some1

If your GPU does not show close to 100% utilisation when gaming on a 2D monitor, and you are not at the vsync limit, then yes, you are most likely limited by CPU. With CPU it's different, basically no game will use it to 100% and looking at cpu utilisation is mostly pointless. In MSFS switching from rtx3080 I saw 40% increase on ultra settings in one spot i tested, and 100% increase in another scenario that is not cpu limited. Except I have 5800x3d, while 10900k performance in this game is comparable with 5600x/5900x

I see no point in going higher, at least for SP. It only makes missions load longer. Maybe it was a useful setting back in Lock On days, when your HDD topped at about 60 MB/s

I don't know if it's Varjo Aero or your CPU, but with 5800X3D and Reverb G2@150% (3868x3784) I see much better frametimes in the same spot despite higher resolution. This is High preset with mirrors enabled, like on your video: null compared to And this is with the settings I use and mirrors off, much more practical for VR than the "HIGH" preset. At these settings 4090 holds 90 FPS quite well in many scenarios, not everywhere of course.

Your setup is fine, the PSU has non-standard sockets on the PSU side. Your previous post was a bit confusing and suggested you run the whole card from two PCIe 8 pin cables.

DLSS3 frame interpolation does not support VR. DLSS2 looks good in marketing materials but in reality it reduces instruments readability. Good for typical games, not so great for flightsims. Besides, Msfs runs even worse in VR than DCS. It's simply more demanding on hardware and there's not much headroom for increased vr requirements.

You're CPU limited. CPU frametime at 17.5 ms means your theoretical CPU limit is 57 FPS (1000/17.5). The real limit is lower as not everything in the pipeline is accounted for. But the GPU frametime below 11 ms means that the GPU is capable of running DCS at 90 FPS, if the rest of your PC can keep up (faster CPU or a simpler mission). I swapped 3080 for a 4090 yesterday. Didn't have time to do much testing, but a simple overcast mission in the AH-64 which was barely playable with RTX3080/5800X3D/Reverb G2 at 70%SS now runs at 90 fps at the same settings. Gpu frametime went down from 17.5 to 8.5 without IHADSS, and from 23ms to 9.3 with IHADSS. Of course in the case of RTX3080 a lot of that uplift comes from extra VRAM on a new card. Still, your graphs show that compared to 3090, RTX4090 gives 50-80% more headroom for GPU processing. MP or a heavy mission with a lot of units, I don't think any CPU is capable of running DCS at 90FPS in VR, but at least with 4090 you can crank up the resolution and eyecandy.

You are quoting a 3-year old post. Three years ago these shortcuts were not implemented.

AM5 is rumoured to debut Sept. 15th https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-4-Ryzen-7000-to-launch-on-September-15-at-US-799-for-Ryzen-9-7950X-Ryzen-7-7800X3D-and-Ryzen-9-7950X3D-purported-3D-V-Cache-versions.637813.0.html Also rumours about more AM4 x3d cpus https://www.techpowerup.com/296392/amd-readies-more-ryzen-5000x3d-processors?cp=5#comments Intel also has new cpus coming this fall. So if you aim for high end machine and can postpone a month or two, its better to wait. If you need something now or don't want to spend much, the current cpus are not a bad choice.

It's because it's conveniently located next to the pilot's hand resting on the throttle. Dogfight switch in the F-14 is in a similar location.

BTW there are rumours of more X3D processors coming to AM4, and also AM5 is right around the corner. At this time of year, it's best just to sit and wait for Intel and AMD to show their new product lineups.

All your typical background programs during gaming session are not enough to make even one modern CPU core sweat. In terms of games, 5800X3D very rarely lags behind faster clocked CPUs, and usually the larger cache is enough to stay on top, even in popular titles. With productivity tasks, it varies from program to program. Quite often in real life applications the difference is insignificant. For example going from 5900X to 5800X3D, compilation times in Visual Studio are slightly longer for me (10-20%), but that's something I can accept as I get better performance in simulators.

In the advanced waypoint options, you can add option: reaction to threat - no reaction.

What we have in game is the virtual IPD adjustment. It does indeed change the sense of scale, hence the confusion https://xinreality.com/wiki/Interpupillary_distance#Virtual_IPD

Tanks

Added Mirage F1 CE.

This can be done on any motherboard using software created by overclockers (PBO2 tuner or Project Hydra). It's not official AMD software, so use at your own risk. But I can confirm it works for me, lowering the core temps and raising the boost clock under heavy loads at the same time. https://github.com/PrimeO7/How-to-undervolt-AMD-RYZEN-5800X3D-Guide-with-PBO2-Tuner/blob/main/README.md

The new generation of CPUs will be released in Autumn. But if you cannot wait, then if MSFS is any indicator, 5800X3D beats 12900K by a wide margin. https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/amd-5800x3d-performance/510937 Keep in mind that other, more typical games do not always show such improvements.

The next generation of AMD CPUs won't have 3D cache, at least not initially.

Except its the other way round, 5800X3D is the slower one here. That's with my limited DCS testing, as I wasn't seeking GPU limited scenarios in DCS - on the contrary, I picked two places where GPU does not show 100% use. But there are other games I checked that showed literally no difference at the resolution I play (Asassin's Creed, Tomb Raider, Forza Horizon).

Still missed a couple things. Like these shots I took on my PC and posted here before: 5900X: https://imgur.com/B5VQrip 5800X3D: https://imgur.com/vBnQQ3H See the FPS gain? Me neither. That does not change the fact that 5800X3D is probably the best processor for flightsims right now, and a worthy upgrade under certain conditions. But it won't help much if on your system the bottleneck is elsewhere.

Yes, you've said that three times already, ignoring everything else posted in this thread since then, apparently. Not really, it's just a status that MSFS puts in one of the debug windows. Does not say "fully" anywhere, and doesn't have to be 100% accurate, it's just what the game sees as it measures the time spent calling GPU-related functions.

Huh? I own 5800X3D myself and compared it to my own 5900X here. I've posted a screenshots from a mission where there's no difference between the two in FPS. And from another mission where the new CPU yields 30% gain. It really depends on the scenario used for testing.

There's no scenario where 5900 would win in DCS, but there are scenarios where 5800x3d won't make a difference if you're limited by GPU. I posted a comparison a few messages above. With 3080, so with 3090 you'll be less GPU constrained that I am.

It's not predictive. It simply increases the delay between your movement and the change on screen, so there is a small buffer which can smooth things out a bit. It's also nothing new. Increasing the prerendered frames buffer can reduce stutter if the frametimes are fluctuating, and increase system throughput in both 2D and 3D, at the price of increased latency. Also known as input lag. And normally it's something we try to minimize, especially for VR.