Pilotasso

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.

this is very interesting. Could a GFX change bring both intel & AMD machines level despite the clock difference? wow, I think it can be done.

Only FC3, A-10 and Mirage. Plan on getting the fast jets above anything else, WWII planes maybe in a bundle with discount.

Images are worth a 1000 words. Whos gonna see this? looks stunning. :) gCcx85zbxz4

Unfortunately when I ran DCS2 on my old 2500K I forgot to turn off MSAA and that introduced a GFX bottleneck. Even so I ran DCS2 again in these specific conditions with R7 overclocked and the results were: Mission start: R7=78 FPS Over nellis: R7=66 FPS Las vegas downtown:R7=37FPS Las vegas airport: R7=46FPS So comparing these results I made the chart below: Conclusion: Youll get at least 14% improvement going from sandy bridge to Ryzen with GFX bottle-necking in place and a 650Mhz disavantage!! Remember Im testing CPU+RAM differences here as the GFX is the same. But there's a caveat: looking at what others got with the 980Ti and 1080 I can safely assume that a new GFX like the 1080ti or VEGA would double or triple FPS, far exceeding what could be achieved with a processor change. In a final analysis, if you have sandy bridge and up and want to build for DCS specifically, just get a high end GFX. (I will verify this in 2 months) The only 2 variables capable of stopping this from being true is if you dont have enough RAM and no SSD. I can swear the later one is a BIG jump, just as important as a new GFX.

@1440 with High preset VSYNC off with filters ANISO+MSAA off so that I could compare with the previous non overclocked Ryzen test which is quoted below. so I got 5-7 FPS just upping 450Mhz and switching from CAS 15 to 12.

I overclocked the CPU to 3850Mhz, and tightened RAM timings to CAS 12-12-12-32-1T (kept @ 2933 because couldn't boot at 3200) results obtained: Mission start: 94 FPS Over nellis: 83 FPS Las vegas downtown: 47 FPS Las vegas airport: 53 FPS thats a 5 FPS increase across the board. But Las Vegas downtown upped by 7 FPS!

strange, I didnt have to change anything and T.A.R.G.E.T. runs normally on my new R7 build.

AKA gut blender??? :D

maybe something else was generating more threads?

The last fighter program to be on schedule and budget was probably a WWII prop plane.

well to minimize GPU bottleneck @1440 with High preset VSYNC off, I turned filters ANISO+MSAA off and then I get: Mission start: 89 FPS Over nellis: 77 FPS Las vegas downtown: 40 FPS Las vegas airport: 48 FPS Rage, maybe you can run these settings to compare as I cant go 4K :]

Looks like those results reflect the GFX rather than the CPU. FPS wise you getting pretty nice scaling there: 970<980Ti<1080

happy birth day!!! :yay: :drunk: