blkspade

The 13900K MT advantage is from the extra E cores, which will do nothing for games. They accelerate productivity tasks that aren't effected by latency, but will indefinitely hamper game performance. They have less IPC and clocks than the P cores, so they'd constantly turn in work at a slower pace.

Well I know first hand that the 3090 offers a much better experience than the 6800XT in VR with a G2, so a 4090 should be awesome.

While Intel has long been considering XMP an OC to deny RMA, AMD does not. I've done a RMA for both a Ryzen 7 2700 and an i7 7700K. Intel's asks about you using XMP in the questions, AMD doesn't.

Something to be noted is that game bar doesn't technically do any scheduling. It basically only engages the core parking so that scheduling shouldn't be needed, because the other CCD is then ineligible. Games can/will jump CCDs if other things wake the cores and make them eligible. Probably won't be an issue in most cases, but if you were to willfully use the other CCD for anything intensive enough you may want to set the affinity. You can alter program shortcuts to launch with a desired affinity though, and the masks for 16 core is FFFF for CCD0, and FFFF0000 for CCD1. So you can place cmd /C Start /Affinity FFFF " " in your shortcut target line before the path to the exe. EG: cmd /C Start /Affinity FFFF " " "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World OpenBeta\bin-mt\DCS.exe" cmd /C Start /Affinity FFFF0000 " " "C:\Program Files\obs-studio\bin\64bit\obs64.exe" All quotes needed.

Everything collapsing at 4K is normal, and typically a GPU limit. Seeing an obvious difference at lower resolutions, means future less limited GPUs have some place to go. No one tests DCS. Star citizen is another one I'm interested in. I'm in a "fantastic" position where on occasion my 5950X can't fully push a 6800XT, but could also use more performance than a 6800XT. I like having all the threads, but need a little more grunt if I'm going to upgrade my GPU. After seeing the 5800X3D, the 7950X3D is something I've been waiting for.

The MSFS numbers are likely to most relevant to DCS. X3D is more meaningfully better in sims as opposed to the overall in most other more popular titles. There will certainly be a point on AM5 where there will be more performance to be had with less investment in time and money. The fire sale EOL chips for the platform, will look like what the 5800X3D is now. Given the known differences in visibility with resolution settings. Probably a lot of people. It's the 1% lows in VR that have been known to be a huge benefit though.

Yeah I'm personally on the "not a pound" train myself. I don't care for it in general, which is made worse by the fish in a barrel thing. They can technically be allowed to move, but its just another thing typically broken in multiplayer. You have to basically be putting the airframe in an unrealistic level of danger for it to be fun or challenging hitting stationary targets. I would occasionally fly the A-10 just to move the server along, because you could do the most work with an A-10. Then the challenge was mostly dealing with the poor flir implementation.

I feel that the 12-16 core models are a bigger deal because there are a lot of mixed use people on Zen 3 R9s that have been screaming for a v cache option. I'm on a 5950X and always have at least one virtual machine running and if I'm booted to Linux then Windows itself is going to be a VM. Other things I do in bursts benefit from having all those threads. It's a weird position to be in where I'll frequently use and appreciate the all the threads, but also play games where a 5800X3D crushes. Something like star citizen can go from mildly sub-par to really good. For people absolutely good with 8 cores the 5800X3D and 7700X are really good and fairly close most of the time. For me personally it would be great to have the combination of an iGPU, 32 threads, and vcache with the ability isolate a whole OS to a specific CCD.

Yeah, so something that has to be explicitly scripted by the user to implement a function that could be a standard feature. You know, pilot things in flight sim. Not really part of the core product like I described. As I mentioned, there is an included F-14 mission that clearly has this intent, that basically does nothing. I flew up to a bomber, and if I fly away it keeps going its own way. In the scope of them trying to market a single role air superiority aircraft to their supposed "large single player base" (a degree of context you might not get), it probably shouldn't require scripting knowledge. I'm personally all aboard the MP train as I got bored of the AI back in the LO:MAC days. I just bring up SP because AI has been various forms of busted for over a decade, yet evidence points to ED being generally more focused on SP. Strike jets make more sense in that respect. Even though ground unit AI isn't "perfect" it's more forgivable. No dynamic campaign still. Ok, I'll stop throwing 20mm now.

I think you missed where the problem is. It's not with mission config, but AI behavior. You can intercept OR you can escort. You cannot divert the course of an AI aircraft. Their waypoints are fixed. Let supposed the USAF stopped bothering to intercept Russian Bear bombers entering Alaskan airspace. They'd probably continue on a planned course to do who knows what. But when the F-15s/F-22s show up, things change. They are peacefully guided in a direction back home. That would be an intercept AND an escort. That is what I'm talking about. A large portion of an actual fighter pilots job are handling situations like that without blowing things up. The AI needs a degree of dynamics to allow for that while allowing a different outcomes to actually play out. While it would expand on single player it could actually have function in MP too. Imagine if it took more to shoot down an AWACs than timing a fixed orbit for a long range shot. I don't think a real E3 is going to watch an enemy contact continually close while it circles a fixed spot. The AI "self preservation routine" begins and ends with a terminal phase missile.

I think anyone that's been apart of this community long enough could make some reasonable extrapolations as to why there is no FF F-15C. Like how much has it been requested just to be shot down? Between the data that makes up systems in the FF -18 -16, and it being practically impossible for a quality Razbam -15E without systems data that would obviously be applicable to the -15C, it's little outrageous something so requested and possible continues to go ignored. It probably has a lot to do with a supposed large single player use of the sim, and the fact various things about A-A AI being very broken throughout. Strike missions are just easier to make even with ground unit AI being broken/limited in it's own ways. A-A is explicitly more exciting in MP, if that is all you reduce the jet to. I guess they lack the imagination for SP content for a single role fighter. Besides the improvements to AI BFM/BVR, they need a mechanism to allow you to do an intercept, redirect and escort AI aircraft without the intent of a shoot down. One of the F-14 missions is basically broken due to the lack of that logic. That also plays into Guard actually being used realistically, in SP or MP. I used to occasionally pull up on enemy Su-25s/A-10s in MP, and give them the option to turn around and go home. In text though. You should be able to radio the enemy. On Guard Radio menu to enemy, with probability of compliance based on range of it's own CAP/escort and/or armament. Smarter use of a dice-roll than just countermeasures. HVAAs need some kind of logic to extend away from a threat, instead of maintaining an orbit just to do last second evasive maneuvers. Besides reducing the ability to pluck them out of the sky at range, it lets your own help you to help them in escorts. A FF Air Superiority fighter can be made to make sense in ways that make the sim better as a whole. Or just keep leaving that money on the table. That said, the E would lose potential sales if the C was on the horizon.

I have the Reverb G2 as well on an AMD system. Ironically it works fine plugged into the GPU USB-C port on my AMD 6800XT.

Well as an alternative, you can get a USB3 add-in controller card.

Gaming board is almost a misnomer. It's just marketing speak. I have a consumer class desktop board, that supports a 16 core CPU and up to 128GB RAM with the option of ECC. Basically the only thing that makes it "gamer" is having RGB headers. I do play games on it, while it is effectively being a server at the same time. I remotely throw GPGPU work at it at times from work, and have more cores and RAM than games are going to need any time soon. The only things in the server tier is support for even higher density, more advanced storage interfaces than SATA, and some times out of band management. Otherwise all computer have the potential to be servers of some description, unless you want it less functional out of the box for some reason. Hell NVME is a server technology woefully underutilized in most single user machines. The bulk of the real world daily client use of them happens at below SATA speeds. Dropping sata probably wouldn't even have a meaningful effect on the price. After 2 GPUs, a 10GbE Nic and a tuner card, I wouldn't want to have to find a place for something that can and should just be there. It's actually a bigger deal for them to remain an option on ITX boards that don't have as much expansion otherwise.

NAND will have to be way cheaper, as plenty of people still want bulk storage. I virtualize a NAS server in my computer, and use 4 of the SATA ports for 16TB of useable storage. SATA SSDs would still be reasonable if costs per GB ever got near HDDs.

I have a Reverb G2, and use a 6800XT but have tested both the 3080 10GB and 3090 in my system. The 3080 was basically no better than the 6800XT, while the 3090 was noticeably better than both. Better more consistent frame rate at a higher pixel density. The 10 GB of the 3080 isn't enough to run the G2 at native RES, but you obviously don't need 24GB. I'd imagine the 6900XT or 6950XT being equally better than the 6800XT as the 3090 is to the 3080 could offer a similarly improved experience.

Linus included MSFS performance with his 5800X3D benches. Might have some relevance here.

There was some collaboration between Nvidia and Micron in the development of GDDR6X, and reportedly Nvidia bought out all of it. There probably wasn't going to be much choice anyway other then super expensive HBM2E. Nvidia's design underperforms at 1080p, and slightly less so at 1440p compared to how good it ends up at 4k. That memory bandwidth also happens to be beneficial to mining, which Nvidia is directly shipping cards toward.

While it may never matter for DCS, its likely to sooner become an issue for other games. Going forward most other game engines are going to be ramping to an eventual target of 8C/16T of the new consoles. Amid all the bugs you can see how CDPR attempted to design their engine for Cyberpunk 2077, pretty much at the limit of previous gen consoles. One of their bugs had the AMD FX CPUs in mind that effectively disabled SMT on Ryzen. It needs 7 threads on PC for maximum throughput, so AMD 6C or less were greatly hampered. Last gen consoles are 8C8T, where 1C is held for the OS/UI. Now there is a future where cross platform game engines will literally be targeting a mildly downclocked R7 3700X, and on NVME storage. Oh and DCS in its current state does actually hit many threads for IO operations. It's how you maximize throughput from an SSD. We just need them to get the rendering sorted out with Vulkan.

Nvidia's focus seems to be specifically 4K and raytracing. The Nvidia 3000 series cards are somehow tuned for 4k that results in them scaling poorly at lower resolutions compared to AMD 6800 cards. The limited VRAM potentially comes into play with the 3080 with supersampling in VR. Its one of the reasons why I'm not interested in stepping down to 10GB from my 1080ti.

I've watched his as well. Ok. I get that it should be better, on paper. I just feel it should be way better. The problem is that in many actual properly multithreaded applications, its just barely pulling ahead when it manages not to lose. Like I said previously the, 5600X is a lot closer to the i7 in those scenarios, than the i7 is to the 5800x. It does make more sense given the closer pricing in your region I suppose. That still doesn't instill much faith in the gaming transition that will start fully utilizing Zen 2 based consoles with RDNA. Outside of simulators, consoles gets first billing and AMD has positioned itself to start leveraging that advantage. MSFS though will likely need to be heavily optimized for the Xbox SX release. Between Direct Storage (and RTX IO) and Smart Access Memory, PCIe 4 is going to get used for sure. They are clearly features designed specifically to provide symmetry with the incoming Gen of consoles. They are definitely trying to steal free performance optimizations. Quadcore was well past its prime with even the 7700K. Intel just didn't have the incentive to move consumers past it. Hyperthreading and brute force extended it's relevance in gaming. 12 threads will probably carry that 5600X deep in to the life span of the consoles. When my 4790K at 4.7Ghz was on par with the 7700K, I knew I needed at least double the cores to be happy. The 8700K didn't really wow me. GPU transcoding was sub par, handbrake made the computer unusable, and I hosted a plex server. The R7 2700 made the most sense to me. Intel seemingly had only even bothered offering more cores to stay close in productivity workloads. Now their final chip on the platform will only be 8c/16t. Which is also when they'll unlock PCIe 4 on Z490, but maybe it wont be relevant before any other reason to upgrade.

I'm in the US, so prices are a bit different. I'm still confused about where you claim the Intel's are the better. The 5600X manages to outperform even the 10900K in some games, and the whole series is also better in photoshop than Intel's entire line-up. I moved from a 4790K to a R7 2700, with no issues. I eventually gave the 2700 to my kids because the z97 board died (initially thought it was the CPU) that was handed down to them with the 4790K. This is a very in-depth review, and many others mirror it's general results

I'm a bit curious as to what your use case is. The 5600X seems to beat or tie the 10700K in many if not most games, with similar results in many multithreaded workloads. Even where it loses in multithread, its closer to the 10700K than the i7 is to the 5800x. That's for 100watts less power (thus heat), and $180 less with an included cooler. That would absolutely run circles around whatever current 6c/12t you could currently have. With a realistic need for the additional threads outside of gaming, the 5800X pulls further away. The only thing that makes want to move from my 3900X, is that there is a noticeable hit to DCS in VR in a VM compared to native. More so than any other VR game, and a non-issue for flat screen games. With plans to transition away from Windows as my regular desktop OS, it can get its own die for gaming while all my main Linux stuff runs on the other. I want the 5950X almost solely to have the 2 8 core CCDs, but could probably realistically get by with the 5900X. Both would raise the lows above the point of concern for VR.

The AIM-7 and most other SARH missiles will HOJ, and don't actually require to be fired in HOJ mode. Even turning ECM on POST launch will indeed allow it to continue guiding if the host radar drops the lock for any reason. The game logic does seem to limit them to only tracking the actual target they were launched at, with one exception. That one exception may have been a bug during a specific update, but I've had an AIM-7 take a steep intercept angle above the target, miss but loopback and start guiding back at me. Yes it was pulling G right back in to my radar, but just missed me. I was able to repeat it. Might still have the Tacview.

Those 16/20GB cards wouldn't have made any sense in any scenario where capacity wasn't a limiting factor. The only reason the 3080 is 10GB instead of 12 is that the additional vram ICs would have bumped up the bandwidth, and neutralized the small advantage the 3090 actually has. So if AMD ends between really close and beating the 3080, they'll basically have to put out a 12GB 3080/3090. 12*1GB ICs, would outperform 10*2GB ICs, making a 20GB card really stupid. Personally, I refuse to step down in capacity from my current 11GB, just as much as I won't pay over $800 for a GPU. I barely wanted to fork out $700 for this 1080ti.