Svsmokey Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 I don't know how . Dx11 benchmarks are always what i look at most , followed by Vulkan . But as i understand it , the DCS engine is proprietary , so... 9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 heavy simulations have a different behavior and tax system resources different from those shooters in all the benchmarks. I bet DCS will benufit more from the added cache and the new floating point bandwidth. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavemanhead Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Overall, the 3700X looks too be a sweet spot for performance gamers with a future proof upgrade path as the platform develops further. A +5% is almost statistically non-relevant and with bios optimizations, and core tools the Ryzen will most likely outperform the 9900k anyway. It will be interesting to see DCS comparisons... One thing that caught my eye is that the max high point fps may be as mush as 5% lower, the overall fps experience is smoother because the way the chip works making a more favorable "feeling" in games. Additionally, the capability to load up other programs that run along with DCS onto other cores will unload the main core CPU and further optimize the experience beyond a 9900k. Original link for info that follows: ----------------- Ryzen 3000 (Zen 2) Meta Review: ~1540 Application Benchmarks & ~420 Gaming Benchmarks compiled Review Application Performance compiled from 18 launch reviews, ~1540 single benchmarks included "average" stand in all cases for the geometric mean average weighted in favor of these reviews with a higher number of benchmarks not included theoretical tests like Sandra & AIDA not included singlethread results (Cinebench ST, Geekbench ST) and singlethread benchmarks (SuperPI) not included PCMark overall results (bad scaling because of system & disk tests included) on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +34.6% faster than the Ryzen 7 1700X on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +21.8% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X (on nearly the same clocks) on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +82.5% faster than the Core i7-7700K on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +30.5% faster than the Core i7-8700K on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +22.9% faster than the Core i7-9700K (and $45 cheaper) on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +2.2% faster than the Core i9-9900K (and $159 cheaper) some launch reviews see the Core i9-9900K slightly above the Ryzen 7 3700X, some below - so it's more like a draw on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is +27.2% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is +30.1% faster than the Core i9-9900K ApplicationsTests1800X2700X3700X3900X7700K8700K9700K9900KCPU Cores 8C/16T8C/16T8C/16T12C/24T4C/8T6C/12T8C/8T8C/16TClocks (GHz) 3.6/4.03.7/4.33.6/4.43.8/4.64.2/4.53.7/4.73.6/4.93.6/5.0TDP 95W105W65W105W95W95W95W95WAnandTech(19)73.2%81.1%100%117.4%58.0%77.9%85.9%96.2%ComputerBase(9)73.5%82.9%100%137.8%50.5%72.1%-100.0%Cowcotland(12)-77.9%100%126.9%--83.0%97.1%Golem(7)72.1%78.1%100%124.6%--80.5%87.9%Guru3D(13)-86.6%100%135.0%-73.3%79.9%99.5%Hardware.info(14)71.7%78.2%100%123.6%-79.3%87.6%94.2%Hardwareluxx(10)-79.9%100%140.2%51.3%74.0%76.1%101.1%Hot Hardware(8)-79.5%100%126.8%---103.6%Lab501(9)-79.4%100%138.1%-78.8%75.2%103.1%LanOC(13)-82.2%100%127.8%-75.7%-103.8%Le Comptoir(16)72.9%79.4%100%137.2%-69.6%68.5%85.2%Overclock3D(7)-80.1%100%130.0%--75.3%91.4%PCLab(18)-83.4%100%124.9%-76.5%81.6%94.0%SweClockers(8)73.7%84.8%100%129.5%49.6%71.0%72.7%91.9%TechPowerUp(29)78.1%85.9%100%119.7%-86.7%88.1%101.2%TechSpot(8)72.8%78.8%100%135.8%49.9%72.4%73.1%101.3%Tech Report(17)75.0%83.6%100%123.3%-78.4%-101.8%Tom's HW(25)76.3%85.1%100%122.6%--87.3%101.3%Perf. Avg. 74.3%82.1%100%127.2%~55%76.6%81.4%97.8%List Price (EOL) ($349)$329$329$499($339)($359)$374$488Gaming Performance compiled from 9 launch reviews, ~420 single benchmarks included "average" stand in all cases for the geometric mean only tests/results with 1% minimum framerates (usually on FullHD/1080p resolution) included average slightly weighted in favor of these reviews with a higher number of benchmarks not included any 3DMark & Unigine benchmarks results from Zen 2 & Coffee Lake CPUs all in the same results sphere, just a 7% difference between the lowest and the highest (average) result on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +28.5% faster than the Ryzen 7 1700X on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +15.9% faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X (on nearly the same clocks) on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is +9.4% faster than the Core i7-7700K on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is -1.1% slower than the Core i7-8700K on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is -5.9% slower than the Core i7-9700K (but $45 cheaper) on average the Ryzen 7 3700X is -6.9% slower than the Core i9-9900K (but $159 cheaper) on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is +1.8% faster than the Ryzen 7 3700X on average the Ryzen 9 3900X is -5.2% slower than the Core i9-9900K there is just a small difference between Core i7-9700K (8C/8T) and Core i9-9900K (8C/16T) of +1.0%, indicate that HyperThreading is not very useful (on gaming) for these CPUs with 8 cores and more Games (1%min)Tests1800X2700X3700X3900X7700K8700K9700K9900KCPU Cores 8C/16T8C/16T8C/16T12C/24T4C/8T6C/12T8C/8T8C/16TClocks (GHz) 3.6/4.03.7/4.33.6/4.43.8/4.64.2/4.53.7/4.73.6/4.93.6/5.0TDP 95W105W65W105W95W95W95W95WComputerBase(9)74%86%100%101%-97%-102%GameStar(6)86.6%92.3%100%102.7%100.3%102.8%108.6%110.4%Golem(8)72.5%83.6%100%104.7%--107.2%111.7%PCGH(6)-80.9%100%104.1%92.9%100.1%103.8%102.0%PCPer(4)89.6%92.5%100%96.1%-99.2%100.4%99.9%SweClockers(6)77.0%82.7%100%102.9%86.1%97.9%111.0%109.1%TechSpot(9)83.8%91.8%100%102.2%89.8%105.1%110.0%110.6%Tech Report(5)81.3%84.6%100%103.2%-106.6%-114.1%Tom's HW(10)74.0%83.9%100%99.5%--104.5%106.1%Perf. Avg. 77.8%86.3%100%101.8%~91%101.1%106.3%107.4%List Price Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toutenglisse Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 heavy simulations have a different behavior and tax system resources different from those shooters in all the benchmarks. I bet DCS will benufit more from the added cache and the new floating point bandwidth. I think it's not definitive because of bios issues (?), but XP11 benchmark shows 3700x and 3900x behind (but not far) all the intel Ks cpus (8700 -> 9900). [ATTACH]213644[/ATTACH] http://www.comptoir-hardware.com/articles/cpu-mobo-ram/39273-test-amd-zen-2-x570-a-ryzen-7-3700x-ryzen-9-3900x.html?start=14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitMaster Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 I have 25 Bios updates since release of my Asus Z370, since Asus uses the core Bios on most if not all Z370 they sold, it is likely this counts for all Z370 boards from Asus...and likely other vendors wont have much less Bios's issued. Guess WHY ? Intel....no way until they fix their silicon flaws and stop hammering out UPDATE after UPDATE and still no end in sight. I happily give 10 of my 120 fps away and save me that hassle. check yourself : https://www.asus.com/de/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-Z370-E-GAMING/HelpDesk_Download/ in addition...I doubt this does not apply to Z390. Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirin Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 The XPlane 11 benchmarks are interesting. Can't wait for the real DCS and especially DCS VR benchmarks. Where are our fellow pilots? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svsmokey Posted July 12, 2019 Share Posted July 12, 2019 Same here, interested to see what other DCS users have to say about it. I want to know what resolution those X-Plane 11 tests were done at? That's really important. Almost none of the Rzyen 3700x, 3800x and 3900x reviews and accompanying benchmarks have been done at 4k resolution in video games and it's really annoying. At 4k the difference is supposed to be minimal in fps between Ryzen and Intel but I want to make sure before I spend my money. Try Torgue Tech on YouTube 9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toutenglisse Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 ...I want to know what resolution those X-Plane 11 tests were done at? That's really important.... 1920 x 1080 with a 2080Ti oc. Zero oc on tested cpus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Svsmokey Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 I searched "Ryzen 4k benchmark" on youtube to find it . Gotta do something weird for youtube links here , and i don't recall what . 9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toutenglisse Posted July 13, 2019 Share Posted July 13, 2019 I have 25 Bios updates since release of my Asus Z370... Yes those numbers are crazy. Personnally I had more luck with intel, no gripes, same with nvidia, but the 2 cards I had from I think ATI, it was not AMD at this time, (9800 pro and x800xt) both fried in no time … There's a kind of luck, and of course quality can change. My own gripe is against games that update 25 times a year, each time size between 10 and 20 GB (I have a poor 1mb/s max internet …), and when playing you feel no difference … :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cavemanhead Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 TO FOLKS WANTING 4K BENCHMARKS... A good CPU test has "zero" video load so as to not ruin the benchmark. Testing at 4K will give you skewed performance numbers that are essentially meaningless in the context of CPU performance. Look for 1080P benchmarks of you want to understand the impacts of the CPUs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 TO FOLKS WANTING 4K BENCHMARKS... A good CPU test has "zero" video load so as to not ruin the benchmark. Testing at 4K will give you skewed performance numbers that are essentially meaningless in the context of CPU performance. Look for 1080P benchmarks of you want to understand the impacts of the CPUs... Yes, we know that, but VR has some specific requirements when it comes to CPU, so we need to wait for specific DCS VR tests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman1330 Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Sorry guys, the few times I’ve gotten it to boot, all I’ve done is basic cinebench runs. I’m more focussed on getting it to boot consistently for the time being. As soon as I get it running smoothly, I’ll do some DCS specific VR tests. I’ve put my 1600X back in for the time being, waiting on a newer BIOS before trying again. Pilotasso, have you got it up and running yet? Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 My order is not thru, and something tells me the 3900X model will be in short supply for a while. [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitMaster Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 If I understood this right, the 3900x die is the top of the line binning, that's why it comes later to market. The shorter the supply and the longer it takes to have enough of them to start actually selling the less top-end dies they produce. Some sites mention 3900X will be sold by AMD, maybe only AMD. That would correspond with short supply and warehousing. Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calinho Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 Which is best for DCS at 1440? 9900K ou Ryzen 9 3900x? In my country, 9900K + decent Z390 is cheaper than 3900X + entry level X570 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman1330 Posted July 14, 2019 Share Posted July 14, 2019 That’s strange, because I preordered both the 3800X and 3900X, the plan being to take whichever came in first and cancel the other. 3800X still hasn’t come in yet, but I’ve had 3900X since Wednesday. It’s backordered again, so it must have been a small shipment. It also could be that 3900X gives more flexibility on binning, since each chiplet has 2 cores disabled, they only need 6/8 cores on each chiplet to bin well. Either way, I have it but can’t use it, which is a shame as I know many are waiting on this chip. Here’s hoping for updated BIOS later this week. Incidentally, not sure if I posted this, but I bought super cheap 4GB 1.2v RAM, and got the same Q code, so not sure if it’s RAM related, or maybe the chips memory controller. Also had my GSkill RAM tested, it passed. Hoping it’s just BIOS! Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BitMaster Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 AMD Boot Kit for struggling owners w/o Bios Flashback Boards: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-offers-free-%E2%80%98boot-kit%E2%80%99-for-struggling-ryzen-3000-owners.html Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilotasso Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 (edited) That’s strange, because I preordered both the 3800X and 3900X, the plan being to take whichever came in first and cancel the other. 3800X still hasn’t come in yet, but I’ve had 3900X since Wednesday. It’s backordered again, so it must have been a small shipment. It also could be that 3900X gives more flexibility on binning, since each chiplet has 2 cores disabled, they only need 6/8 cores on each chiplet to bin well. Either way, I have it but can’t use it, which is a shame as I know many are waiting on this chip. Here’s hoping for updated BIOS later this week. Incidentally, not sure if I posted this, but I bought super cheap 4GB 1.2v RAM, and got the same Q code, so not sure if it’s RAM related, or maybe the chips memory controller. Also had my GSkill RAM tested, it passed. Hoping it’s just BIOS! Strange? No. It's an AMD launch with the usual train wreck. :D There are no good BIOSes yet either. Installing the new CPU right now is a gamble. Edited July 15, 2019 by Pilotasso [sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic] My PC specs below:Case: Corsair 400C PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T) RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4 GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman1330 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 Strange? No. It's an AMD launch with the usual train wreck. :D There are no good BIOSes yet either. Installing the new CPU right now is a gamble. Haha touché! Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etherbattx Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 where’s the fun if it “just works”? that would be boring and unsatisfying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DackSter94 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 (edited) 3700x Benchmark vs old i5 3570k Old setup: CPU: i5 3570k OC (boosts up to 4.2GHz) RAM: 24GB DDR3-1866 (CL 10-11-10) GPU (same): Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB New setup: CPU: Ryzen 3700x Stock (boosts to 4.3GHz+) RAM: 32GB DDR4-3600 (CL 17-19-19) GPU (same): Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB Game settings: Resolution: 2560x1440 Everything on minimum or off if possible, except the following: Textures – High, Terrain Textures – High, Visib. range - high, Res. Of cockpit Displays: 1024EF, Preload raidus: 60500, Anisotropic filtering: 16x,[x] Full Screen, [x] Scale GUI Reshade: Default Lumasharpen and HDR effects on. As you can see I’m probably (and hopefully) GPU bottlenecked, and difference between 6 y.o. setup is not big. The way I measured it is I recorded a track(Caucasus map), where your location gets shot by MLRS after some time (which causes fps drop). Camera motions and plane motions in the track are the same (or close to being so I hope). All I did after is played track 3 times and averaged the values (I start playing the track by pressing pause and about half second later I press the button to record benchmark data with MSI afterburner for 3m:16s). I will attach the track I used (you need su-25A or flaming cliffs 3 to play it). In first day of installation 3700x performance was actually worse in 1% lows by 10 fps, but today Ryzen gods had mercy and made it slightly better.benchmark.trk Edited July 22, 2019 by DackSter94 LOOK MA, NO HOOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman1330 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Old setup: CPU: i5 3570k OC (boosts up to 4.2GHz) RAM: 24GB DDR3-1866 (CL 10-11-10) GPU (same): Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB New setup: CPU: Ryzen 3700x Stock (boosts to 4.3GHz+) RAM: 32GB DDR4-3600 (CL 17-19-19) GPU (same): Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB Game settings: Resolution: 2560x1440 Everything on minimum or off if possible, except the following: Textures – High, Terrain Textures – High, Visib. range - high, Res. Of cockpit Displays: 1024EF, Preload raidus: 60500, Anisotropic filtering: 16x,[x] Full Screen, [x] Scale GUI Reshade: Default Lumasharpen and HDR effects on. As you can see I’m probably (and hopefully) GPU bottlenecked, and difference between 6 y.o. setup is not big. The way I measured it is I recorded a track(Caucasus map), where your location gets shot by MLRS after some time (which causes fps drop). Camera motions and plane motions in the track are the same (or close to being so I hope). All I did after is played track 3 times and averaged the values (I start playing the track by pressing pause and about half second later I press the button to record benchmark data with MSI afterburner for 3m:16s). I will attach the track I used (you need su-25A or flaming cliffs 3 to play it). In first day of installation 3700x performance was actually worse in 1% lows by 10 fps, but today Ryzen gods had mercy and made it slightly better. Yeah, you will probably be GPU limited with those settings on a 1060. Are you using any MSAA or PD? The thing I noticed in my brief run with a 3900X was a massive increase in FPS at very low settings, but at my current highish settings, very little change except improved minimum FPS under heavy load. Before, in certain conditions I could not saturate my 1080ti as the CPU would hold me back, but now I can. If I ever get it working correctly, that is! Ryzen 7 5800X3D / Asus Crosshair VI Hero X370 / Corsair H110i / Sapphire Nitro+ 6800XT / 32Gb G.Skill TridentZ 3200 / Samsung 980 Pro M.2 / Virpil Warbrd base + VFX and TM grips / Virpil CM3 Throttle / Saitek Pro Combat pedals / Reverb G2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DackSter94 Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 Are you using any MSAA or PD?I don't have VR and i don't use MSAA at 1440p. But I usually play at 1080p and there i use MSAAx2. Maybe performance difference will be bigger at 1080p. LOOK MA, NO HOOK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petsild Posted July 22, 2019 Share Posted July 22, 2019 The performance is worth on a slow graphics card, it is good that you put a reference file of thank you for sharing. I just have reservations about the added reshade filter. MSI PRO Z690-A DDR4, Kingston 3600 MHz 64 Gb, i5 12600K, Gigabyte RTX 4090, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus,VKB NXT Premium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts