BeastyBaiter

Bitmaster, you mean clock, not IPC. IPC = instructions per cycle. Nothing is getting anywhere near that much IPC. According to my calculation based off Wikipedia (*cringe*) data, the 1800x has 5.2 IPC per thread or 10.4 IPC per core. I could find no data on the 7700k but the 4770k gets 8.57 IPC per physical core. Regardless, total processing power is IPC*clock speed (over simplified, but gives a rough idea). Nitpicking aside, I thought Hiromachi bought a 1700x. Or is our Hiromachi different from the one on the BoS forums? In regards to minimums, I noticed that too in a lot of the posted benchmarks. I agree that they are more important. That said, DCS loves its single thread performance and I don't think any of the R7's are made to complete with the I7-7700k in that regard. That's why I'm mainly looking at the R5 1600x. It might boast better IPC with that same 4GHz clock.

It does seem like all the reviewers have no trouble getting the 1700 to 3.9GHz but anything beyond 4.1 is a problem for all 3 models. They've also done some tweaks and gotten game performance up a bit. I think it might be a few more months before we really know how it will play out. The R5-1600X remains the most interesting option to me. I'm very curious if it has greater IPC, we already know the clock on it.

Not really, the A-10C, F/A-18C and Harrier also have glass cockpits. But it will be nice to have a modern coin plane.

How well do DCS 1.5 and 2.0 scale with multiple AMD GPU's these days? I'm thinking about grabbing a second rx480 and a 1440p monitor. Current specs: I5-4690, RX 480 8GB, 16GB DDR3, win10

Hmm, I'll give him a look later. I checked gamer Nexus, Linus and Paul's hardware.

The first batch of reviews are in. Looks like the 1800X is the best option on the market for video editing and rendering tasks, but falls short in gaming. The I7-7700K remains top dog in addition to being cheaper. It does look like the 1800X outperforms the 6900k in gaming though. I'm guessing the $200-300 1600X will offer basically equal gaming performance compared to the 1800X, so it might make sense as an I5 competitor given the price. This is all at stock speeds or with a 100MHz overclock. I haven't seen anything on seriously overclocking Ryzen yet.

I have windows 10, DCS1.5, DCS 2.0 and IL2:BoS/BoM/BoK on a 256GB SSD. It doesn't have a whole lot left over, but is sufficient until a new map is released (either game). Once a new map is added, I'll have to migrate to a bigger SSD or move one of the games to my 1TB HDD. If you are really and truly only going to put one copy of DCS on it, then a 256GB should do. But I strongly recommend a 512GB instead so you can also have windows and some other stuff on it.

Something had to be first, they chose top end. It makes a lot sense tbh, AMD really needs to be the undisputed performance king for a bit just to get people to notice them. Targeting the very top with aggressive pricing certainly draws attention. Another reason is early adopters. They may only want a quad core, but will buy the 8 core simply because it's first. Thus more money for AMD.

Looking good Zeus :)

It will be an enormous improvement, but I don't know what you will actually get when running 2 monitors. My system specs are similar but I went with the similarly priced RX480 instead. Running a single 1080p monitor I get 50 fps minimums with 100+ fps averages in 2.0. In 1.5 fps is all over the place. Some areas play at 100+ fps average, others at 20.

Hadn't heard of them before, but it's surprising they got anywhere given that there are 3 core requirements for a patent to be valid in the US and simply saying "we patent haptic devices" or anything else along those lines violates all 3. I suspect the sued companies decided it was cheaper to settle than fight the bogus lawsuit. In any case, I never found FFB to be anything but a cheap gimmick. Those devices always felt cheap and grindy.

I'm aware of Intel's $1000+ stuff but those don't seem like consumer products to me, more of a special purpose business chip, sort of like Nvidia's GP100. Maybe that's just me though.

We won't know how IPC + clock + overclock + cooling works out for at least a month and that's what will tell how well they stack up. One thing that we can say is that if they do manage to match Intel's chips, then Intel might as well file for bankruptcy. The reason is the Ryzen chips have twice as many cores and threads as their closest Intel equivalents (ie 8 core 16 thread vs I7 4 core 8 thread). Just can't justify an Intel purchase in that situation. Intel's only hope this generation is for Ryzen to fall short in some way on single thread performance, as that is still more important for gaming.

Of course. Every summer has a new GPU generation. I'm eager to see if AMD can dethrone Nvidia at the top end this time, they really need that tbh for marketing their entire line. It's sad but people are lazy and assume that just because one company's $1000 chip is better, that company's $250 chip must be better too. Ditto for Ryzen vs I3/5/7.

Looking good RAZBAM :). Hopefully we'll see it on our machines later this year.

DCS doesn't model ECM as anything more than an on/off thing. I don't think those switches actually do anything in game.

No, why would you think that? I said nothing of the sort. The only steps I didn't mention are pressing G to lower the gear before landing, contacting the ground crew, reselecting armament and then pressing G again after takeoff. All of that followed by the previously mentioned attack instructions.

I've spent some more time with it on 104th and here is what I've noted on rearming: 1) No issue rearming RB-04's and RB-15's, it even remembers the Bx waypoints for the RB-15's. 2) RB-75T's rearm but the TV screen doesn't work for the second batch of missiles, so still broken. 3) Sidewinders work fine, though RB-74's are rear aspect only both initially and after rearming (should be all aspect). 4) Bombs/rockets/gunpods/ECM/countermeasures not tested for rearm issues. For process, I start it up normally (see tutorial mission), select ANF, appropriate weapon selector position (attack, RB05, IR, ect), set the two switches to single fire and single target (std) and open the trigger safety. I've done this in every order imaginable without ill effect except for the trigger safety, which I always save for last. Prior to rearming, I set back to nav mode and close the trigger safety, cycling weapons, firing switches and so on doesn't seem to have any effect on rearming. I make sure to always dump my drop tank (if carried) prior to landing though. I do not always bring a drop tank though. Haven't noticed any difference in rearming problems between the two setups.

Yep, Vulkan is very unlikely. I'm teaching myself that API and trust me, even just learning it is no small task. It does offer one hell of a performance boost over DX11 when implemented properly, as demonstrated by the few games with both API's. I know nothing about DX11 and 12 other than it's similar to the relationship between OpenGL and Vulkan. The performance boost so far with DX12 seems to only apply to AMD cards, Nvidia lose performance with it for some reason, at least with the games made so far.

I've only tried once so far. Not sure what we are doing that's different. I fire both rb04 and rb15 in single mode (both switches) and default settings. I'm also not 100℅ sure I fired 2 sets of 04's. I may have done a pair of 04's followed by 3-4 pairs of 15's. Only had one session since update.

Did you actually get the update yesterday? I had to launch the DCS updater manually. Other than that, I've done nothing special. I takeoff, shoot the missiles, land, rearm and takeoff again. I didn't touch the nav system other than selecting the target waypoint and the airfield if it was even saved as a waypoint (I don't always bother). Hell, I did all but the first takeoff in regular nav mode since I haven't a clue how to get back into takeoff mode after landing. If you did get the update, then the only thing I can think of is reactivating the trigger safety prior to rearming.

It's fixed, been blasting off wave after wave of rb04 and rb15's on 104th. Haven't tested Mavs yet. No action is required to load them into computer, just call ground crew to rearm like most other planes.

It would be helpful if we could get it on an axis like the real one.

The initial drivers for the RX480 had about 10% lower performance in dx11 compared to the 1060. That is no longer the case (equal now). The driver update in December corrected that disparity. Check any RX480 vs GTX1060 review made from December till present for current information. That old review from July doesn't reflect the current situation. Additionally, the RX480 is massively faster in DX12 and Vulkan, suggesting it has more room for DX11 optimization. The 1060 doesn't gain much in Vulkan and actually loses performance in DX12, so further driver improvements in DX11 are unlikely, it's already tapped out. The GTX1060 is simply not a competitive product at its current price. Its closest AMD competitor in performance is the RX470, not the 480.

I just flew that mission for you after configuring those exact graphics options, I bottomed out at 49 fps when looking around at spawn and 37 fps during the mission overall. Average fps was around 45-50 for nearly all of it. Folding the mirrors gave far better results, spawn fps was 80-100 in all directions and it bottomed out at 54 fps while fighting. Average was over 90 fps for the mission. Lesson there is turn off the mirrors, but that's another topic. System specs as follows: I5-4690, MSI RX480 8GB Gaming X, 16GB DDR3 (pc2400), win10 and using open beta client.