kksnowbear

Check PM

I have a 7800X3D and 4090...but part of the problem with this idea is exactly as you say. To my knowledge, there is no in game benchmark in DCS. Most people refer to using "track files" (if I've followed correctly) but I'm pretty sure that's not the same thing as running a dedicated, 'purpose-built' benchmark. I see lots of comparison discussions here where one guy says his CPU/GPU runs at x FPS/y frame times and "smooth as silk"...but then another guy with basically the same hardware says he's looking at a stuttering mess...obviously something's different. What they're failing to take into account is what we're talking about here: It's not the similarities in the two setups, it's the differences. As you've said: The two system 'environments' (OS, drivers, utils, even other apps) would have to be the same - and that is very difficult (and time consuming) to do. Not to mention that (as you said) if we take something like Process Lasso, just as one example, maybe one guy insists on having it where another guy refuses to ever use it. And again, that's just one example. Lots of others. One guy undervolts his GPU, the other does not. One guy spent hours and hours "fine tuning the tertiary timings" on his build, the other set BIOS for XMP/EXPO and left it at that. I could go on and on. Now, which of these two guys is going to change his setup to match the other's? So in reality you're not just talking about two guys, one with a 14900K/4090 and the other with a 7800X3D/4090. They'd have to have the same components (as close as practically possible) including RAM speeds/timings, etc...and then the same OS, drivers, etc... You can see it becomes progressively more difficult to find two systems that are truly "the same", and in order to overcome the differences, one guy or the other would have to change his entire setup to match the other's...I can't speak for anyone else, I don't think I'd want to do all that TBH - and doing it any other way is what I'd call a 'half measure', which leads to the kind of confusion I described above, which you do see all the time on flight sim forums. I do a lot of testing in my shop, for various reasons. I can tell you first hand that testing like this isn't something you do in a day. In can take days or even more depending on a lot of factors, which I won't go into here. I'd go a step further and say that (IMO), the single biggest reason people arrive at such very different outcomes with all the "testing" you read about on a forum like this one, is that they don't put the necessary effort and discipline into making sure they don't introduce variance by allowing differences. Proper testing is actually not trivial, and can be very demanding work. Hopefully that makes sense. To be clear, I'm not saying it's impossible - of course not. I'm just elaborating on why it's essential to compare two systems that are the same, and yet why that's also the reason it's very difficult to actually do so.

Yes, I realize all that. We have tax in the states too, required by law (with perhaps a very few notable exceptions) - though yes, I am aware it is not at the same level as in Europe. As I said, that's simply unfortunate. During my time in the military I traveled through and was stationed in parts of Europe, so I'm familiar, first hand. I only said what I did originally since I get tired of getting jumped on because EU prices are always higher and I'm citing US prices. I do feel it's unfortunate, but it's not my fault and it's not something I need to be concerned with, since I don't live, shop, or sell in the EU. The point is that a lot of stuff is usually more expensive there, not just computers/components. It costs more to buy stuff there; not as if it's just computer stuff. Pretty much everyone in the US - and in many cases, people outside the US - cite prices in, and use USD as the basis for, comparison when discussing computer stuff. For example, the HUB videos typically cite prices in USD, but they're in Australia. Lots of other examples, too. No need to carry on like I'm wrong when I do the same thing here. The constant, and seemingly automatic complaint that "You can't buy it for that (US) price in the EU" is pointless; it may be true, but that's the way it is. As unfortunate as it may be, things don't cost the same in different places around the world.

Sure thing, glad if it helps Another big factor is price, more so if you're looking at replacing other components (ie motherboard etc). Especially in EU prices seem to always be higher, just an unfortunate reality I guess.

I think the problem with what you're asking is made up of two parts: 1. The people who do benchmark 'reviews' don't usually test DCS. Even some of the extensive testing I've seen (eg 40-game tests) don't include DCS. The only flight sim you usually see is MSFS, and I'm not sure how much of an 'analogue' that really is for DCS (particularly in VR). Both are fairly demanding, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're demanding for the same reasons. (FWIW I think they're not). 2. People doing DCS-specific testing (as 'enthusiasts') don't usually have two full setups (one an AM5, the other a Raptor Lake as you specified), to do side-by-side testing. With that said, I think it's generally understood the 7800X3D performs better overall in DCS (due primarily to it's additional cache), and I believe AMD has now reported the 9800X3D to be on average ~8% better than the 7800X3D. This is AMD's internal testing, mind you, so I'm thinking it will be a little less in the 3rd-party reviews. So let's say 5-6%, and the prices are very close ATM (subject to change, of course). I believe it's also true to say that AMD has committed to AM5 supporting the *next* generation of CPUs (Ryzen X or 10000, I suppose), which if I understand correctly will be based on Zen6. So any upgrade plans would need to consider this. AMD is supposed to support the Am5 socket through 2027; Intel is tripping over their own dangley-bits right now, but I guess it's possible that by 2027 they could actually pull their sh*t together. I do realize this is sort of a vague answer to your inquiry but it's probably close as anyone can get.

Am I looking at the "Monitoring" section correctly? In other words, is it correct to say your CPU is at 5.0GHz, your GPU memory at 1500, and the GPU clock at 3000? That's what it looks like, but I'm not sure if I'm seeing the graph correctly.

Thanks for the new info. The additional detail does help with answering your initial question. Three points that were missing earlier: 1. Cost of 5700X3D: The 5700X3D price you're citing is better than I have seen "retail", which in the US was approaching $250 as I said. If you can get it for $160 ("all in", with any shipping taxes/duties etc) that's a fairly significant difference. I could be way off base here, but I personally would be concerned about the difference in price and where it's coming from ("If it sounds too good to be true...") - but again, that's just me personally. I have had both good and bad experiences with AliExpress. 2. Platform you'd be upgrading: Your motherboard is an X570 model, which is as good as it gets in an AM4 platform, so it's not as if you're upgrading a board so old it's missing newer features. That was a concern I had previously TBH. 3. Budget: If your budget situation favors spending a little now rather than a complete upgrade, that's certainly your choice. I would agree that $160 is a fairly small price for what you might realize from the cost. So: These three new details would all lean more toward the 5700X3D being a 'good idea', certainly. (Obviously, you're not wrong about higher cost of upgrading to a newer platform). However, in my mind, the bigger concern remains what you expect to get from it - which is much more difficult (impossible?) to quantify. The concern (for me) is that you've mentioned 'smoothness' several times, and you're a VR player. You also mentioned "reduce some of the stuttering"... I'm going to go back to what I said earlier; that no one here really knows what you are thinking of with terms like 'smoothness'...there is a lot of discussion regarding frame times, which I think it's been established that an X3D CPU will improve. At the same time, DCS can be a mess at times, particularly in VR. "Stuttering" is perhaps the most mentioned, argued about, and aggravating facet of running DCS (and in some cases that includes much more powerful systems than yours). I'm just not convinced that going to the 5700X3D is going to resolve all the issues that are there, and thus I have to wonder how much of that is what you're hoping to get rid of by changing CPUs. I will say here that in a lot of cases where people aren't happy with DCS' performance, I would say often that expectations are a big factor. That's far more casual, anecdotal observation than it is empirical fact - but there it is. In any event, as I said previously: If someone were standing in my shop, I'd advise them based on my own thoughts and experiences. I still believe you're better off putting any 'new money' toward the next step, as opposed to a 'stopgap' upgrade - strictly my opinion, FWIW. (I note here that you have stated you're "actually pretty happy with...performance") That said, if the person still wanted me to do the upgrade, I'd do it - with the very specific caveat that it may not completely fix 'smoothness' as they perceive it, and they may or may not feel it's "worth it" once they see it running. LOL I've done some work where I basically *begged* a client *not* to spend money, because I didn't think it was going to do what they wanted. But they insisted, so I did it after making my position clear. Either way you decide, I do sincerely hope it works out as you want, and I'd be very interested in hearing back if you decide to change to the 5700X3D. As others have mentioned, DCS isn't usually among the more popular benchmarks/reviews, so it might be good to hear how it goes with DCS specifically. Best of luck to you...look forward to hearing back

I am glad if it helps. My opinion seems to differ from others - but as I've indicated, it is my opinion. It's also based on several factors, and still depends on budget (which you haven't given any detail on, other than to say the 5700X3D is "a rather small cost if it would allow me to skip AM5 and then do a complete new build when AM6 arrive.") The 5700X3D is comparatively new, so I'm not sure you'd find a lot of used units - meaning I think you're referring to cost of a new unit. If that's true, then we're looking at ~$225 retail (US). If someone were to walk in my shop with your exact situation, I'd tell them I don't think it's worth spending nearly $250 (taxes) on upgrading a CPU on the platform you have, that IMO just isn't going to 'feel' like that much of an upgrade. As I've said more than once, the X3Ds are great, known for being gaming performers, I would just hate to sell someone on buying brand new hardware only to have them disappointed with the outcome. Better safe than sorry, as it were. Something no one here can really judge at all is your level of expectation. You wouldn't be the first person to say they had reasonable expectations, only to be unhappy when they weren't met - not saying you are, but there have been many! It happens right here on the forum from time to time. And as a builder myself, I have to be aware of/sensitive to the fact that it happens, else face a dissatisfied buyer and lost confidence. Among other things, your sig doesn't indicate what kind of motherboard you have...you could have a 5800X on a very low-end B450 board for all anyone reading this knows, which could support a Zen3 CPU but still be very dated in other areas/features. Should I recommend you spend $250 upgrading such a platform when it's already getting dated? Not in my mind - but again, this ties back to budget, as I said in my first post, and further depends on as-yet-unknown details. Something else: Yes, I think it's generally accepted that the X3Ds are good at helping with frametimes/smoothness...but I also realize that DCS has some ugly performance tendencies at times. It's been discussed over and over again on this forum, TBH. And there are people right here in this thread who are very vocal about these performance issues. So, the real questions then become: Would an X3D CPU help "smooth out" DCS? Possibly. But is that the same as saying it will overcome DCS' inherent performance issues, to the point you're happy you spent ~$250? Now that I'm just not so sure of. In fact, in my opinion, I don't think it's going to solve all the problems you perceive with lack of smoothness. I think at least part of that is intractable within DCS at present, and not something even *much* more capable CPUs have completely resolved. Again, a big part of the problem is that no one here - including me - really knows what you are expecting to get, and that's the absolute truth. (Though it does appear that I'm possibly the only one thinking all this through in this level of detail and pointing it out). To be clear: I don't think you're wrong about the AM5/AM6 thing. If it seems I've misunderstood you, I apologize. To further clarify, I don't think it's wise to dismiss Zen4 on AM5. From where you are now, that's a sizable upgrade that might cost more, but I feel might make you happier with the outcome. And, if it's done right, I don't think the cost would be terrible - but again, that depends on budget and what deals you can get where you are, etc. IMO, you're better off saving your money such that your next move is to Zen4 (or 5) on an AM5 platform, rather than putting more into the great-but-aging AM4 platform that you have now. There are distinct and clear advantages to buying new hardware (or even good used stuff) a generation behind what's "latest and greatest" - chief among then, avoiding the absolutely crazy prices you usually see at introduction. That's a strategy I've used for many years now, as do many many other gamers, and I do recommend it's worth considering. But as I keep saying: It depends on budget. That's my opinion - and why - FWIW.

Yes but (as I explained already) I was looking at the "recent HUB reviews of new Intel chips", because that's where it was said they were. (You must have overlooked that part). Couldn't care less about GN as I said. As I described I had just finished watching both HUB new Intel reviews, but saw no mention of 5700X3D. I did go back and double check...not there. So I asked for a link. It's common practice on the internet to ask for a link to corroborate a claim; up to the person who made the claim, not really up to the reader to chase down corroborating data. And it turns out there was no HUB new Intel review that compared a 5700X3D to a 5800X. So yeah, I guess that's my fault now...? Better get the mods lol

Yeah. Of course, since the real world professional experience and training tends to keep me very busy doing paid work...you probably don't wanna hold your breath, waiting for me to look at CPUs that are now two generations old. Of course, if you wish to retain services for having said comprehensive review done, I can offer a quote via PM. (Because, you know...that's what "professional" means; I usually get paid to do this work). As I already said, I think the 5700X3D is a great chip. If someone has a AM4 board with something like a 2600 or 3600x and can't find a 5800X3D for what they wanna pay, sure. But buying a 5700X3D as a replacement for a 5800X and a means to skip AM4 and AM5 (as the OP asked)? My considered professional opinion is as stated: Depending on the budget situation (as always), I can't recommend it. And I don't really require spending a ton of time to arrive at that conclusion, thanks.

Yeahhhhh...zero confidence in that lot, thanks. You tend to have a totally different perspective of all the YouTube "reviewers" after years of formal training and first-hand, real world professional experience. So it wasn't a HUB Intel review then?

Well that explains it. Didn't see it in the HUB Intel release videos...that's a 5700X3D review, so I'm guessing it's not what was referenced above. Still like to see that. It is a bit surprising but not really earth shattering IMO. 10 game average is something like 17%...in some games it's far lower, so it obviously depends. I think DCS would be on the low end of that range. Having done quite a few AM4 machines (including my own) from 5800X to 5800X3D, I'm certain there was never anything even close to a 30% increase. I'm thinking maybe 5-10% (and that's a 5800X3D) He usually does a lot more games in his averages (20 to even 40) and it's curious this is only 10. Even he said recently that it was curious that AMD tested such a limited number of games for their internal AM5 numbers. He actually said cherry picking IIRC. Plus when you factor in price, I would still maintain the difference is pretty much meh and not worth the cost....and certainly not worthy of skipping AM4 IMO - to directly address the OP's question.

Link? I watched two very recent HUB videos about the new Intel CPUs, but don't recall seeing a 5700X3D in the CPUs they tested. Could be wrong. I went back just now and (very quickly) checked a few of the recent Intel reviews again, and while the 5800X is there, I still don't see a 5700X3D. Maybe I'm missing something? (PS Don't care about GN, just HUB.)

I think the 5700X3D is a great CPU. It's generally accepted that the X3D CPUs broadly provide "best in class" gaming performance. But the 5800X isn't exactly slouchy, and even after years of experience, having built lots of AM3 machines, I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to which of the two is better- that is to say that, in my opinion, the difference you'll get isnt going to justify the cost. If it were free, maybe....but even then IMO it's going to be kinda "meh". And, to be clear, although you have to decide for yourself whether skipping AM4 and AM5 is right for you, I don't think either the 5700X3D or the 5800X is really so much of a performer that it means you should wait on AM6. IMO of course. But you do have to consider budget, and without that it's impossible to say what's the best approach. HTH Good luck

My comments are simply presenting other perspectives to topics. What I post is backed up by supporting fact and corriborating evidence. Impossible to be objective without considering both sides. The support isn't 24/7 as you said. Not wild accusation, fact. Does it matter when it was changed? They don't offer it to someone buying now. (My Dad bought a brand new Oldsmobile in 1972 for ~$4000. Completely irrelevant to what buyers can get now.) I do wonder, though - can you still call them outside their stated hours, or did they "take back" the 24/7 support they sold you on? The financial records I cited serve to corroborate that, on a $4000 sale, these vendors are making ~$1000 (23% IIRC, do the math). That's fact, right from the company's financial disclosure. I'm not talking about a business simply making a profit, it's about how much. Your $500 estimate is just that, an idea with no basis in fact. By comparison, the company's financial records indicate a much higher number. You said "everyone was selling" 13th Gen Intel CPUs. Not true. Apparently you paid to replace the defective CPU...Intel is replacing them for free. Origin sold you the thing, and by the time yours failed, a responsible system integrator would definitely have known what was going on. (According to the post below you replaced yours ~ April 2024, and the issue was already being widely reported and investigated by then): The 13900k was released publicly in October 2022. That's only two years ago, so yours would still be under the warranty they extended because of all the mess. So, one has to wonder, then, why anyone would go to a third party and pay to replace something Origin has acknowledged was defective, especially if their support was all that great. Wouldn't it be much easier (and ~$500 cheaper) to have Origin honor their commitment? See, the problem is that the details indicate a lot of what you say unfortunately just doesn't line up with the available facts. I could go on and on but there's no point in presenting objective fact and supporting detail to anyone who just won't listen. I would encourage the OP and others reading here to consider the facts carefully and to make an objective, informed decision. (PS: I've already indicated I have no interest in selling anything or promoting myself in this case. My criticism of the vendors is backed up by factual details that can be easily verified. Please leave the personal attacks and your opinions about my business out of it, they have nothing to do with anything here).

This. 100%. I still offer to do overclocking as a service, but because of the time involved in doing it properly, I can't do it for free. But I also have to be honest and acknowledge it's hardly worth it any more (perhaps with a very few notable exceptions...and less of those, as time goes on).

The OP asked for advice that explicitly includes negatives: The request was not for only glowing, positive reviews of online vendors. Independent/local builders were not excluded - which I maintain is a much better alternative. I suppose, technically, one could argue that I haven't actually bought from one of these online vendors (nor would I). But I have, on multiple occasions through many years, worked with people who made the mistake of buying these prebuilt machines and came to me to replace them. I have factually worked inside these machines and seen first hand the kind of build quality, and it's been pretty bad at times. It's important to note these observations were echoed by others with similar experience in this area. My comments are entirely on topic and intended to present a different perspective, with relevant fact and details to support that perspective. Fact is, it's impossible to make an objective choice if we're just going to refuse to listen to differing perspectives. But, as I said: Everyone's free to make their own choice. I have long since indicated that if there's absolutely no other choice, then by all means go for it. Just seems appropriate to me that in a hardware discussion forum, it's important to examine both sides of the question. The OP was wise enough to solicit "not so happy" responses as well. Glowing, positive reviews are fine, but it's a bit disingenuous and misleading to exclude other views just because they're not agreeable to some.

Well, at least we got to the bottom of the "24/7" myth. Lifetime support, that is only available during normal working hours? Basically you're looking at taking a day off to be able to talk to someone. Can't say I ever forced any of my clients to do that. That's kinda the point, in fact: It gets brought up that a business is less likely to have problems maintaining a support commitment - you'll notice I don't argue that point. But you can't just focus on half the discussion, either. As I said, businesses do fail, so it's not foolproof. And what about the quality of the support? You're factually getting the lowest man on the totem pole when you call the Help Desk. He's the guy who has a flip chart that starts with "Let's check to see it's plugged in". He is limited by internal policy as to what he can and cannot do. With me, any call is immediately handled by the CEO, Director of Support, and every other resource - including a 40+ year veteran of computerized systems support. I am authorized to do whatever I want to satisfy a client, and there's no 'escalation' required. As far as hours go, I can assure you I've worked all hours of the day and night, plus done 'house calls' (including multiple trips), and had clients come to the shop for testing, side-by-side with me, so that we could find/fix problems. In fact, I usually insist that a (local) client do exactly that before letting a machine go out, so that both of us can see it's working as expected - no surprises. Factually, I have answered a call on Christmas Eve, from a client who I did a build for in another state. This client paid $450 IIRC for a complete system, shipping included, two years prior to this event. Within 24 hours (that's on Christmas day, if you're following) his problem was resolved. In another instance, I was contacted after a couple years by a client who had a failed optical drive. I shipped him a replacement drive, at no cost (even for the shipping), immediately. This was also a system more than two years old. These were used systems, explicitly sold at very low cost per client wishes, and with 90-day warranties (as is typical for used hardware). Yet, after more than two years, I have factually jumped right in, dealt with the problems, and even covered shipping replacement parts. I don't think these online vendors are going to do any of that. Yes, there might be areas where a vendor has the advantage of being a company. But you have to look at both sides of the coin: There's plenty that I can and have done that a company's policies are never (ever) going to allow. Well...not everyone. I sold quite a few AMD-based machines back then, as well as Intel machines *not* using the 13th or 14th gen, simply because I wasn't impressed with them. See, unlike the vendors, I won't sell something if I can't tell a client I think it's a good deal. However, that's not the point. Earlier, you said: You've consistently brought up their support as the reason it's worth paying $1000+ more than the machine should cost. (The prices have been confirmed by checking Origin, and their profit can be corroborated by the parent company's financial reporting). But their support isn't what you've indicated. Not only are the hours far less, but in the case of Intel chip degradation, they sold you the CPU. Best case, they're obligated. (God forbid they charged you to replace it!) It's not above and beyond if they have to 'support' what they caused by selling you that system. You don't get a medal for doing your job. It's not exactly a shining example of stellar support if they have to correct something they stuck you with in the first place.

Nah...not really. Not to me anyhow. And I bet not to a ton of knowledgeable people, either.

So out of curiosity: What if they don't actually offer a choice (or a choice that one finds acceptable)?

To be honest, the only thing that surprises me about all this... ...is that anyone is surprised about it.

I think you don't fully understand the board assembly and approval process. It is not as simple as you apparently think. I was referring to the board design, which includes the components actually used - and my particular reference has nothing to do with cracking substrates. On the PSU, I believe it's accurate that all switch mode PSUs are most efficient at 50% load, as I said - but I welcome any reference you have that shows otherwise. It would also appear you don't have a complete understanding of storage subsystem performance. Factually the more drives, the better performance*. This is true because of "resource contention" which can be readily observed. More drives = less time spent satisfying data load, which increases availability, thus improving performance. In storage subsystems, performance is always a function of availability, and availability is increased with more drives* *(with proper configuration...simply *having* multiple drives doesn't count). All the rest of the stuff you mentioned (cooling, PCIe lanes) is a matter of good component selection and installation - and simply illustrates the importance of a good builder who knows what he's doing. Offering a WD Blue drive with a PCIe 5 capable Zen4 build (as tge CyberPower site does) doesn't strike me as something that's really preferred. Yes, if "cheap" is the goal, sure...but then none of these prebuilt vendors even come close to what I'd call "cheap" That's exactly my point: they charge premium prices for hardware that just doesn't warrant the high price. And the reason is simple: they make a ton in profit. That's it.

Then one has to wonder why their website doesn't say that. As I said above (and posted a pic directly from their website), it clearly says 6am-8pm PST. As I said previously maybe it changed since you bought from them. Maybe you paid extra (more still ???). Don't know. What I know is what their site says, and it does not say 24/7: null (Incidentally, since they're the ones who sold you the Intel CPU in the first place, well...). Best case, they were obligated to support it - and as we used to say in the good old USN: You don't get a medal for doing your job.

Yeah...except that (as I've now mentioned, several times) most of these vendors (certainly neither Origin nor CyberPower) do not actually offer 24/7 support (nor do the other vendors, I bet). Sure they have an email address you can write, or AI chat bots that will respond any time. Sorry, that's not 24/7 support, and I'm surprised people here are still claiming it is. There is also the question of the quality of support you actually get. Let's just say the guys answering the phones aren't exactly top-tier technical assets. (If they are, they aren't working the Help Desk lmao) Businesses can and have gone under, so that's not fool proof either. And to be brutally honest, if a machine you bought requires that much "support" to begin with, I'd say something's wrong with the machine, the user, or both.