Pilotasso

Well CPU utilization has varied between 13% and 43% when I tested my 2700X over Nellis map and that varied with the number of objects on screen (13% was above the desert while 43% was over the urbanized areas). ED has stated that DCS 2.5 already incorporates some elements of Vulcan API, so I lean towards the conclusion that higher the detail you set on graphics configuration, the more spread the detail will be across multiple cores. I would like to know the detail that this 2600K was configured to ingame, and the screenshot appears to indicate a rural area was used. I suspect at the time it was taken without a whole lot of objects visible. Both the CPU and GPU are lightly used and that doesn't look right for proper testing purposes. If you fly over Dubai or Nellis your going to see CPU bottlenecks for sure (hell even some cities in the Caucasus map will do that). I just dont think that 2600K can feed a 1080Ti because during my testing the GPU was locked at 100% even when the CPU usage dropped towards lower % (make sure VSYNC is off for testing purposes or else you cant compare FPS on different machines). If you are building a machine, you have 2 possible approaches to max your performance in DCS on the CPU side: 1- either you have an Intel 6 core clocked really high 2- or you go 8 core for more threads on AMD side of things (Skylake-X 8 cores performs on same level for gaming but costs a whole lot more) right now option 1 has an advantage in FPS numbers but that seems to be shifting away to 2 gradually. Not that you will notice a difference right now in your gaming experience, or heck even the price for the builds are similar.

confirmed

I saw that at the cinema back in 2005. As usual for these types of movies the plot is dumb , the acting average at best but I loved it. :D

Either the Intel 8700K or AMD 2700X CPU's will be fine. Out of the box the 8700K is faster for gaming but the 2700X is better at multithreading and enables you to do cheap upgrades as the motherboard will support future CPU's (the intel wont) but will need faster more expensive RAM as well if you want to take the most out of it. We expect next years 8 core AMD CPU's to beat intel's at much lower prices perhaps 300$ or lower (near 5ghz VS current 4.2). When overclocking both the 2700X will really close the gap on gaming and roflstomp the intel part in everything else. But you kinda need to win the silicon lottery and be good at overclocking. You can purchase a binned part here: https://siliconlottery.com/collections/pinnacleridge If you want to go the safe route just go for the 8700K. Intel will release an 8 core so called I9 8900K (official name not released yet) this summer which will predictably be faster in everything but expect much higher prices (requires new motherboard and chipset). The new NVIDIA GPU's will be released in July so I advise you to wait for a GTX1180 then. The reason is it will be 100$ cheaper and 25% faster than a 1080Ti (according to leaked specs). AMD will release new graphics cards this fall but based on VEGA on 7nm but dont expect faster GPU's than NVIDIA's own 1180's. They will be likely the new mid range affordable GPU's (rumour as fast as current GTX1080's). if you choose the 8700 you will need a 240mm AIO, the 2700X may require a 280mm, some people are getting 360mm ones. It really heats up in overclocks (deliding not recommended, it's soldered) You will need a 850W power supply (I got just a 760W but its seasonic) Currently DCS is GPU bound as I learned during last years upgrade going from a 2500K to a 1700X (changed the CPU first then GPU) I got a 14% boost with the new CPU, but with both new CPU+GPU I got a MASSIVE 68% boost in DCS. Then I got a 2700X and it upped 2% only in average FPS but 16% more in minimum FPS. It is using 7 full threads right now. You might want to take that in consideration when choosing the CPU.

threadripper 2000 series are going to be released this summer. If you can wait a bit longer...

these are my stable settings for the memory if anyone was wondering.

Not sure whats doing but I'm seeing alot of activity. I tested My new 2700X recently and at times it goes to 44% usage in DCS. That's the equivalent of 7 cores maxed out and a partial 8th.

Not only, it also includes the northbridge and the connections to the south bridge. So when you set the voltage to the SOC your applying voltage to multiple points of possible failure.

get the I7. DCS is using 6-7 threads right now.

Im running 4x8GB sticks, cannot run CL 14 @ 3533. Maybe 3600 CL16, I managed to boot on that but fails under stress testing. I'm waiting on better BIOS for more extensive trials.

If I wanted to buy 32 GB of 3866Mhz memory right now they would charge me a full 100€ more than my current 4266Mhz kits from last year (the fastest kits available in about may 2017). Yeah...

DCS will be fully converted to vulkan and that can leverage any amount of cores and graphics cards (using multi GPU tech and not SLI/crossfire anymore), though at this time the impact of going high parallelism on the graphics card side is totally unknown. So for now the sane decision is to get the best GFX you can get and thats it.

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.