florist

im running the 460 and I dont see any issue

Here is my little contribution. I received my 3080 today to replace a 1080. I run a 10700k stock and use an Index at 120hz. I have done none of the optimisation except for the windows game mode. I dont use any SS nor PD. So 100% and 1 All numbers were from quick missions. With the 1080, i would get 45fps with low settings with basically 90%+ reprojection. (frametime averaging 20-25) Low cockpit shadows would basically make the fps range from 30 to 45 With the 3080, Medium visibility, high texture, trees visibility at 70%, ill get 80-90 fps with shadows for both cockpit & environment. SS150% and No Msssa & ssaa gets me a stable reprojected 60fps No SS with Mssa x2 ssaax2 manages to produce a stable 60fps reprojected . Funny thing, GPU hovers around 80% load. DCS does run smoother, you can increase the 'eye candy' except it doesnt change much qualitatively. It only looks slightly better. The new 'bottleneck' become the Index screen and the graphics engine. We're not there yet for a mind blowing DCS experience but it has now reached the level of satisfactory where one can reasonably consider the card as a sensible choice to wait out the arrival of a new graphics engine and 2 generation of graphics card before deciding to buy another one. This has made appreciate the fact that buying a 3090 is not woth it.

whatever floats your boat, buddy!

My goodness, you are angry and you debate in bad faith... Anyway, Same temps, slightly higher Wattage and more FPS for the 10700k against 5600X I rest my case.

First of all, Im changing to Intel after having a 1700X. I actually intended to buy a Ryzen 5000 series but then I started to look through the fog of dythirambical reviews and saw that Ryzen 5000 didn't improve much at all over current 10th gen Intel processors. a 10700k sells for 350-375. A 5800x 450 and it has heat issues... You startement about cores is mixing apples with oranges. One does not use a laptop the same way as one uses a desktop. Few people are ever going to do rendering on a laptop, that's why there is no need for excessive amounts of cores. Im sure it's nice to be able to in case of an emergency but is it a realistic use case? Wow, Incredible improvement 65W instead of 125W....except most people note that Intel runs pretty cool (mid 50s gaming). So basically, for a desktop PC, it's irrelevant. Please dont mention, the electricity bill delta. Current Mobo cost about the same on AMD and Intel. The budget options like Gaming Plus by MSI is 150ish for both AMD and Intel. Those 400 series AMD Mobo may be cheaper today but that's due to their prior strategy to exploit an Intel strategical weakness in order to convince people to switch. Will that hold true in the future? Plus those motherboards, cant yet be used for Ryzen 5000. Need to wait some more...Im pretty sure the next generation with AM5 and DDR5 wont come cheap, given that AMD has given up on the being the value option. I never dismissed AMD as being less capable(that's what I'm currently using), Im just trying to temper your 'AMD good, Intel bad' simply because they dimed Intel on performance and used to be cheaper. If you take all aspects into consideration, there is nothing 'much better' about AMD in relation to Intel. The fact of the matter is that today, it would cost someone less money to buy an Intel system than an AMD system that provides similar performance. Seriously, there is nothing to get all upset about that on a forum.

Except I can buy the intel solution right now and have it delivered 2 days later. AMD certainly did well but the current narrative of how AMD has 'killed' Intel by taking the gaming performance crown, while correct, overblows, a very marginal difference...at excessive level of pricing. Yes the 5600 is not super expensive but it's only 6 cores and therefore limits greatly its versatility and longetivity...thus Id be annoyed at settling for a 5600x. Anyway, as things currently stands, whichever solution will give similar performance. It certainly isnt a slamdunk for AMD. All the talk about less power consumption, heat also seems completely overblown. Intel 10th gen doesnt seem to be particularly outrageous in terms of heat or being a power hog. Any delta on these metrics seem to fall in the 'my car has 550hp and and yours 500hp' category...it's irrelevant One caveat is that, the next AMD solution will necessitate a new MOBO...do you believe that the new MOBO prices wont follow the trend traced by the CPUs'? All the while, intel solution will be compatible with current z490. True, that the same drawback will apply to Intel for the 12th generation, but we live in the present day, dont we? So technically, AMD can only be considered a cheap alternative only if you had a 400 series boards, for all the others....We re talking Intel level pricing with very little availability

I had ordered a 5800x (as 5900x were long gone on amd's website) but for some idiotic reason, the address' country got amended....sending my order elsewhere...it got cancelled as AMD can't amend addresses and DHL doesn't allow the recipient to change it even when the error is obvious. Figured it was godsent as I wanted the 5900x anyway which would have cost me about 580 euros. Got frustrated by the lack of available stock and tried to see if there might be some not so crazy prices on ebay and pay up the premium...dead end as they re basically selling for 1200. Then I remembered the benchmark results made by gamer nexus where intel 10th gen was awefully close to the new ryzen processors. Checked amazon prices and then realized...why pay 600 euros + 200 mobo for something unavailable when I can receive in 3 days similar performance with. 10700k for 550(350 + 200)? With a mobo that will be able to accommodate 11th gen AMD has priced itself to the level of intel....yes they offer more versatility but in practical terms, does it really matter? The hype gotten so big for AMD that every single previous gen cpu, gpu has since gone up in price...insane Might as well buy nvidia too. Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

Given the scarcity, lack of stock of the new ryzen processors and their high price....I'd say buy a 10700k, 10900k The performance difference is minimal in single core....at least you can get it right away...cheaper too AMD hype really hit an all-time high those last few weeks and now that the dust is starting to settle....it's relatively disappointing. The new processors are barely above 10th gen intel. Objectively they caught up so that's promising for the future Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

True for the panning but that means you re not displaying a 4k image. Why down sample when you can get more info per pixel straight up? All 4k does is allow you to have a bigger screen and maintain/improve slightly pixel density. If you intend on having a similarly sized monitor, no sense on upgrading unless the price is very Attractive or the contrast, colors offered improve picture quality Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

According to me, full hd is enough. That same logic can be applied to cameras and filming in 4k...makes no sense as for the longest time the bitrate used for 4k didn't scale with the bitrate used to 1080...therefore the video quality was always worse in 4k than 1080.....yet everyone kept talking about filming in 4k. Makes even less sense when the content is mostly consumed on lower resolution panels With 1080 We ve reached a level of pixel density even for very big images which is more than adequate...movie theater resolution is....1080p Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

4k is a gimmick screen wise. On a 100 inch projected image from a 1080 projector sitting 3m away...I cant see the pixels I just bought a 32inch 4 monitor...cant see a difference Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

On the GPU side, I now believe it's better to wait for the next generation. Nvidia for the 3000 series still somewhat mailed it in. They put in a bit more effort as AMD was starting to close on the performance gap with the 5700xt but I'm sure they never thought they'd be able to match their rasterization performance...so they didn't go all out. Lo and behold, that turned out to be foolish thinking. if AMD's claim about rDNA 3 turns out to be true and if recent history is any indication, there is no reason to not believe them, Nvidia will pull out all the stops and try to make a statement with the 4000 series which will probably blow out of the water any of the new cards. These cards should be able to offer the performance we need without having to spend 1500usd The problem is being patient. Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

It was not on dcs forum but reddit https://amp.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/ccvv17/psa_amd_ryzen_1xxx_gen_users_upgrade_to_ryzen/ Should help you get an idea Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

There is a thread about the ryzen 3600 processor where the OP talks and shows the performance improvement from a 1700...or something similar From there, just compare single core scores of your processor with his and you will get a synthetic index on the type of performance you can expect. Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

Agreed. The first feedbacks concerning streaming to the Quest look very encouraging. LEt's wait if someone can make a test with DCS and the decision suddenly becomes obvious

The F-35 may or may not have the advantage aerodynamically over the F-16 and other 4th generation aircraft but is the incremental difference in performance justifying the cost of the program? That's where it all comes down to. Yes Pierre Sprey may not have the credibility, he and other claim him to have but is it really needed, when it's all about common sense. He does make some compelling points beyond the intrinsic quality of the plane itself. During wars, the name of the game is reliability, endurance and skill. Just by looking at the sheer amount of electronics in that airplane and reported issues (are they real? i do not know), I am not sure it makes it a reliable tool to fight with. You just have to look at today's car... Even if it's technically solvable, it is at such cost that you basically have to gut other parts of your military to keep it relevant. In that sense, less is more. You will find this in every field of expertise and war is all about expertise. for example, one field that comes to mind is in music, audiophile have a box for every thing. The stand alone disc player, the pre amp, the amp, the speakers. Yes it's true that you can have it all in one box but how good is it comparatively? In war, to quote top gun, " there are no points for second place"