Pilotasso

No issues so far... (please dont jinx it)

uh oh :D

You really cant go wrong with either. The deciding factor might be something that is not evident in the specs. The Intel part is easier to overclock and has more options for RAM, while AMD is riskier (check if RAM part number is in the QVL of the motherboard). It's more of an old school hands on experience and lacks the automation the Intel platform offers. But It might be a bit more future proof than the Intel. The deciding factor is this: how knowledgeable are you? If not a pro Go Intel. If thats not a problem for you go AMD. Just a tip. Currently ASUS and ASROCK boards are the best for the AMD chip for what I have been hearing. The new Intel Octa core on Z390 is going to be a bad ass of a processor. If you can hold a trimester more I think that will be the biggest reward. Youll be siting pretty for the next 4 years or so at the least. Too bad I didnt do this myself, but then again I couldnt afford both a 1080Ti and an Intel octa core. At least I can change the processor later. :)

Established 24/7 settings CPU V=1.4V Load level calibration 3 SOC 1.1V VDRAM=1.4V Timings 16-16-16-32 CR 1 @ 3533 Mhz (geardown mode enabled)

Those are both not optimal choices (the 7800X or the 7820X would be better). I was going to recommend you the 7740X but then your dual GFX setup and the requirement for that many screens leans me towards the 7900X. I dont think quad cores can really be up to the task except casual shootemup gaming these days. In all honesty I think you are wasting your money even if thats 2nd hand hardware. 8700K CPU + Z370 MOBO would be the ideal if you want to stay on Intel side.

I had this problem too and changed power plan to High Perfomance and everything stays put since then.

It wasnt a cheap System. :D I bought NVME, 500€ worth of RAM and 800€ worth of graphics card. But it was still cheaper than if I had gone the way of Skylake X CPU and respective (way overpriced and ill designed ) Motherboards. I was considering waiting for this year but prices of many components went up so hard that buying in 2017 and spending another 300$ with this CPU might actually saved me money.

Yes, maximum OC I achieved, but the 1700X was caped at 3.9, it was a bit of a dud.

OK Guys Results are in. Test Setup: Ryzen 1700X @3.9Ghz +32GB RAM 3200 CL16 CR=2T Ryzen 2700X @4.2Ghz+32GB RAM 3600 CL16 CR=1T (maximum achievable overclocks for 24/7 operation) GFX = MSI 1080Ti Gaming X @ Stock for both configurations. I used DCS high preset with Vsync off and 1440P resolution (I did this because is what most people will do with this hardware). Conclusions: It was DAMN HARD to get consistent results. Specially Star Citizen and MWO. For DCS I discovered the bottleneck shifts between the CPU and GPU depending on the number of objects being displayed. When Las Vegas buildings show up in high numbers its the GPU the limiting factor (99% usage) hence the low difference between the 2 CPU's. Whoever when in sparsely populated areas the CPU kicks in. Minimum FPS went up 16% but maximum was the same, average only changed 2%. Game experience improved due to higher minimums. CPU usage in DCS shifts between 13% and 44% (this means between 2 to 7 fully utilized threads). The GPU can reach 100% usage regardless of the CPU load (not expected). So Ryzen CPU's do not Bottleneck the 1080Ti in DCS. Star citizen and MWO lack optimization. MWO has the GPU at 55% while CPU was at 15%. It was extremely hard to get to similar multiplayer sessions to compare (same map in victory conditions so I could measure the full length of the session taking data). The game appears to MASSIVELY benefit from higher lows and average FPS uplifts but I cannot say if the values presented here are accurate. It does feel better. On the other hand there is alot of untapped power not being harnessed by the games engine. Star Citizen sees CPU usage 36% in flight and 31% in first person mode. GPU was locked at max most of the time. I used Port Olisar in a private session and walked around to the landing pad and recorded FPS. Vanduul Swarm was recorded by maneuvering the ship around in the broken moon map until fighting starts. The change in CPU has modest benefits but then again the game is not even close to being optimized.

OK, maybe I was not clear. My bad. Yes, the CPU is at stock, I began with memory to know where the ballpark is before messing with the CPU.

No, I always use manual overclock in BIOS with all 8 cores. Why would I disable cores? Also, just finished stability testing and I managed to get 3400Mhz stable CL 14 1T with 32 GB of RAM. The new memory controller is MUCH better. My earlier 1700x could only handle 3200 CL 16 2T (that chip was also a bit of a dud compared to what others were getting).

People are arguing that all over the net. They say its the 2700 that is worth to be overclocked to 2700X levels, and that the 2700X should be left alone. However there are people who are reaching Cinebench 1900+multi and 180 in single. Me wants that. :D I am testing the memory overclock for now. Burning in 32GB at 3400Mhz. Fingers crossed.

That was on 1700X. I just installed the new CPU, It's running stock and just had time to make a first run on cinebench. :) Scored 1806 in multi, and 176 in single (versus 1730/162). It will boost to 4340 Mhz in single, 4290 in dual and 3940 with all 8 cores. It seems the thing boosts same as advertised on the X470! I'm happy. I left voltage on auto (bios says 1.46 but Hwinfo64 says 1.3V under load on all 8 cores). Max temp was 63º. The 1700X was into the high 70's when overclocked at 3900Mhz (note: stock has higher clocks but cooler on the new CPU!) I will post pictures on the synthetics in a couple of hours.

Im using the high detail preset with VSYNC off. Same test I did last year when I built this machine VS the 2500K. There was a change with either GFX or CPU change. Hope to show this tomorrow when I finish benchmarking the 2700X. Im done with the 1700X and will be deactivating DCS modules now, as Im about the change the CPU's.

Currently benchmarking DCS with the old CPU with last years benchmark track I used to compare with my older 2500K. I already found out something interesting: 1-I have observed 99% GPU usage, so you CAN max out the 1080Ti with the 1000 series of Ryzen processors, so no bottlneck in this CPU (I have read otherwise by multiple reviewers) at least not with DCS. 2-I have seen the CPU usage highs of 44%-50% (most times drops to 14%-30%). Thats the equivalent or almost 8 full cores used with another 8 available.

Im keeping my board. Reports are in that changing the boards does nearly nothing for you unless you want the new storage caching system (basically merges your SSD's and HDD's into one virtual unit, similar what Intel does for optane). people are running 3466MHZ RAM where before they would 3200, just by changing the CPU alone but I am using 4 sticks instead of 2 so well see how it pans out. YSMXbbw2B8Y

I have an I7 skylake machine at work and I notice how its response times are so inconsistent with 1 core load or multi cores load and tries to boost or downclock to match. My R7 has all power instantly available feels so much smoother and responsive. My R7 crushes the I7 in heavy excell calculations too (8 VS 4 cores). I will lock my 2700X (will pick it up tomorrow) at 4.15 or 4.2 GHZ on all cores and call it a day.

ooph, 8K... LOL :eek: Maybe when multi-GPU (not SLI) in vulkan and DX12 are a thing and adopted by the industry. I dont see any single card handle that at an acceptable performance level. The 11 series Geforces are not going to double in performance (so to speak because the increase in pixels is quadratic). They will be more akin of a refresh with a modest improvement. AMD GPU's have not kicked NVIDIA's pants like their CPU's division did to Intel, so NVIDIA is milking the most out of us for the smallest investment possible.

the AMD chips probably not going to match a 8700K in single thread still, however: DCS used to be pegged at the CPU in single thread but this is no longer the case as the games objects have been offloaded to the GPU. Between the R5 2600 and the Intel 8700K I would go for the former if that allows me to to buy a bigger GPU with the leftover cash. The AMD barebones of MOBO+CPU is MUCH cheaper. Willing to bet R5+1080Ti > 8700K+1080. If you can afford both the Intel 8700K and the 1080Ti thats a no brainer. Go ahead.

Just a taste of 2700X IPC improvment (tested locked @ 4Ghz) source:

Oh man RIP.:( YlyNiXPA47M Note: I skipped Full metal jacked due to excess saltiness for this forum.

1991 Gulf war, they used multiple carriers.And again in 2003 invasion. It's risky to use them there due to how easy it is for anyone mount shore based missiles, attack by land based fighters (One US frigate got hit by an Exocet in 1991) or zerg rush the carrier group with fast smaller boats, but the upside is that opposing submarines will have a hard time too.

less and less games will use SLI, however they want to go for multi GPU now (doesn't use the bridge and you could use any 2 GFX even from different brands) but that is a couple of years in the future at least untill the new API's DX12 and Vulkan are widely adopted by the gaming indiustry. Not sure if DCS conversion to Vulkan will immediately enable that or not.

Convenient to mention: thats liquid Nitrogen, Not for 24/7 use.

Pre-ordered it. :)