to a crawl will probably start to become eliminated or at least wildly buffered now. Sort of just like ED said they would, so honestly, kudos to @BIGNEWY and @Eagle Dynamics team. They said from the start this wasn't a magic fps bullet (which its not) but hot dang if it doesn't look like it will take care of the worst offending moments in DCS. I can't wait to replay the p-51 bombers dropping bombs mission again. Next, I want to see how much an effect the vCache has over the higher clock speeds. Now that I've settled the ST/MT I'll probably use the ST version to run on both chips to see where the advantages lie and also disable core parking completely and just open the chip up to let run on whatever cores the scheduler wants without any parked cores. I'll leave you with two screenshots of the Plazma torture map in ST and MT both same spot. Single Multi:

I could never stand it (MR) personally. I do fly a lot of helos and it usually doesn't play well with the blades. I'm also not a fan of the artifacts. That being said a lot of those were probably because of not providing it with enough frames which I can do now. I'll give it another go once I get all other items figured out. I'm pretty tolerant of the headset motion, its the same phenomenon that gets people sick in actual aircraft and in cars. I've built up a high tolerance over 30 years of this motion. I usually don't get ill in headsets above 20 fps. In the teens starts messing with me.

In zero situations will vCache give you 75% gains. There are no things to consider. Lets move on. Is that worth mentioning now after responding to me in regards to considerable testing I'm trying to give to the community that I'm crazy and should see massive gains in the form of vCache from CCD1 to 0. That is what you said. We'll move on, but this helps noone. null

I think some of the frustration you may feel in some of my posts was the let down of being super excited of the new setup (my first account of it that I posted) and then no sooner than I experienced that high and MT was released and I'm thinking this is the best week ever expecting even more gains from MT (I'd have been happy with any gains here) and being let down when no amount of testing will show me gains in this area. I had just finished testing that night and noticed the update but didn't assume it was anything more than bug fixes so I didn't update DCS so that my benchmarks could be as close to apples to apples as possible. Went to bed and woke up and realized it was the MT update as the forums had exploded. Obviously EFF apples to apples I want me some MT. A little disappointed that day and have been confused ever since. It bugs me because I can spend hours squeezing 1 or 2% more out of my overclocking efforts from my prior setup but if something is seriously wrong or out of place that is where you want to focus first as there might be some serious gains to be had if I can fix what might be a major issue. To be crystal clear, I'm super stoked about the R9/4090 setup. I stress-tested my last OC on memory/CPU and I never saw temperatures above 45-50c on CPU/GPU under full load and the fans only kick on once and a while. I definitely have tons of thermal headroom here but I will be capped by the power limits on the GPU and stability limits on the CPU.

You haven't misunderstood.... the 7x3D/4090 combo is the largest jump in performance I've witnessed in DCS. What I have learned since with more benchmarking than I care to remember over the last 5 days is that the vCache doesn't make a difference. The package is still a good package. I'm wondering if the standard Ryzen 9 non vCache would be identical results. If I run on vCahc ccd or not, same fps, Single threaded or MT, same fps.... I'm not saying this is my final conclusion ATM about vCache, but I'm not alone on this one. If you notice, the benchmarks here, you'll notice that they have also come to the same conclusion (not in this thread) and many didn't notice the cores not parking correctly on MT executable. I've discovered a lot in the last 5 days but unfortunately, I have more questions than answers after all of it. I have hours of video of all those benchmarks and don't even know where to start as the data is strange and the conclusions are few. On that note, my system is extremely well configured (I've been doing this for 30+ years) and I have some great Memory speeds dialed in and the Ryzen cores are OC'd to about 5350mHz on vCache cores and 5750mHz on others now. Figure I can get that to 5500/5900 with some more work stable. I have some more testing to do but will probably just play some DCS for a bit.... it is still much nicer than my last setup, just bugging me when something doesn't makes sense. I find it hard to believe that all things were equal between those two tests. Nowhere will vCache give you 75% gains.

I've sort of come to the same place ATM. I'm kind of tired of rebooting and OC'ing and messing with DCS.... getting 60+ fps on G2 is not a bad thing. I just find some of these things so strange it bugs me. Will probably take a brake from it all and just play DCS for a bit until it bugs me again. Biggest dilema now is what do I prefer.... 60 fps max settings, or 90 fps with some graphic concessions.... man 90 fps is smooth. I really underestimated how much I'd like those buttery frames.

No need to disable it... I had no problem with Game Bar assigning single threaded DCS to proper CCD with vCache. I'm not alone... looks like vCache is not giving anyone any gains in DCS on 7x3D's

Also CPU bound according to DCS frame times and see the same fps across all 4 scenarios: single threaded - parked cores (running on high cache cores) multi threaded - parked cores single threaded - no parked cores (all cores enabled) multi threaded - no parked cores (all cores enabled) All 4 scenarios are within 1 or 2 fps from each other. This is very strange behavior.... vcache seems to have zero effect along with multi threading. this is with 7900x3D/4090/G2 no gains for me yet with MT or vCache.

Testing a new build 7900x3D/4090 and I see little to no gains between older single threaded and multi-threaded version. (hard to say if I'm gaining a frame or two in MT or margin of error). note, I'm on G2 I also noticed that I float around specific frames a lot.... Almost like I have vsync on. It sits around 60 fps a lot. If I crank down the settings from ultra/high it will jump to 90 fps but rarely in between. Just when you think its locked it will hit mid 70's for a few seconds and then back to 60. No matter the scenario, marianas in a huey or caucus in an FC3 aircraft. Before I would see huge fps differences between these two scenarios. Also CPU bound according to DCS frame times and see the same fps across all 4 scenarios: single threaded - parked cores (running on high cache cores) multi threaded - parked cores single threaded - no parked cores (all cores enabled) multi threaded - no parked cores (all cores enabled) All 4 scenarios are within 1 or 2 fps from each other. This is very strange behavior.... vcache seems to have zero effect along with multi threading. I had no problems getting game bar to make DCS single threaded run on proper cores, but there was some strange behaviour with DCS multi threading and parked cores... It seemed to park random cores rather than the first 12. I eventually disabled windows from parking the cores and just let all the cores run in DCS MT and that seems to be the best scenario (by 2 frames max) but I'm wondering how it will effect performance in other games (MSFS/iRacing etc...) What I really can't decide at the moment is if I prefer maxed settings at 50/60 fps, or lesser settings at 90+ fps... oh damn that so smooth. It really is so bloody nice at 90 fps.

Just so you are aware, the profiles are starting points. Doesn't mean they will work or run on those profiles. As an example, my 6400 profile would not post (C5 error) but that is to be expected as the CPU memory controller can't run that fast. You may have to load profile and then pick a slower speed manually to ensure stability. hope that helps.

Sounds about right... in fact this is the best scenario as in the off chance your wingman survives.... he tries to kill you on approach. My latest was a Ka-50 wingman who landed on top of me after I was half through a power down. I guess that was his spot. He could have just asked me to move.

I didn't have any. That being said, you can't just load the memory profiles and expect it to work in most situations. Fire a screenshot of your extreme tweeker first page. I find the board amazing so far (best board I've ever owned save the prior ROG for my 5900x) but it isn't plug and play so to speak.

You having trouble posting or not stable in Software?

I couldn't. Went online day 1 but had a meeting in the morning. No 7950's when I got out so settled for the 7900. Shouldn't matter for DCS or most games for that matter. Not sure of any game that scales well. Only advantage 7950 would have for me is not done at home but at work on XEONs. Even when ED rolls out MT, its hard coded and won't scale to 6 never mind 8 cores.

For those interested, I had zero problems and didn't follow any special instructions to get this working on a 7900x3D with game bar. Just do the standard stuff. Install AMD driver set after windows install then install DCS. (I made sure game bar was updated but that was the extent of it). Worked first time a charm. Not sure what all the fuss is about on youtube with 7x3D testers going mad about all the proper ways you have to follow to ensure it works. I honestly didn't do a single thing outside what you would normally have to do.

Ok, couldn't sleep without checking how the CPU and GPU were doing against each other. As I suspected, still CPU bound which is better in my circumstances than the latter IMO. GPU utilization floats between 55 and 70% spending most of the time around 63ish% utilization. This is good for two reasons. One, if multi-threading drops sooner than later I will take advantage of most or all of those gains without hitting a GPU wall or two if MT doesn't drop soon the next 9000x CPU is a pretty cheap upgrade to utilize the 4090 more and get gains there without replacing the entire system. AM5 is bound to be supported through the next or next two upgrades with DDR5 support etc.. Being CPU limited on a platform that can grow (AM5) isn't so bad. AM4 with the 5900x had nowhere for me to move without a complete re-do and the GPU's are getting out of this world in price. Harder and Harder to swallow that pill. Hope this helps someone make their decisions easier. Again, will post videos of all of this.

Pretty excited to provide this update. prior system was Oc'd around 15% for some context and had close to a year and a half of tuning here and there. I'm not ready to record anything yet as I still have a lot of tuning to do and I don't even have my hotas setup yet, but I decided to run that torture test track sent in the attachment earlier for <profanity>s and giggles. Note: I haven't OC'd this system at all yet, cores seem to park just fine with the game bar (not a fan of this method but it will have to do) and I was running steam (it was downloading games at the time full tilt) which I usually run DCS without steam (prior test was without) and I didn't kill any of my tray applications (around a half dozen or so). CPU utilization at idle (idle in this case with steam running etc.. was 3-6%) You can watch the prior video (base 5900x/3090 benchmark) that I'm comparing this to in a prior reply. My expectation was a 50% gain and that's why I bought all this crap.... for 50% gain. What DCS VR users will do for fps... <sigh> To be honest, I was expecting to be disappointed and was preparing for less than that (as I have been in the past .... looking at you 3090 although in fairness it never really ran well with a 5900x who is definitely at fault there.) I've seen all the hype videos and did have a glimmer of hope. The prior test ran at around 35 fps most of the time with dismal 99% scores so I was hoping for 52 fps (50% gains) I think this may be the largest system upgrade jump I've ever taken, and I rarely miss an upgrade in CPU or Graphics generation. (I'll skip the TI variants of each unless I skipped the original) I will still make the video when I get all my peripherals installed and the system overclocked and tuned and stress tested etc.... but here was what I got essentially. My most common fps measure was around 64 fps but it would basically float around 63-73 fps so I'm guessing that would average somewhere in between. I may have witnessed more 63's than 73's so we'll say maybe 66 fps ish. My average 99% fps was higher than the last system's average fps and it never went below 40 fps. I saw as high as 90 fps when things were not as busy and the lowest fps I witnessed was 53 for a second. Couldn't be happier with the jump in performance which is just shy of double or 100% gains. Twice what I was optimistically expecting. With DLSS and other goods, I'm guessing MSFS will be a dream now. If ED improves on their software in the meantime I may be chasing fps a lot less in DCS in the next few years. Of course, now I'll be tempted to start bumping things up a bit soooooo the hunt continues. I also was too excited and forgot to see how stressed my GPU was compared to CPU. I'm guessing I'm still CPU limited but I honestly didn't even remember to look at that. I was mostly swinging my head back and forth as fast as I could enjoying 70 fps smoothness that I am not used to, lol. I'm guessing when OC'd and optimized and not running other applications this system will be a solid 2x faster than the 5900x/3090 system or more. Anyways, just wanted to provide my first impressions on the first run. Will definitely post a video and more as I get this system wrapped up and back to normal.

Does this make the glass look like it is not there? (in other words, the glass has been removed and you are open air.)?

Saw that on one of the developer talks. I just want it all off and don't want to run 3 software programs to turn lighting off. seems crazy. The GSkill ram is very bright and bothers me at night, but the MSI liquid X 4090 has an LED flashlight built in that lights up the room. Part of me wants to take it apart and remove the LED, lol.