From 14900K to AMD 9950X3D Is Lack Luster

[Raisuli]

8 minutes ago, niru27 said:

I know, what I meant to say was your thread gave Raisuli the (false) impression that 14900k to 9950x3D is a downgrade

That would be a false impression.  I got the feeling it's not enough of an upgrade to go through the brain damage of getting my sim machine apart, playing musical parts with two different computers, running my powershell scripts to re-set all the controls, etc etc.

That doesn't mean I'm not going through the brain damage, just not in the near future and I might wait for the next gen CPUs.  I consciously went i9-14 rather than -ultra just because of the gaming reviews.  I don't think that's going to fix the stutters.

I keep putting off Windows 11 because they've turned harvesting personal data into an art form and I don't have a ready tool to fix that in the registry, but the information here about tweaking it for games has been awesome.  Also noodling a PiMaxSuperDuperDeluxeUraniumEdition whatever the latest VR is later this year, so this entire area is priceless. 

Lots of great information.

[Hiob]

14 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

That would be a false impression.  I got the feeling it's not enough of an upgrade to go through the brain damage of getting my sim machine apart, playing musical parts with two different computers, running my powershell scripts to re-set all the controls, etc etc.

That doesn't mean I'm not going through the brain damage, just not in the near future and I might wait for the next gen CPUs.  I consciously went i9-14 rather than -ultra just because of the gaming reviews.  I don't think that's going to fix the stutters.

I keep putting off Windows 11 because they've turned harvesting personal data into an art form and I don't have a ready tool to fix that in the registry, but the information here about tweaking it for games has been awesome.  Also noodling a PiMaxSuperDuperDeluxeUraniumEdition whatever the latest VR is later this year, so this entire area is priceless. 

Lots of great information.

That depends a little bit on the exact circumstances and if the current CPU is in fact a bottleneck for the desired scenario and framerate.

Generally speaking and looking at the edge cases, a X3D(*) CPU is certainly more optimal for DCS than any current Intel. That doesn’t mean that a 14K is a slouch.

Upgrading between those two is certainly not a BIG step in most scenarios. I wouldn’t make this step unless there is another reason that the Intel has to go (like a defect e.g.).

(* actually the 9950 isn’t the most optimal for DCS though, the single die X3Ds (9800\7800\5800) are slightly superior due to the absence of any inter-die problems. But of course DCS isn’t the only use case)

 

[Raisuli]

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

(* actually the 9950 isn’t the most optimal for DCS though, the single die X3Ds (9800\7800\5800) are slightly superior due to the absence of any inter-die problems. But of course DCS isn’t the only use case)

 

DCS isn't even the most annoying thing I run into; I run 2.5d (not VR) and get ~149 FPS most of the time.  If that's not enough it's time to check your entitlements!

It's those other guys where I get 55 FPS despite a 5090 drawing enough power to run the helium liquification plant at Fermi.

I haven't dug into the hardware enough to figure that out, or decided if I even care enough to do anything about it.  The overall upshot being it's not time for an upgrade yet, which is good given I built this nine months ago.  My last machine lasted five years before I decided to get a performance boost, and honestly all I really needed was a new video card.

OCD kicking in again.

[Hiob]

32 minutes ago, Raisuli said:

DCS isn't even the most annoying thing I run into; I run 2.5d (not VR) and get ~149 FPS most of the time.  If that's not enough it's time to check your entitlements!

It's those other guys where I get 55 FPS despite a 5090 drawing enough power to run the helium liquification plant at Fermi.

I haven't dug into the hardware enough to figure that out, or decided if I even care enough to do anything about it.  The overall upshot being it's not time for an upgrade yet, which is good given I built this nine months ago.  My last machine lasted five years before I decided to get a performance boost, and honestly all I really needed was a new video card.

OCD kicking in again.

5 years is my ugrade cycle as well. With the exception of upgrading the GPU from a 3080 to a 4090 prematurely (because the 3080 was NOT a worthy successor to the holy 1080ti which I sported 5+ years before that), I intend to keep to the rythm.

Therefore it is/was easy for me to skip the lacklustre 5000 series and DDR5 (for now). I was/am a little bit tempted by the 9800x3D though.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

51 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I was/am a little bit tempted by the 9800x3D though.

As I mentioned before in another thread, I went from a 5900X to 9800X3D and the performance upgrade is eyewatering in games that are CPU-heavy (not just simulation games but also ARPGs for example especially in endgame).

P.S. I kept the same graphics card but upgraded everything else - it was well worth it.

[Hiob]

29 minutes ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

As I mentioned before in another thread, I went from a 5900X to 9800X3D and the performance upgrade is eyewatering in games that are CPU-heavy (not just simulation games but also ARPGs for example especially in endgame).

P.S. I kept the same graphics card but upgraded everything else - it was well worth it.

What keeps me from doing it is the necessary infrastructure update (mobo+ram) that comes with it. If it was the swap of the CPU, I would certainly do it.

It is just a gut feeling, but I don’t really want to switch to DDR5. And if I’m honest to myself, an upgrade isn’t really economically justifiable.

[The_Cokester]

Well I think I know what the issue was. I put Pimax plays quality to custom and put it at 20% and it was still crystal clear. Which I thought was odd. There was not perceived quality loss at all. Went through the config and noticed the resolution was at at like 1700x1700 per eye. Then put it at 100%  and it was at like 3840x3840 per eye. Deleted pimax play and reinstalled. 100% slider was at 2880x2880. ( I used steam VR to check the actual resolution coming through)

I guess a corrupted pimax play install was it. Or it thought my OG crystal was the super. Jesus I was going mad.

Also, there is an argument to put pimax play and DCS on the CCD1 without the cache. Average FPS was down like 10fps but it was stutter free.

Putting it on CCD0 with the VCache had a higher overall fps but there was more stutters.

Also, reapplied thermal paste and there is no change in temps.

So in conclusion Pimax play had my resolution almost two times higher than what my headset is rated for. A reinstall fixed the issue.

And P.S. There was a performance uplift going the AMD 9950X3D. Instead of 90 to 100fps. I was getting 110 to 120. Then when switching too DLAA and DLSS (the new transformer model got rid of the ghosting completely) pinned at 120fps.

Thanks everyone who chimed in.

[The_Cokester]

Also, never once did the frame counter say I was GPU bound. It just said CPU Bound Rendering Thread.

[Tomcat388th]

Glad you got it figured out.  I'm slowly contemplating an upgrade when my retirement kicks in next year.  Getting tired of Meta's update screwing the pooch for everyone. Have them locked out for now.  Running a 5800x3d quest pro  6950xt with virtual desktop.  Happy with the balance of gameplay and visuals but always wanting more

J

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

6 hours ago, The_Cokester said:

Also, never once did the frame counter say I was GPU bound. It just said CPU Bound Rendering Thread.

It says the same for me: in 2D I’m ‘GPU bound’, but in VR I’m ‘CPU bound rendering thread’ with some dips to ‘CPU bound main thread’ on unoptimised sections of maps for example. My hope is that Vulkan will fix this, so that we are GPU bound even in VR.