Best desk top for DCS

[Aspiteri9]

Looks are not a concern, it will be out of site.  I initially went for the non lit option.

I will investigate further your suggestions and update accordingly.

 

Thanks a bunch for your feedback

 

[gdx65]

On 7/22/2024 at 6:07 AM, Aspiteri9 said:

Hi all.

I also am looking at upgrading.  My current computer no longer runs DCS.

i5-6400 @ 2.7Ghz. RAM 24GB.

I am looking at the following setup.  I have never built a PC, I figure never a better time than now.  No VR, just track IR.

All are in AUD;

- CPU; AMD Ryzen 7800X3D ($576)

-RAM; 64GB Corsair vengeance DDR5, 6000 ($329)

-GPU; RTX 4080 ($1700)

-SSD; 2TB samsung 990 pro ($257)

-PSU; Corsair RM1000x (1000W) ($239)

-Cooling; Arctic liquid freezer III 360 ($194)

-Motherboard; Asus ROG Strix X670E-F Gaming WiFi AM5 ATX(Cheaper option).  Preferably Asus ROG CROSSHAIR X670E HERO AM5  ($628/$899)

-Case; Corsair 4000D Airflow ATX. ($108)

-I have controllers, Track IR, headset etc.

 

I was initially thinking $2-2500, but with the above its already just over $4000.

1) For a starters, is my list above compatible?  Do any of the items limit the full capability of another?   The RTX 4080 is not quite the 4090, but will it do?

2) Will this all fit in a mid tower case?

3) Will I need extra fans/cooling?

 

Any words of wisdom is obviously greatly appreciated.

 

 

Interesting it looks like my shopping list for  a new  PC. Also returning to DCS after several years off line. For what I read online AMD seems to be a better CPU for gaming in general? Trying to catch up with PC HW as well… I built many PC in the past….

Edited October 15, 2024 by gdx65

[LucShep]

Anyone looking into this thread in regards to a brand new system build, should post instead in the specific section of the Forums, to get more exposure and assistance.

Supposing that you're configuring a custom system (to be built by yourself or somebody else) for DCS, please be aware that some popular performance parts are currently with super-inflated prices, making them a lot less worthy now compared to months before - do not feed oportunist sellers. One glaring example is the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D.

For about half of its current cost, you can get a kickass Intel i9 12900K on discount, which is (pretty much) same as an i7 13700K, not that far off of an AMD 7800X3D.
To put it simply: as of this date, it can not be beat for the price.  And it does not suffer any of the Intel degradation issues of 13th and 14th gen. 

This is a system built recently with someone, it's mind boggling how competitive it is with AMD 7800X3D or Intel i7 "K" 13th/14th gen systems, for a LOT less money:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/NJ9nsh
 

• CPU: Intel Core i9-12900K 16 Cores (8P+8E) up to 5.2 GHz Processor  ($264.99 @ Newegg) 
   
• CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Notte 360 ARGB 72.37 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($68.90 @ Amazon) 
   
• Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard  ($229.99 @ Amazon)
   
• Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB (2 x 32 GB) DDR5-6000 CL36 Memory  ($179.99 @ Newegg) 
   
• Storage (NVME x2):
  - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) 
  - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) 
   
• Video Card: Gigabyte GAMING OC GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER 16 GB  ($1084.99 @ Amazon) 
   
• Power Supply: be quiet! Straight Power 12 1000W 80+ Platinum Fully Modular ATX PSU  ($139.90 @ Amazon) 
   
• Case: Montech AIR 903 MAX ATX Mid Tower Case  ($74.98 @ Amazon) 
   

And these are the other things missing ($20.00 only) from that list:
 

• Improved LGA1700 Contact Frame: Thermalright Intel 12th/13th LGA1700 Anti-Bending Buckle ($7.99 @ Amazon) 
   
• USB3.0 flash drive with 8GB+: Various USB3.0 flash drive choices ($8.00 @ Amazon) 
  This is to use the Windows Media Creation Tool, to install Windows 64-bit Win10 Pro or Win11 Pro (your pick) from that flash drive (here's a video tutorial).
   
• Win10 Pro / Win11 Pro legitimate OEM key: (to register the new Windows installation)
  - Windows 10 Pro OEM Key ($2.16 @ PixelCodes)
  - Windows 11 Pro OEM Key ($2.05 @ PixelCodes)

 

-->   TOTAL: $2340.92

Edited October 16, 2024 by LucShep
corrected RAM kit

[gdx65]

6 hours ago, LucShep said:

Anyone looking into this thread in regards to a brand new system build, should post instead in the specific section of the Forums, to get more exposure and assistance.

Supposing that you're configuring a custom system (to be built by yourself or somebody else) for DCS, please be aware that some popular performance parts are currently with super-inflated prices, making them a lot less worthy now compared to months before - do not feed oportunist sellers. One glaring example is the AMD Ryzen 7800X3D.

For about half of its current cost, you can get a kickass Intel i9 12900K on discount, which is (pretty much) same as an i7 13700K, not that far off of an 7800X3D.
And it does not suffer from any of the Intel degradations issues of 13th and 14th gen. To put it simply: as of this date, it can not be beat for the price.

This is a system built recently with someone, it's mind boggling how competitive it is with AMD 7800X3D or Intel i7 "K" 13th/14th gen systems, for a LOT less money:

https://pcpartpicker.com/list/GTV2KX
 

• CPU: Intel Core i9-12900K 3.2 GHz 16-Core Processor  ($264.99 @ Newegg) 
   
• CPU Cooler: Thermalright Frozen Notte ARGB 72.37 CFM Liquid CPU Cooler  ($68.90 @ Amazon) 
   
• Motherboard: Asus TUF GAMING Z790-PLUS WIFI ATX LGA1700 Motherboard  ($229.99 @ Amazon)
   
• Memory: G.Skill Ripjaws S5 64 GB (2 x 32 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory  ($194.99 @ Newegg) 
   
• Storage (NVME x2):
  - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) 
  - Solidigm P44 Pro 2 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 4.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($138.59 @ Amazon) 
   
• Video Card: Gigabyte GAMING OC GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER 16 GB  ($1084.99 @ Amazon) 
   
• Power Supply: be quiet! Straight Power 12 1000W 80+ Platinum Fully Modular ATX PSU  ($139.90 @ Amazon) 
   
• Case: Montech AIR 903 MAX ATX Mid Tower Case  ($74.98 @ Amazon) 
   

And these are the other things missing ($20.00 only) from that list:
 

• Improved LGA1700 Contact Frame: Thermalright Intel 12th/13th LGA1700 Anti-Bending Buckle ($7.99 @ Amazon) 
   
• USB3.0 flash drive with 8GB+: Various USB3.0 flash drive choices ($8.00 @ Amazon) 
  This to use the Windows Media Creation Tool, to install Windows 64-bit Win10 Pro or Win11 Pro (your pick) from that flash drive (here's a video tutorial).
   
• Win10 Pro / Win11 Pro legitimate OEM key: (to register the new Windows installation)
  - Windows 10 Pro OEM Key ($2.16 @PixelCodes)
  - Windows 11 Pro OEM Key ($2.05 @PixelCodes)

 

-->   TOTAL: $2355.92

 

Very interesting in deed pricing of the Intel Core i9 vs AMD. Also locally where I live. Definitely a cpu to consider. Thanks for the heads up

[Aapje]

Rumor has it that the 9800X3D will be out before the end of the month, so I would definitely suggest waiting for that. AMD does tend to overprice their product at the start, so Intel may still be cheaper, although I would personally be willing to pay a premium for a less power hungry part (it will save money on the electricity bill anyway).

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, Aapje said:

Rumor has it that the 9800X3D will be out before the end of the month, so I would definitely suggest waiting for that. AMD does tend to overprice their product at the start, so Intel may still be cheaper, although I would personally be willing to pay a premium for a less power hungry part (it will save money on the electricity bill anyway).

Paying a bigger premium for a less power hungry CPU with electricity bills savings in mind must be the biggest fallacy in the PC hardware medium.
It'd take literally YEARS to make up the difference in purchase cost.

Edited October 16, 2024 by LucShep

[Dragon1-1]

For what it's worth, current generation Intels have durability problems, and they do not have anything like the X3D technology. A few tenths of GHz on the clock will help less than the copious amount of L3 cache on the X3D CPUs, particularly in DCS, where there's a lot of graphics to do. Also, while Intels generally have more cores, some of those are much inferior E-cores, which, if anything DCS-related ends up on them, will bog down the sim. AMD CPUs have the same total number of cores as equivalent Intels have good ones.

[LucShep]

17 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

For what it's worth, current generation Intels have durability problems, and they do not have anything like the X3D technology. A few tenths of GHz on the clock will help less than the copious amount of L3 cache on the X3D CPUs, particularly in DCS, where there's a lot of graphics to do. Also, while Intels generally have more cores, some of those are much inferior E-cores, which, if anything DCS-related ends up on them, will bog down the sim. AMD CPUs have the same total number of cores as equivalent Intels have good ones.

There's a misconception in your argument, and one that no tech-tuber has yet put to the test (shamely so).

A lot of misunderstanding in the usefulness of the P-Cores and E-cores of Intel chips, especially with these latter ones "what they're good for". 
The E-Cores in a PC gaming system are to be almost perceived as a "second processor" assisting the "main processor" (the P-Cores), this is what many haven't understood yet. 

Yes, the biggest benefit with E-Cores has been presumed to be for non-gaming apps (for actual work or hobby), by adding the E-Cores smaller power to the P-Cores, setting affinity to all cores.

But the truth is it also provides indirect benefit with games - in this case (using something like Process Lasso), by setting all the extra background apps instead to the E-Cores (and exclude such apps from the P-Cores), i.e, so that the E-Cores can "carry that burden" off of the P-Cores, to make these last ones more "prepared" and even stronger for your games. 
For example, placing every little extra app running in the background only on the E-Cores (such as Discord, HWINFO, Afterburner, RivaTuner, the controllers and peripherals software, AntiVirus, Firewall, long etc) while gaming with all the P-Cores free of the burden or hiccups of those programs.

Therefore the P-Cores become unnaffected by that stuff, clean and lean to run any games set exclusively on them. <--- this is a major benefit so often uncomprehended (or even unknown, it seems?), something very advantageous that AMD is unable to do with 8c/16t AMD CPUs, including the popular X800 X3D chips.

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

in this case (using something like Process Lasso), 

I'll stop you right there. I, and probably most people, have no desire to fuss about with manually setting core affinity for every single thing that's currently running. With a P-core/E-core architecture, you have to do this to ensure some part of DCS doesn't get shunted off to an E-core. Similarly, that's why for a primarily gaming machine I'd prefer 9800X3D and its predecessors over higher tier equivalents - they split the CPU between v-cache/no v-cache, requiring you to tell the CPU which process goes where. Ultimately, while either of those can provide a slightly better performance, for me at least the convenience of not having to deal with Process Lasso is worth sacrificing a little bit of clock.

Also, you left out the bit where the v-cache itself provides a major performance benefit in DCS, probably more than enough to beat the E-cores. Even the humble 5800X3D punches well above its weight in applications involving heavy 3D and large textures, such as gaming. I'm not convinced that offloading background stuff from the main cores offers gains of quite that magnitude. 

[LucShep]

18 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

I'll stop you right there. I, and probably most people, have no desire to fuss about with manually setting core affinity for every single thing that's currently running. With a P-core/E-core architecture, you have to do this to ensure some part of DCS doesn't get shunted off to an E-core. Similarly, that's why for a primarily gaming machine I'd prefer 9800X3D and its predecessors over higher tier equivalents - they split the CPU between v-cache/no v-cache, requiring you to tell the CPU which process goes where. Ultimately, while either of those can provide a slightly better performance, for me at least the convenience of not having to deal with Process Lasso is worth sacrificing a little bit of clock.

Also, you left out the bit where the v-cache itself provides a major performance benefit in DCS, probably more than enough to beat the E-cores. Even the humble 5800X3D punches well above its weight in applications involving heavy 3D and large textures, such as gaming. I'm not convinced that offloading background stuff from the main cores offers gains of quite that magnitude. 

Nonsense.
It takes seconds to do such rule once, and will stay like that for as long as you wish....
 

Paying a premium for 3D V-cache on an AMD 8c/16t chip with noticeably lower clocks (due to the tech limitation, to avoid overheating) when you can get a 20c/20t (i7 265K) or a 20c/28t (i7 14700K) for same or lower price, and now even a 16c/24t (i9 12900K) for almost half of its price, all with higher clocks, which can do nearly the same job in gaming and have the benefit of the extra (E-)cores mentioned above, along with noticeable benefits for non-gaming apps, is not really all that wise IMO. 

....unless all you do is use your PC as a gaming console. If so, I may agree - get the AMD X3D chip.

The 3D V-Cache chips are currently a fad, very popular (and rightly so) but it may or may not last for too long. The fact is that games are phasing out from DX11 to DX12 (and also to Vulkan, although to a lesser extent), where the raw clocks and core count become more important. So it may be the case that the current 3D V-cache solution advantage -which comes at a significant cost of clock deficit, besides a higher price tag - can become less benefitial in future.
As to say, it depends exclusively on what you intend your PC to use it for - and for how long - but the 3D V-Cache may become a case of niche solution for specific cases, and AMD's golden eggs goose may run out of tricks...  

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Dragon1-1]

2 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Paying a premium for 3D V-cache on an AMD 8c/16t chip with noticeably lower clocks (due to limitation of the tech, to avoid overheating), when you can get a 20c/28t chip that will do same job in gaming and has that benefit, along with benefits for non-gaming apps, is not very wise, unless all you do is use your PC as a gaming console.

As a matter of fact, any gaming-oriented CPU will blow typical office applications out of water. So even if you do use the PC as a "daily driver", as long as gaming is the only thing you need a good CPU for (as is the case for most people), it makes sense to maximize performance in gaming. If you are doing something that requires top level CPU performance and do not have a dedicated workstation for the purpose, then it obviously makes sense to focus primarily on that, especially because it's usually what makes you money, but that's a whole other set of requirements.

IMO, the X3D tech is here to stay. The 9800X3D is rumored to boost to perfectly adequate 5.2GHz, and even with Vulkan, DCS will ultimately be running on the 8 P-cores on Intels as well. The benefit of a few tenths of GHz the Intels have on it (Core Ultra 9 boosts up to 5.6GHz, and that's one tier up from 9800X3D) and the E-cores is highly unlikely to outweigh the large L3 cache. It is a niche (it always was, with middling performance in most areas that weren't graphics-heavy gaming), but it's a niche very relevant to DCS users, particularly those with 4K screens and/or VR. In particular, I can see it being heavily relevant to VR going forward, because there's so little room for compromise there.

[LucShep]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

IMO, the X3D tech is here to stay. The 9800X3D is rumored to boost to perfectly adequate 5.2GHz, and even with Vulkan, DCS will ultimately be running on the 8 P-cores on Intels as well. The benefit of a few tenths of GHz the Intels have on it (Core Ultra 9 boosts up to 5.6GHz, and that's one tier up from 9800X3D) and the E-cores is highly unlikely to outweigh the large L3 cache. It is a niche (it always was, with middling performance in most areas that weren't graphics-heavy gaming), but it's a niche very relevant to DCS users, particularly those with 4K screens and/or VR. In particular, I can see it being heavily relevant to VR going forward, because there's so little room for compromise there.

Sure, but that's not how things work.

The 9800X3D may boost to 5.2Ghz but your regular MT (gaming and non-gaming) operation will be at 4.7Ghz, which is its default all-core clock. All in 8c/16t.

On the Intel i9 285K, the single/dual P-Core boost goes upto 5.7Ghz, the all 8 P-Cores boost is upto 5.5Ghz. And 16 E-Cores boosting upto 4.6 GHz (24c/24t).
On the Intel i7 265K, the single/dual P-Core boost goes upto 5.5Ghz, the all 8 P-Cores boost is upto 5.4Ghz. And 12 E-Cores boosting upto 4.6 GHz (20c/20t).

We're probably talking about a deficit of 700 to 800 Mhz in MT, not insignificant. And that's before we start counting with the IPC difference rumoured to be far better in the new Intel (how substancial it is, is unknown for now). Add to that other benefits I mentioned above from the E-Cores and.... Perhaps better not count the chickens before they hatch.

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Aapje]

8 hours ago, LucShep said:

Paying a bigger premium for a less power hungry CPU with electricity bills savings in mind must be the biggest fallacy in the PC hardware medium.
It'd take literally YEARS to make up the difference in purchase cost.

Well, you will probably use it for years, and I never said that you would earn back the difference, but that it reduces the gap.

There are a bunch of other benefits, like having less heat and being able to get a simpler cooling solution.

[SharpeXB]

20 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

With a P-core/E-core architecture, you have to do this to ensure some part of DCS doesn't get shunted off to an E-core.

No you don’t have to. I think even ED recommends not messing with this. I don’t mess with it either and get great performance out of the 13 and 14 series CPUs I have used. If people simply like to play around with their machines that’s their choice but it’s not necessary. 

14 hours ago, Aapje said:

Well, you will probably use it for years, and I never said that you would earn back the difference, but that it reduces the gap.

If you don’t earn back the difference then there’s no benefit. Pretty simple math (actually not simple, I’d like to see someone try the calculations ). And I can’t imagine any PC components truly constitute that great a portion of your electric bill. Not really a factor IMO

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

If you don’t earn back the difference then there’s no benefit.

Yes, there is a benefit, since you are also pumping less heat into your house, need less cooling in your PC and will have a less noisy PC.

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

And I can’t imagine any PC components truly constitute that great a portion of your electric bill. Not really a factor IMO

A 7800X3D seems to save roughly 100 Watts compared to a 13700k, which probably uses about as much as a 12900k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78lp1TGFvKc

So that is 0.1 KWh saved per hour of gaming.

With the current average prices of of 32 eurocents per KWh in my country, that is 3.2 cents per hour of gaming. If you game 20 hours a week, that is 64 cents a week, and 33 euro and 28 cents a year. So if that CPU lasts 3 years until the next upgrade, then you save 100 euros on electricity during that period.

And again, because you guys keep misreading me, I am not claiming that you will earn it all back. How much you earn back depends on all kinds of factors, like the pricing of components at that time, your electricity prices, how much you game, at what settings, etc. And you also need to factor in that the depreciation of the 7800X3D or 9800X3D is probably less than for the 12900K, if you resell it. What actually matters is the TCO.

Of course, right now the situation is pretty much as bad as it can be, with the current inflated prices for the 7800X3D. But I've seen the 7800X3D go as low as 329 euro in my country, so with that kind of pricing you would in fact earn back the difference completely in 3 years of 20 h/week gaming.

Edited October 17, 2024 by Aapje

[SharpeXB]

16 minutes ago, Aapje said:

I am not claiming that you will earn it all back.

But then it doesn’t matter. If you spent more on the components than you saved on your electric bill it’s not a savings. It’s like when I ask my wife how much she spent shopping and she replied “I saved $100”

21 minutes ago, Aapje said:

So if that CPU lasts 3 years until the next upgrade, then you save 100 euros on electricity during that period.

See that’s just a pittance. Such costs would be irrelevant to me building a PC

[SharpeXB]

29 minutes ago, Aapje said:

If you game 20 hours a week

And that’s a lot of use… the equivalent of a part time job. 
 

The difference in cost is $59. So even at that rate it would take about six years to pay back. By which point you’d probably buy a new one. 

Edited October 17, 2024 by SharpeXB

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, Aapje said:

Yes, there is a benefit, since you are also pumping less heat into your house, need less cooling in your PC and will have a less noisy PC.

A 7800X3D seems to save roughly 100 Watts compared to a 13700k, which probably uses about as much as a 12900k: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78lp1TGFvKc

So that is 0.1 KWh saved per hour of gaming.

With the current average prices of of 32 eurocents per KWh in my country, that is 3.2 cents per hour of gaming. If you game 20 hours a week, that is 64 cents a week, and 33 euro and 28 cents a year. So if that CPU lasts 3 years until the next upgrade, then you save 100 euros on electricity during that period.

And again, because you guys keep misreading me, I am not claiming that you will earn it all back. How much you earn back depends on all kinds of factors, like the pricing of components at that time, your electricity prices, how much you game, at what settings, etc. And you also need to factor in that the depreciation of the 7800X3D or 9800X3D is probably less than for the 12900K, if you resell it. What actually matters is the TCO.

Of course, right now the situation is pretty much as bad as it can be, with the current inflated prices for the 7800X3D. But I've seen the 7800X3D go as low as 329 euro in my country, so with that kind of pricing you would in fact earn back the difference completely in 3 years of 20 h/week gaming.

 

That's another popular fallacy. 

None of those processors will be going full tilt in DCS. Or any game for that matter. Very far from it.
Noone is playing DCS at full FPS, can almost bet that most will be GPU bound. Most will be locked at 120FPS max at 1440P, probably less at 4K, and certainly less than that in VR.

At that framerate with DCS set on the P-Cores, a 13700K will run at about 110W (if that much?) and a 12900K will probably be at or less than 100W.
Not that far from a 7800X3D, which wil be at what, 60W or 70W?

Then the resale value.... huh what?? 
This isn't a car or a motorcycle, where such things could matter. But if that's important, and FYI, a second hand i9 12900K (and I'm mean the "real" ones, not the ES bullsh!t) is worth at least $200€ in the 2nd hand market, and good luck finding one below $250.
Buying an excelent processor like that i9 12900K in a temporary discount (like it is now in some places), which has no degradation issues, undervolts nicely, and is overclockable on top of what already it provides, is (IMO) one of the best investments you can do if building a new system with a budget concious mind.
And then put instead the money savings on a better GPU = profit.

BTW, you're very lucky if in your country you can get a 7800X3D at 329€, they're all out of stock here and those still selling go over 480€ (and 560€+ in AmazonES!! lol).

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Hiob]

4 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Noone is playing DCS at full FPS

Now that's a bold assumption....

My personal opinion on all of that (energy, heat, TOC) - that's all strawman arguments. There are mainly three relevant bullet points to that:

- factual performance. For DCS (especially in VR) the X3Ds currently outperform Intel. As far as I'm aware......
- price. A snapshot issue. One needs to do proper due diligence on that at the time of the purchase
- brand bias. An AMD-fanboy will prefer AMD, an Intel-fanboy will prefer Intel

Currently (!) and personally I lost all my faith in Intel right now, and I will see how and when they will earn it back. My first AMD-System ever holds up well so far and I'm happy with it. Never regreted the switch. Doesn't mean I won't switch back when the next platform upgrade is due. Depends on the above. 

[SharpeXB]

58 minutes ago, Aapje said:

With the current average prices of of 32 eurocents per KWh in my country

FYI my electricity costs the equivalent of .014 Euros KWh (15.5c) so that and my usage of maybe 10 hrs per week make that payback period like 8 years.

[Pillowcat]

34 minutes ago, LucShep said:

Noone is playing DCS at full FPS

That is why there is all kinds of Turbo Boosts now

[LucShep]

7 minutes ago, Pillowcat said:

That is why there is all kinds of Turbo Boosts now

And what does that even has to do with it?  Turbo boosts have exhisted as "stock/default" in CPUs for decades now.

If you have an Intel 12th/13th/14th i7 or i9, run DCS as you regularly do, then pause and check what's the CPU usage, wattage and temps.
You'll probably notice that it is running at less than 60% of it's total usage capacity....

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[Pillowcat]

1 minute ago, LucShep said:

60% it's total usage capacity....

In my experience it's always squeezing performance to the temperature cap, 100% load → 100% freq (~75℃), 60% cpu load → 125% freq (same ~75℃) and so on and not only for cpu btw, numbers illustrative, not real.

[LucShep]

15 minutes ago, Pillowcat said:

In my experience it's always squeezing performance to the temperature cap, 100% load → 100% freq (~75℃), 60% cpu load → 125% freq (same ~75℃) and so on and not only for cpu btw, numbers illustrative, not real.

Sorry not understanding... is your CPU at or close to 100% usage with DCS?
What processor is that?

Edited October 17, 2024 by LucShep

[FR4GGL3]

16 hours ago, Hiob said:

My personal opinion on all of that (energy, heat, TOC) - that's all strawman arguments. There are mainly three relevant bullet points to that:

- factual performance. For DCS (especially in VR) the X3Ds currently outperform Intel. As far as I'm aware......
- price. A snapshot issue. One needs to do proper due diligence on that at the time of the purchase
- brand bias. An AMD-fanboy will prefer AMD, an Intel-fanboy will prefer Intel

True words. Energy safing comes also down to your usage. If you are like me and have a lot of idle times or low load times out of Gaming or other "Full Load", an Intel CPU can even be the cheaper solution.

Get whatever gives you  a "wanna have" feeling. Don't let Fanboys influence your decision too much. Because it doesn't matter what you buy, it will be A LOT of money. You can only justify that if you really want it.

 

/edit:

to answer the first Question, yes I run DCS with everything full open on 4K (not VR). But I limit it to 100 FPS because there is no need for me to go much higher (LG C2 maxes out on 120 Hz and is ideally driven a few FPS below that). It has also the benefit that the system doesn't need to ramp up all the fans. You can see all of my components in my Signature (almost: I've recently added a WD SN850X 2TB NVME exclusively for DCS, because it eats up Disc Space like there is no tomorrow).

Edited October 18, 2024 by FR4GGL3