Intel i9-13900k or AMD 7950X3D for DCS in VR

[Platypus]

I realize there are many threads of AMD and Intel, but I could not find anything that gives a recommendation of which processor is best for DCS - Intel i9-13900k or AMD 7950X3D. I play DCS in VR only (Varjo Aero) and have 64g of Corsair Dominator DDR5. Which would you prefer? 

[SharpeXB]

Looks like the 13900K is the better choice. Just because DCS is MT doesn’t mean ST performance is unimportant. You still want the fastest ST score. 
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

[Platypus]

Thanks Sharpe! I appreciate the link too. 

[Richi]

Some 7800x3D performances in VR are available and 7800x3D is probably weaker.

But I have also not seen 7950x3D in VR yet and I would be interested in comparing it with Intel i9-13900k. Comparison of CPU´s in dozens of 2D games is 50/50, but in VR?

[SharpeXB]

This is interesting. 

 

[skywalker22]

On 7/6/2023 at 5:51 PM, Richi said:

Some 7800x3D performances in VR are available and 7800x3D is probably weaker.

But I have also not seen 7950x3D in VR yet and I would be interested in comparing it with Intel i9-13900k. Comparison of CPU´s in dozens of 2D games is 50/50, but in VR?

7800X3d is better then 13900K in almost all games, specially in flight sims. Up to now, I was buying Intel CPUs for 25 years (since AMD 300, overclocked to 450). But now, I am not so much convinced any more into Intel. Latest AMD generation did a major step forward, and I'm starting thinking going back to AMD. 7800X3D is so tempting.... 

But maybe as of now, the Intel's CPUs still have a slight advantage in DCS, specially in VR.

Edited July 7, 2023 by skywalker22

[skywalker22]

Another interesting video, comparing 7800X3D and 5800X3D. Is it really worth spanding that money for a newer CPU?

[Richi]

Yeah. But still only 8 cores 7800x3D. 7800x3D is better than 7950x3D in some games, not in others. 7950x3D vs 7800x3D performance may or may not be the same in VR.

It's interesting that the 7950x3D vs. i9-13900k no one has tried in VR yet.

 

[Ramstein]

I just bought a new Asus 790-H, 13900K, and G.Skill Trident memory. I am going to keep my 2080-ti for now. I am waiting for the new cpu cooler to be delivered. I am so sick of the fps issues with my older computer. VR sucked the life out of DCS with a slow machine. I hope to have it up and running by late next week. I am going to crank the mofo up...

Edited July 24, 2023 by Ramstein

[hannibal]

On 7/8/2023 at 7:48 AM, Ramstein said:

I just bought a new Asus 790-H, 13900K, and G.Skill Trident memory. I am going to keep my 2080-ti for now. I am waiting for the new cpu cooler to be delivered. I am so sick of the fps issues with my older computer. VR sucked the life out of DCS with a slow machine. I hope to have it up and running by late next week. I am going to crank the mofo up...

 

how is your DCS experience with your new PC build?

[Ramstein]

11 hours ago, hannibal said:

how is your DCS experience with your new PC build?

well worth it! The 2080-ti holds it back but I still can run VR really good.  Everyone needs a high performance machine to really enjoy DCS and IL-2. I don't play much of anything else. On just about all modules it can hold 40+ fps in VR with very high settings. If it were not VR I could probably just max it all. If I do get a Nvidia 4080 or better I would say maxed in VR. The Apache is still the most demanding, but can get 30 fps on a busy map and server online. I have a home and family and just cannot go hog wild with purchases. But am happy to have what I have. btw, I have seen 80 fps, but cannot say that it is a steady fps in vr.

Edited August 24, 2023 by Ramstein

[Mr_sukebe]

Right now, I’d buy a 7800x3d.

I’m rather unimpressed with both AMD and Intel that they’ve yet to offer a full on 16 core or above processor.

Sure, Intels 13900 has lots of cores, but it still has 8 performance cores and then a few pants ones.

With the 7950, you get 16 cores, but on 2 CCDs, which have different fast RAM and don’t talk to each other very well, meaning that it’s also really a 8 “performance” core CPU.

As we now have MT, I’m waiting now for the next step change when we can have 16 or more performance cores.

[hannibal]

8 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Right now, I’d buy a 7800x3d.

I’m rather unimpressed with both AMD and Intel that they’ve yet to offer a full on 16 core or above processor.

Sure, Intels 13900 has lots of cores, but it still has 8 performance cores and then a few pants ones.

With the 7950, you get 16 cores, but on 2 CCDs, which have different fast RAM and don’t talk to each other very well, meaning that it’s also really a 8 “performance” core CPU.

As we now have MT, I’m waiting now for the next step change when we can have 16 or more performance cores.

Ah ok. Cool.

What system spec do you have?

[Mr_sukebe]

I'm using an 8 core 9700k.  The IPC of the 7800 is probably 30-50% better.  Sure, that would be a decent upgrade, but only if I wasn't more bottlenecked by my GPU (3080ti), as I play in VR.  Take that into account, and I'd probably have negligible benefit in DCS.  Once we have Vulkan and DLSS, that might of course change.

[kksnowbear]

Ummm...

Both Intel and AMD have made CPUs with (far) more than 18 cores for quite some time now (as in years).  And that's "full on" cores (if you must).

Problem isn't core count.  If it were, there have been many CPUs that could easily overcome the issue, having core counts of 56, 64 (and beyond).

Problem is cores aren't utilized effectively at all.  I do fully understand the difficulties involved - but that doesn't change the fact that lacking cores isn't the problem, therefore more cores isn't the answer.

Software isn't using the hardware effectively as it is.  More hardware (cores) won't help.

[_Hoss]

Use this, there is a DCS setting to see what CPU, GPU, and Monitor resolutions for AMD and Intel CPUs and GPUs...

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1le1ci/4a/dcs-world/10240x4320/ 

 

 

[kksnowbear]

14 hours ago, _Hoss said:

Use this, there is a DCS setting to see what CPU, GPU, and Monitor resolutions for AMD and Intel CPUs and GPUs...

https://pc-builds.com/bottleneck-calculator/result/1le1ci/4a/dcs-world/10240x4320/ 

I'd suggest a gigantic grain of salt if using that website...

First of all, the data it uses for DCS appears to be very dated, citing (for example) the game requirements as shown here:

A GTX560...really?

Also, if you look, you can see that the data it is relying upon to make these calculations isn't exactly scientific.  Anyone can basically use this section of the site to input values, and those values don't even have to be actual, first-hand experience, nor vetted or verified in any way.  The inputs shown below all indicate using "anticipated" values is adequate, meaning it's not at all constrained even to reality, only what somebody thinks they'd get with said hardware.  This is hardly what could be called reliable information by any stretch of the imagination.

Don't get me wrong, it happens I am familiar with the site, long before now, and I've used it as a reference many times over the years...

However, those references are again always take with a huge grain of salt, and always with very careful consideration of other, more proven reliable information.

[Ramstein]

too bad it could not use VR as an alternate for video input and the calculations, instead of the video card to monitor.

 

as a note: my 2080-ti has a 21% deficit as the bottleneck in my system. I will upgrade my video card in the coming year, hopefully.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Ramstein

[bartoshka]

On 8/24/2023 at 11:47 PM, kksnowbear said:

I do fully understand the difficulties involved - but that doesn't change the fact that lacking cores isn't the problem, therefore more cores isn't the answer.

Since I can't decide for half a year alrready, I would greatly appreciate if you could share some pointers concerning the Intel/AMD dillema here. Aiming for DCS in VR, what would you choose? If you could build a top-end system from scratch.

Edited September 10, 2023 by bartoshka

[Richi]

Yeah, I've been dealing with the same thing all summer.

Then .... I bought a 7950x3D with the idea that if AMD is not enough today, in 4-5 years I can easily buy a new line.

But I don't know if I made the right decision.

On the other hand, Intel owners don't laugh at AMD owners, which is hopefully the best answer.

I've had the computer for a week, I haven't tried the CPU in VR yet.

I have never found a 7950x3D vs i9-13900 comparison in VR.

 

[kksnowbear]

21 hours ago, bartoshka said:

Since I can't decide for half a year alrready, I would greatly appreciate if you could share some pointers concerning the Intel/AMD dillema here. Aiming for DCS in VR, what would you choose? If you could build a top-end system from scratch.

It's important to note that my comment above isn't specifically related to VR.  Although the thread is specifically about VR, I thought a slight diversion would be acceptable in order to address some issues in other comments.

That said, I am currently running a X570 board with a 5800X3D, 64G RAM and a 4090 (I play at 5120x1440).  Personally, after having built custom gaming machines for many years now, I have been fairly impressed with AMD's last few generations - to the point that I built my own as described, after doing others' AMD builds.  This is after a lifetime of using only Intel CPUs in my own machines, for what it's worth.  Also, FWIW I had just built myself a new Z390/9900K not long before deciding on AMD, after looking at Intel options and not being very impressed at the time.

So...if it were me, I'd build an 7800X3D, I think.  (To be perfectly accurate, I've been watching pricing for some time now).

Again, though, I'd repeat that even the best of current processors will not actually overcome the biggest limitation - which isn't hardware/core count.

Edited September 10, 2023 by kksnowbear

[bartoshka]

Oh yeah, the will NOT from the last sentence makes more sense

[kksnowbear]

Lol yeah sorry about that...I realized it later