Pilotasso

the 8th gen Intel CPU's have been postponed, from this summer to who-knows-when. Likely early next year. If you dont want to wait you can probably get away with a R5 1600X build for now. Yes, you'll lose single thread performance (about 20%) but as I demoed the GFX is now more important, and that 1080 will be fantastic (it's screaming for a modern CPU). However if you can wait that 8700K 6 core will be faster overall. tough decision. :)

yes, both old and new machine for closest comparison.

People have signed contracts already so it's happening.

No. I no longer have the 2500K. And it would probably bottleneck the Ti so hard it wouldnt make a good comparison between the 2 cards. Neither would anyone go that route.

That will rock with DCS indeed.

I have a beta BIOS with the new May AGESA 1.0.0.6. I was stuck at 2933Mhz and now can go up to 3466, though that was with CL20 so I stepped back to 3200 CL 16. Nobody is getting to 4000 with it, a few are getting 3600. Yeah, still ways to improve.

Replacing a 6 year old intel CPU with an AMD Ryzen it yielded 15% more performance, but when the GFX was changed it got me a whopping 68% difference. Note: the 1080Ti test was conducted with a DCS 2.1.0.6002 version (had sent off the older GFX before the switch), and that might explain why downtown was higher than Nellis (for reasons that escape me). SAince this version is more demanding I can only conclude that >70% performance difference would be a more realistic value.

Sadly I sent the 970 off to my sister before I realized this. But the results are astonishing: which means the % diff would be even greater if the last 2 tests were conducted on the same version. I tested it with MSAA off to compare with my other series of tests and the change in FPS was so small with the 1080Ti that it could be attributed to the reading margin of error. But this is sobering proof that a graphics card will determine what FPS you get as long as the platform can handle it (think haswell CPU's and later)

the cuts are being made by the manufacturer. This has been announced at computex 2017.

OK guys, got the card. According to 3Dmark timespy bench, the 1080Ti is 3X the speed of my 970 GTX. Not bad. :) Ill run the DCS track now.

yes, I will run the track again for sure. Additionally rumor has it VEGA wont be as fast but a fair amount cheaper than the 1080Ti.

AMD will slash ryzen prices by 23%, so wait a few more days ;) If you want to test DCS on that system you may want to temporarily use the your other GFX for testing. That 1050 will fall short. BTW, I decided to get a 1080ti tomorrow, so we can compare the inpact of GFX since I already had the 970 tested on the other thread and our 2 Ryzen chips should be pretty much on par for DCS.

Guys, after reading the news about VEGA, the sad fact is that its 2 months away and in very limited numbers. It will be another mess of a launch judging by how countained and refrained enthusiasm AMD has shown at computex. Meaning by the time they get mass shipping I have to add another month to get them here. This means waiting for the better part of the year. Soooooooooooo... So tomorrow Ill get a 1080Ti. Need to start using this beast as it's meant to be used ASAP. I'm a tad sad I'm not getting a full red system and it'll have to wait for an upgrade in a couple of years.

And they are making Indy 5 "in the search of the lost teeth"

Kj8kDKpIvH8

I dont know, the original had a cheesy script, below average acting (some of those lines oh good) all good things in military aviation movies, what could get possibly worse in a sequel?? :D

The C6 is overkill for a R5. Maybe you will want this instead. Its a bit cheaper and is pretty much high end still, so you can save off a few bucks more. ROG STRIX X370-F GAMING

WOW I heard stories about this but didn't realize it was automated to THIS level. :thumbup:

that sythetic benchmark has no translation to real world performance. For example, It puts a stock 2500K above a 1700X. Coincidentally I have both. When testing in DCS I have proven that keeping the same GFX (a 970) the 1700X was 14% faster @3.85Ghz than the 2500K @ 4.5, with a 650Mhz disavantage. There were graphics bottle necking ocurring so the real difference likely is higher. I had people demonstrated similar FPS with an 7700K. :)

Maybe the settings on NVIDIA panel could explain that, I got mine on maximum quality with filters set to applications

When getting a CPU for DCS doesn't matter what brand you choose right now as long as it has at least 4 physical cores, then you only need to choose the best gfx that fits your budget and your good to go. In my case I also play star citizen and the only CPU capable of some sort of future proofing within budget is the R7, so I just chose it for my new build.

It's coming this summer but it's the continuation of intel's policy to milk their customers for the same chip over and over again every year. You'll be paying a premium for an X299 motherboard and probably 400$ for a quad core chip that can be found on Z170 and Z270 platforms minus the crappy heat spreader. Thats right, likely the only difference.

I tested my 1700X against sandy bridge, and kabylake in a thread next to this. The conclusion is that currently modern CPU's doesnt matter much as they once did, they all perform close enough for DCS. The GFX is likely what will differentiate systems apart for DCS performance. That Being said, you can always appreciate the extra threads Ryzen systems brings to the table for everything else beyond DCS so, that 1600X is my advice for you.

EDGE has offloaded the geometry onto the GPU and since then the CPU has been under utilized except if you are getting a very high end GFX like a 1080Ti, where Sandy bridge might not have the grunt necessary to feed it anymore.