Changing 10900K by 7800x3D worth It?

[gonvise]

Hello, I am thinking of changing my 10900K for a 7800x3D, and I wanted to ask if the change is worth it and will I notice an improvement in performance. I currently have 32GB, Nvidia 4090, quest pro at 45FPS with ASW and scaling 2. With this scaling the quest pro shine and my team reaches those 45 FPS on most occasions but, for example, in missions with many objects and on the ground stutters are noticeable, and DCS shows CPU BOUND. I would also consider increasing the RAM to 64, but I don't know if it's really worth it.

[Nedum]

Hi,

 

please take a look at this site: https://technical.city/en/cpu/Core-i9-10900K-vs-Ryzen-7-7800X3D

The 7800x3D will outperform the 10900K in any performance aspect.

Yes, a change would definitely help you. And because you have to replace everything (board, CPU and RAM), then go for 64 GB. I often have situations where 32 GB RAM would no longer be enough. 

VR Settings:

Max Settings 2D:

Edited July 19, 2024 by Nedum

[Waxer]

Xen 5 is launching in a couple of weeks.

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, Waxer said:

Xen 5 is launching in a couple of weeks.

Not the X3D-part, so it is quite irrelevant for now.

Also, it is called Zen.

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, gonvise said:

Hello, I am thinking of changing my 10900K for a 7800x3D, and I wanted to ask if the change is worth it and will I notice an improvement in performance. I currently have 32GB, Nvidia 4090, quest pro at 45FPS with ASW and scaling 2. With this scaling the quest pro shine and my team reaches those 45 FPS on most occasions but, for example, in missions with many objects and on the ground stutters are noticeable, and DCS shows CPU BOUND. I would also consider increasing the RAM to 64, but I don't know if it's really worth it.

The thing is, you'll be paying over 900,00 €uros for an upgrade that will be surpassed by its sucessor counterparts in a matter of few months.... 

That i9 10900K is not a bad processor at all. If you have a good cooler on it, and if that's not done yet, then I'd overclock that chip as far as it can go reliably and stable.

And then calmly wait for the AMD Ryzen 9800X3D to come out (later this year) and do that CPU+mobo+DDR5 upgrade.
Or for the upcoming Intel 15th gen i7 or i9, which may actually turn out to be surprisingly good.

Edited July 19, 2024 by LucShep
spelling(?)

[Nedum]

52 minutes ago, LucShep said:

The thing is, you'll be paying over 900,00 €uros for an upgrade that will be surpassed by its sucessor counterparts in a matter of few months.... 

That i9 10900K is not a bad processor at all. If you have a good cooler on it, and if that's not done yet, then I'd overclock that chip as far as it can go reliably and stable.

And then calmly wait for the AMD Ryzen 9800X3D to come out (later this year) and do that CPU+mobo+DDR5 upgrade.
Or for the upcoming Intel 15th gen i7 or i9, which may actually turn out to be surprisingly good.

 

You're right that you can and should wait, because the prices will fall as soon as the Zen 5 family comes onto the market.
And from what I know, even without the 3D cache, the Zen 5 generation will be faster in games than any current Zen 4 3D cache model.
However, I would be very surprised if the 15th Intel generation could compete with Zen 5, as from what I know, little to nothing has changed in the design. You'd be lucky if the degeneration problem of the 14th generation didn't also affect the 15th generation.
Normally I don't care whether it's an Intel or AMD CPU, but at the moment I can only advise against Intel CPUs and wouldn't recommend waiting for the 15th generation.

[diego999]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

The thing is, you'll be paying over 900,00 €uros for an upgrade that will be surpassed by its sucessor counterparts in a matter of few months.... 

That i9 10900K is not a bad processor at all. If you have a good cooler on it, and if that's not done yet, then I'd overclock that chip as far as it can go reliably and stable.

And then calmly wait for the AMD Ryzen 9800X3D to come out (later this year) and do that CPU+mobo+DDR5 upgrade.
Or for the upcoming Intel 15th gen i7 or i9, which may actually turn out to be surprisingly good.

 

 

This.

Those stutters you are seeing in complex missions might be caused by the DCS engine itself choking on its own limitations, and not by your CPU. How are your framerates?

Upgrading your memory to 64GB might be a good way to improve your rig a bit until a complete change in the near future.

You'd be spending a lot of money to buy a plattform that is about to be two generations behind.

Intel seems to be a mess right now, so I would buy AMD for the next months.

[LucShep]

On 7/19/2024 at 7:53 PM, diego999 said:

Those stutters you are seeing in complex missions might be caused by the DCS engine itself choking on its own limitations, and not by your CPU. How are your framerates?

Upgrading your memory to 64GB might be a good way to improve your rig a bit until a complete change in the near future.

Agreed, upgrading to 64GB will definitely benefit your DCS experience.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend it for your current system, not if you're already planning to do that CPU+Motherboard+DDR5 upgrade sometime soon.
But it's also a solution if you're up for it.

Meanwhile, there may be other things you may wish to try, if not done already, such as:
 

• Setting the pagefile if using less than 64GB of RAM, make it fixed to at least 32GB (32768 in both initial and max size) and set on the fastest drive.
  DCS can use as much as 50GB of RAM, especially in Multiplayer.  If you don't have that much RAM, doing that will make it assisted by pagefile (aka virtual memory).
   
• Enabling HAGS. It allows the GPU to reduce the load on the CPU and improve latency, as the GPU's scheduling processor and memory (VRAM) take over the same work and runs it in batches to render the frames.
   
• Disabling VBS / HVCI, as it's useless on a gaming system and can benefit performance when gaming. 
   
• Disabling HPET and Dynamic Ticks, as it allows unrestricted I/O to occur, and helps to decrease micro-stuttering and screen tearing that may occur during gameplay.
  Meant for portable and battery systems, can be a problem for desktops, it's known to cause issues especially when gaming.
   
• Disabling Core Parking, as it's a feature meant for energy savings. Disabling it can help to reduce micro-stutters when playing games or using resource-heavy apps. 
  There's also a newer (free) application called ParkControl which handles this better on modern CPUs, along with Windows power plans.
   
• If you're still gaming on "Balanced" power plan, then try enabling a higher performance power plan, such as the Ultimate Performance Power Plan, in Windows. 
  While peak performance won't be all that improved, it can benefit things once in game.
   
• Enabling rBAR (if using NVIDIA GPU 30 or 40 series). While benefits for DCS are debatable (or non felt), it benefits too many games for it not to be used.
  
   

Edited July 26, 2024 by LucShep

[gonvise]

Thanks for all the answers. Currently I have the 10900 at 5Ghz. I was pretty happy with my setup, but since the last DCS update the mbucchia XR toolkit's foveated rendering has been starting to work (eye tracking), and it's given me the best VR experience I can remember in DCS, with virtually no stutters even in missions with a lot of objects. But taking into account that mbucchia no longer supports toolkit, I'm now trying to improve the hardware to try to regain that performance without the use of the XR Toolkit.

As for increasing the memory to 64, I think it would be a waste of money since the issue is whether I buy the 7800x3D now or wait for the Zen 5.

[Aapje]

There is little point in waiting for the non-X3D parts. AMD has implied that that the 9800X3D will introduce some improvement beyond what we say in the past. Rumor has it that the new chip will be able to clock higher. And rumor is that the 9800X3D will be released sooner after the non-X3D parts than last time. More like 2 months rather than 6. Then again, the initial price is probably going to be rather high.

Note that at least Zen 6 should also be compatible with AM5, so you can also get a 7800X3D and then later upgrade to the last X3D-chip for the AM5 platform.

[skywalker22]

I still have 10700K and it performs pretty well. No need for any update, not any time soon. I was also thinking of 7800X3D or 13600K (or 14600K), but there is just a little performance gain, simply not worth, based on the money you have to spend for the update (cca 1000€ for all) + new windows system (which I really don't like to do it).

I have overclocked my 10700K to 5100MHz, and with a AIO cooler it does an awesome job indeed. I also have Quest PRO VR and all runs smooth on a very high end (in combo with MSI Suprim 4090).

[Waxer]

There are also reports of high failure rates on Intel 13th, 14th generation CPUs. (I think). Not really been looking at it closely but aware that Level 1 techs / Wendell and Gamers Nexus have been discussing these problems for some time. If you have an Intel CPU that is working wait for Zen 5 X3D. Or wait even longer if you remain happy with the 10th generation Intel.

[skywalker22]

Just in case if I change my mind, any suggeations for specific 7800X3D motherboard?

[Mr_sukebe]

I was recommended to buy an MSI x670e tomahawk.

[kksnowbear]

14 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Just in case if I change my mind, any suggeations for specific 7800X3D motherboard?

 

Well...of course, it has to do with "features" - that is, what features do you want/need vs budget/cost. For example, a board might have every conceivable feature you'd ever need, but cost twice as much as you intend to spend, so it's not a good choice.

For the 7000 CPUs ('Zen4') there are four types: B650, B650E, X670 and X670E (in order from least costly/fewest features to most costly/featured; there is also an entry level A620; not at all meant for gaming/performance, thus we're not discussing that lol). Of the four we're talking about, the basic difference is PCIe 5.0 support/number of lanes.

We're still a long way from saturating 16 lanes of PCIe 4.0 bandwidth, so some people say there's no need to pay for PCIe 5.0. However, things do change, they are changing, and the rate of change sometimes accelerates once a given feature 'catches on' (note it can also fizzle out and disappear, for better or worse, like eSATA, Firewire, SLI, etc). I think that it's not GPUs that will really benefit from PCIe 5.0, I believe it's storage. Without getting too far into it, even though most other parts of a PC have come a long way in terms of speed/performance, there are still people using machines with SATA SSDs or even older mechanical hard drives. More recently, the hardware has finally advanced through different levels of PCIe such that PCIe 4 devices are running up to approximately 12 times the speed of a SATA SSD, and PCIe 5 can reach past 26 times SATA SSD speeds.

The problem - as is often the case, is that now the hardware has exceeded what the software was really intended to do. So there's not really much taking advantage of the tremendous advances in storage speeds to improve game performance, beyond simple faster loading times. Faster loading times are OK, but that increased storage performance can now actually improve in-game performance. Yes: Frame rates can actually improve with faster storage, and this can help improve texture loading, not just maps/levels, so that moving through game 'worlds' is smoother. Again, I don't want to get too far off course on it, but it is real, it is already happening, and IMO it's going to 'catch on' to the point support will be standard in all games. Due to things like the pandemic and other factors, it's been slow to gain ground, but I think it'll grow exponentially. More significantly, it represents the first time (that I can think of) where storage performance can actually improve game performance, rather than hurt it.

So, PCIe 5 - IMO - is an important feature in newer CPUs, chipsets, and boards. GPUs may not really 'need' this bandwidth now, but storage can definitely benefit.

Here's a chart showing how each of the chipsets/boards implements PCIe 5: >AM5 chipsets< (note this chart also shows thr newest 800-series chipsets, but I'm not addressing those here)

Here's a really nice Google Docs sheet showing all the various boards from all the major manufacturers, with features broken out: >AM5 board sheet (works best in Chrome)<

The four chipsets I mentioned before (B650, B650E, X670 and X670E) will - broadly and generally - support a greater number of PCIe lanes, and PCIe 5 vs 4, as you go through in the order I've listed them.

Generally:
X670E will have 5x16 (GPU) and (up to*) two 5.0x4 and two 4.0x4 M2 slots
X670 have 4x16 GPU and one 5.0x4 and (up to*) three 4.0x4 M2 slots
B650E have 5x16 (GPU) and (USUALLY*) one 5.0x4 and (up to*) three 4.0x4 M2 slots (most have only two 4.0x4)
B650 have 4x16 (GPU) and (USUALLY*) one 5.0x4 and (up to*) two 4.0x4 M2 slots (many have only one 4.0x4)

*("up to" generally depends on board model and physical size; eg microATX, ITX boards are smaller thus fewer m2 slots)
*(USUALLY: MOST B650E boards have one 5.0x4 slot, but a couple top-end models have two. FEW units have three 5.0x4 and one 4.0x4)
Please note this is **generally** so don't hammer me if there are exceptions here and there.

So you can see that the difference in different boards mostly comes down to PCIe version and number of lanes/available slots.

Beyond differences in chipsets, There are other, less obvious features you might want; one example of this is I tend to look for boards that support some type of thermistor (Asus calls it "T-Probe" IIRC, others have their own names}. This specific feature is often only found on higher-end boards, but it's something I've leaned to appreciate and value. I can use the sensor input on the board to physically monitor the GPU temperature, and control fans on my case based on the actual GPU temp. I don't have to have fan monitoring/curve controlling software (like SpeedFan) running.

The board I chose also supports a specific type of overclocking which even works on X3D CPUs, something that isn't typically supported without that feature (of course, it costs more). It is *very* rare, even among enthusiast boards like X670E, and even more so on non-enthusiast boards like B650E. I don't think there are any X670 or B650 (non-E) boards that have it.

There's also the number and type of USB ports - this matters more to most flight sim players I think than it does to other types of gamers, because of the number of devices some flightsim enthusiasts use. It's a good idea to actually count the number of ports you're using now so you can make sure you're looking at boards that have what you need.

So, like usual, budget will probably come first, 'brand loyalty' usually comes next, then figure out which features you want for the cost, and check the sheet to see what your options are. Even B650 boards can be suitable, if you're not going to use a lot of storage and don't care about GPU having PCIe 5. If you want PCIe 5.0 GPU slot, a B650E might be a good choice. If you need PCIe 5.0 graphics *and* want multiple PCIe 5.0 storage slots, you're probably looking at a ATX sized X670E board (there are a couple B650E exceptions with multiple PCIe 5 storage slots).

Hopefully that answers the question. Sorry for the length but there is quite a bit to consider. I welcome any questions.

13 hours ago, Johnny Dioxin said:

I'm using ASUS TUF Gaming B650-Plus WiFi and very happy.

*edit: one thing, though - it takes a long time to boot. I haven't had a windows boot take this long since before SSDs - seriously. It's a known issue and there are fixes posted around the 'net (and vids on YouTube). Apparently putting the board into eco mode will speed up the boot process. This doesn't just apply to the board I have.

Most likely, you're seeing the long boot times due to what's called memory 'training'.  I have an Asus X670E board, same thing.  I've done several Am5 builds now and they do seem a little 'fussy' about memory, particularly in certain cases.  Good news is it's fairly straightforward to address:  If you haven't done so, there are two BIOS settings that you can change that will resolve this - although I would say that on *extremely* rare occasion, my board has still decided to take longer to boot than usual.  I have done some looking into it, and it does seem a very complex process, so not a huge shock to me TBH.  But, as I said, the two BIOS changes all but eliminate it on the units I've built.

Edited August 8, 2024 by kksnowbear

[BitMaster]

vor 23 Stunden schrieb kksnowbear:

-----------cut---------

Most likely, you're seeing the long boot times due to what's called memory 'training'.  I have an Asus X670E board, same thing.  I've done several Am5 builds now and they do seem a little 'fussy' about memory, particularly in certain cases.  Good news is it's fairly straightforward to address:  If you haven't done so, there are two BIOS settings that you can change that will resolve this - although I would say that on *extremely* rare occasion, my board has still decided to take longer to boot than usual.  I have done some looking into it, and it does seem a very complex process, so not a huge shock to me TBH.  But, as I said, the two BIOS changes all but eliminate it on the units I've built.

 

Sometimes you can spped memory training up by adding 0.01-0.03v if you are running the "stock" EXPO voltage.

I have and had several systems were fine adjustment of the fed voltage was greatly improving my time till I heard the "Beep" when fiddling with RAM.

There is a window in which they will function and that window might have s sweet spot for fast recognition. Worth trying with a few boots.

[kksnowbear]

11 minutes ago, BitMaster said:

Sometimes you can spped memory training up by adding 0.01-0.03v if you are running the "stock" EXPO voltage.

I have and had several systems were fine adjustment of the fed voltage was greatly improving my time till I heard the "Beep" when fiddling with RAM.

There is a window in which they will function and that window might have s sweet spot for fast recognition. Worth trying with a few boots.

Yeah, I usually bump up the RAM voltage just a tad, mostly because I'm almost always using full banks.  This has always helped to avoid problems in these configurations (this includes four recent AM5 builds).

[kksnowbear]

The BIOS save issue you discussed yes, is stupid...been that way forever, far as I recall.  It's obviously not intended for use with different BIOS versions; I get the impression it's only a sort of backup mechanism in case your BIOS becomes corrupted (as opposed to a recognized version change?).  TBH although it does seem stupid, I can see there are reasons for it being that way - for example, can't have some setting backed up/restored that they removed from the newer BIOS version.

(This is a variant of what we in the field used to call "Versionitis")

On the MCR...there are TWO settings.  Did you do both?  I think your crashes/BSODs are possibly because you only changed MCR.

Both Memory Context Restore and Power Down Enable must be enabled (in my Asus board's BIOS that's what they're called anyhow)

HTH

(PS A 34-second boot time these days is pretty much normal, at least from what I see...sometimes it goes much faster, but if we're including 'to the desktop' then ~30 seconds isn't bad at all.  When the memory 'training' decides to show out, it can take several minutes - it is very obviously different).

Edited August 8, 2024 by kksnowbear

[ebabil]

Intel user here (since the 2500k) 

I have currently 9700k for some years. I avoided upgrading to 13 or 14th intels due to obvious problems. 

Should I wait for 15th or get 7800x3d or even wait for zen5? 

[gonvise]

I finally changed the 10900K/32GB/4090 for a 7800x3D/64GB/4090 and I've gained 8fps with more stability (in VR and tested in the same situations). I hope it gives you an idea.

Edited September 17, 2024 by gonvise

[MAXsenna]

I finally changed the 10900K/32GB/4090 for a 7800x3D/64GB/4090 and I've gained 8fps with more stability (in VR and tested in the same situations). I hope it gives you an idea.

So, what did the cost per FPS turn out to be?

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[LucShep]

21 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

So, what did the cost per FPS turn out to be?
 

That's the 850,00 USD/EUR/GBP (+/-) question, really....

There are benefits but comes at a considerable cost. Too much or not, depends on opinion and budget.  

[Aapje]

2 hours ago, ebabil said:

Intel user here (since the 2500k) 

I have currently 9700k for some years. I avoided upgrading to 13 or 14th intels due to obvious problems. 

Should I wait for 15th or get 7800x3d or even wait for zen5? 

15th gen is not going to happen, since Intel changed their naming scheme. It's going to be the Core 200 series. They are rumored to come in a month.

The new X3D-CPUs are rumored to come at CES, so January 7th or so.

The current state of the market is that the 7800X3D seems to be in short supply and the prices are now very inflated in some places and slightly inflated in others. Everyone is jumping on them since the new series was so disappointing. I would personally suggest waiting until CES both to let the market settle down again, and so we know where we stand with the Core 200 and new X3D-CPUs.

But it's not a bad idea to quickly get a 7800X3D if you are somewhere where the prices and availability is still decent, as it is unlikely that the new Intel and AMD CPUs will be a good deal in the short term, so it can easily take until mid-2025 for the new X3D-CPUs to become a good deal.

Of course, given how limited the gain is probably going to be, as @gonvise noted, it may also be smarter to spend that money on a video card or just wait a bit longer before upgrading.

@ebabil What GPU do you have?

[Mr_sukebe]

4 hours ago, ebabil said:

Intel user here (since the 2500k) 

I have currently 9700k for some years. I avoided upgrading to 13 or 14th intels due to obvious problems. 

Should I wait for 15th or get 7800x3d or even wait for zen5? 

??

That’s the same changes as myself.  The 2500 has just been retired as a spare, the 9700 given to my son.

In straight FPS, and when compared to the 9700 using the same 3080ti GPU, the 7800x3d have improved by a good 50%+.
What has been more noticeable is the improvement in smoothness, which I assume is due to the new RAM, MB chipset, SSD type

[ebabil]

7 hours ago, Aapje said:

15th gen is not going to happen, since Intel changed their naming scheme. It's going to be the Core 200 series. They are rumored to come in a month.

The new X3D-CPUs are rumored to come at CES, so January 7th or so.

The current state of the market is that the 7800X3D seems to be in short supply and the prices are now very inflated in some places and slightly inflated in others. Everyone is jumping on them since the new series was so disappointing. I would personally suggest waiting until CES both to let the market settle down again, and so we know where we stand with the Core 200 and new X3D-CPUs.

But it's not a bad idea to quickly get a 7800X3D if you are somewhere where the prices and availability is still decent, as it is unlikely that the new Intel and AMD CPUs will be a good deal in the short term, so it can easily take until mid-2025 for the new X3D-CPUs to become a good deal.

Of course, given how limited the gain is probably going to be, as @gonvise noted, it may also be smarter to spend that money on a video card or just wait a bit longer before upgrading.

@ebabil What GPU do you have?

4070rtx

5 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

??

That’s the same changes as myself.  The 2500 has just been retired as a spare, the 9700 given to my son.

In straight FPS, and when compared to the 9700 using the same 3080ti GPU, the 7800x3d have improved by a good 50%+.
What has been more noticeable is the improvement in smoothness, which I assume is due to the new RAM, MB chipset, SSD type

Good to know that. I think I will not wait