Not sure about that. Eventually all work needs to be coordinated by a single thread. A conductor in front of single instrumentalist has an easy job. That instrumentalist could even do without that conductor. Add a few dozen instrumentalists and the conductor will be quite busy. Add an entire choir, an organ and a metal band and you might need more conductors to manage them all. These conductors need to be coordinated as well. Some tasks are easily divided up, In the example above one could record several songs in separate studios simultaneously without a problem but a single song with hundreds of instrumentalists and singers needs a conductor that can deal with all the seperate 'threads'.
Mark after your group flight in April where my PC crashed and BSOD, due to faulty RAM that was the final straw for my struggling i5 system. I switched to the 7800x3d. Like you I have been a Intel convert for years. I am pretty happy with the 7800x3d and seeing better and smoother results in 1440p and VR. It has taken some time to tweak settings and stabilize the system. -Messmeriza
I've built about a half dozen PC's over the years and I always used AMD because they were more affordable. With the last build I wasn't as concerned about money but I still went with AMD. I had a 3900x but recently swapped in a 5800x3D. I wish I could give you more info on MSFS performance but I am just completing my flight/driving/space simulator buildout. If I were you I'd go with the 7800x3D build even though I am always cautious of a new chipset and socket. They always start out buggy but then get stable over time. The numbers don't lie and the technology is not hard to understand. Notice how your guest did not recommend the more expensive AMD chip even though it has more cores and is also a x3D chip. It's not because of price that he did this. It's because of the layout and architecture of the current x3D implementation. The 7950x3D has 16 cores split over two chiplets while the vcach resides on only one of the chiplets. So when one of the other cores needs to use the level 3 cache, the processor (sort of) needs to stop what its doing and go over to the other chiplet and use it. This reduces the efficiency of the higher vcach implementation. The 7800x3D has only 8 cores with the cache sitting right on top of it so with respect to level 3 cache efficiency, it's faster. To be frank, the higher x3D model chips' implementation could fairly be described as disappointing and problematic. The 7800x3D is a winner though. It will save you money and noise... AND ... It will wipe the floor with that expensive blue space heater that used to be the best at this sort of thing. Love the videos, cheers !
Nope 7950x3d use parking core similar to intel 12/13k seriers with E cores in games, so when you are in game its use only chiplet with 3d cache that's why 7950x3d its a bit faster compared to 7800x3d due to higher clock speed but you have the advantage of much faster productivity performance
This might be your best video yet. Because of this video I put a R7 7800 X3d upgrade over my I9 10900k and the results were amazing... RTX3080ti is now my bottleneck.. FS2020 has never looked this good.
@@UltimateSimVR i just switched over and the performance is night and day i run the 7900xtx and 7800x3d from a rtx3080/i9 10900k @ 4.8GHZ build , less heat, less wattage, more performance msfs2020 is purely a latency bottlenecked sim
I currently run an i9 9900K and a 3080ti. Had long considered a 13900K as Ive always had Intel. the 13900 started to feel somewhat 'old' as its been out for sometime so I held off after hearing rumour on the 14th Gen but these have now been reported to be quite disappointing. Ive been considering the AMD 7800x3D as the 79 version is just too expensive. For gaming it seems great but I also do photoshop work so I am unsure. Changes in how MS2024 handles cpu cores etc is also leaving me wary of upgrading yet. Really do not know what to do
For those querying the VR performance. TDLR there will be a slight uplift from the 13900k. If you notice on the graphs, the GPU is at 50%, giving headroom to render "the other eye", but CPU will lock this to it's bottleneck; ie the 76fps you see will be in VR. The 5800X3D gives similar performance here to the 13900K and I can confirm you will be looking at around 70-80fps peek (fluctuates wildly with the scene though, from around 55fps-80fps). Will the 7800X3D allow 90fps? Probably not yet. You will still hit a number of brick walls, even with the 7800X3d and the 4090. One of the biggest sticking points is having the CPU supply the scene data to both renders (I know its not exactly like this, but it is partly true so the reference is appropriate). ie Turning up Terrain LoD will easily tank your fps in VR. Right now around 100 is suitable to get around 70fps in VR on either 13900K or 5800X3D. I would imagine you could increase this slightly (maybe 150) on the 7800X3D to get similar performance. However, there will still be drops to the 50's from time to time. Overall, GPU's and CPU's of today still are in no way ready to give you that 90fps locked fluid fps rate in MSFS. (by fluid I mean no 5%, 1% or 0.1% lows to the 50's etc). However, with some tweaking, you can achieve mostly smooth 90fps in VR with a 5800X3D and 4090 in DCS World MT with reasonably high settings and foveated rendering. Although you still get the odd stutter down to the 50's when other things are requested of the CPU. Turning of HAGS helps here somewhat too. In all these cases you can tweak the GPU to keep up, with tricks like DLSS and Foveated rendering, but there are no tweaks for current CPU's other than lowering those CPU demanding settings. Like you said this requires brute force of speeds, there is no magic wand. The technology is just not there yet ... but we've been given a glimpse, and potentially, it is coming (soon TM)
I've also noticed utilisation on many gaming performance charts to be half on the 13900K processor compared to the 7800 X3D however, I'm not sure what that means in real terms, especially when factoring in E-cores. It does appear though if games can be better CPU optimised, there might be more headroom there for the Intel processor in the future.
Thank you. I own a 5800X3D and planning to buy a VR set. I thought I might need a complete platform upgrade (incl. 7800X3D), but apparently I don't need to. Your input is very helpful
@@steveellis1001 you had still a really good chip but yes for flight simulator vr and almost all games if you want pure performance 7800x3d/7950x3d its way to go
i9 13900ks (more v-cache) is running everything beautifully maxed-out with an Asus MB & 4090 Strix. Doesn’t even break a sweat and runs between 50-60deg on most demanding games and sims. Ignore the naysayers 🤫
Arguably the 5800 X3D holds the best bang for your FPS at the moment, so these results on the 7800 X3D make my next upgrade deserving of more thought and consideration.
True. That's why I'm so deeply disappointed, most reviewers on YT go for the same old game benchmarks with barely any differences between generations, while MSFS keeps getting ignored while profiting the most.
@@ColinDyckes The cache helps them at ALL resolutions as this video results show. Even overclocked and with faster ram, it won't be nearly enough to make up for the huge difference. Not to mention the increased power draw and way higher cost.
@@Bluth53 Reviewers ignore MSFS because benchmarks require as little variability as possible. That means the exact same conditions every play through, and a set start and end point. Most, if not all the games used by the big reviewers have built in benchmarking tools to ensue everything is the same. MSFS can have run to run variances just based on the cloud rendering, and has no built in benchmarking tools. Even if it could be reliably benchmarked, that would only include the vanilla game. There will be a lot of people complaining that isn't enough. They will insist (and I have seen this happen many times) that any true benchmark for these high end components need the game, plus a litany of third party mods and add-ons. So yeah, I can understand why the sim isn't used by many reviewers. Of those that have tried to use the sim as a benchmark, the results have varied wildly between reviewers, which renders the results skeptical at best.
I’m on a 10900k and 4090 @ 4K. Decided a long time ago I’m going AMD this time but leaning toward the 7950x3D as I have seen some information which indicates it is better than the 7800x3D if you have multiple other applications running in the background.
@@speedbird8326 I've seen a number of people claiming this, but not any benchmarking results to prove it or not. Even if there is improvement, one has to also factor in whether or not the extra cost is worth it for the amount of uplift it (hypothetically) provides. It would have to be a huge bump to justify an extra $250 over the 7800x3d.
The sim runs great on my pc with the 5800x3d and 32mb ram at 36000 on am4 board. very happy i changed my chip from the 3700x to the 5800x3d well worth it.
Intel 13900k for a content creator, without a doubt. As a raw MSFS use AMD has a few more FPS, but once you start recording videos at the same time, running scripts, addons and more outside of MSFS, Intel has the lead for sure. I went back to 13900k and couldn´t be happier at the moment, at a cost of a few fps i have a very stable system, no matter how much multitask. Power, Temps etc... always comes up, how many do actually really care outside of Benchmarks? 100DEG is not an issue for Intel, mine runs at 65DEG and is absolutely fine. My recommendation: Focus on stability with headroom instead of pure fps, the experience is the most important.BTW, I have turned off fps preview in all my games, super smooth and i really dont care what the number is, Smooth is key and much more enjoyable.I would challenge anybody who can tell me the difference between 90fps and 117fps in MSFS (outside of VR)
Very happy to have waited until the 7800 X3D released. It runs beautifully with the 4090. Very glad to have the build finished now. I also went for one of those Arctic 360 AIO as a bonus treat. Astonishing performance.
Yeah, it's painfully obvious now why AMD held this back. Its made the 7900 X3D and infact the entire 7900 line up redundant for pure gaming, what a shame.
@@dtrjones It also runs very cool. Even under heavy load in 4K games I have yet to see the temp rise above 70°C, this is while boosting to 5 ghz. And with regards to everyone saying it's only for gaming, it's not like you can't render videos with it in resolve. I manage to render 4k video just fine. It just takes an extra 10 or 20 minutes on a big file. 👍
1. What is the best cpu nowadays in the end ? 2. What will happen when mfs24 comes out with multicpu support.... i feel like intel 13900k should be the way to go ... good overclocker, better than amd alternative nowadays it looks and stronger for mfs24... I m.right?
How would the 7800X3D perform in flight sim when enabling addons like FSLTL, GSX, FS2Crew and others along with a PMDG 737 or say Fenix A320? I think this test would be interesting as most avid simmers wouldn't be flying around in the Asobo A320 with minimal addons. If I am not mistaken, I think these addons would definitely make a difference and more cores would be a huge plus here.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I’ve been hanging out for just this comparison as I have suspected the AMD would do better, just not this much better.
I can't get over how well it runs on my I5 6600K with a GTX980Ti. Obviously not maxed out but looks very pretty still. VR would be out of the question as well I guess.
What I’m seeing from dcs with multi threading is where we should be focusing our money for future builds because msfs can’t stay single core for the next 6 years they have to recode and release the game
7800x3d Mark rather than say the 7950x3d. The 7950x3d only has v cache on one side of the chip and thus leads to xbox game bar and drivers having to decide which side to use for the game. The 7800x3d only has one die with the v cache on it and so negates the rigmarole with software work arounds.
I’m still rocking a 7700k @5.1 ghz and a 11gb 1080ti ! It’s gives an ok representation of the sim , brought to its knees depending on the scenery load .
Thanks for this. In the middle of designing a new build. I was planning on the i7-13900K. This has put a cat among the pigeons.. Moving from Intel to AMD. for me is a huge wrench. I know this is for MSFS, I'm aware the AMD doesn't do well in X plane 11 as for 12.. given up on that.
@@SimHangerFS Glad you concur.. I may have something that helps... A chap who is involved in X Plane and an expert on all things CPU/GPU has performed similar tests with XP 11/12. He's arrived at the same performance differences.. up to 15% better performance with the AMD. What's more he suggest the RTX 4070 as the ideal 'partner' for the AMD CPU (something I was going to use anyway except mine is going to be the 4070 Ti ) BUT.. he did put a caveat on 'add ons' in so far he didn't test them. Hope this helps.
There is also a Question about running additional programs with MSFS. Wish that could be answered as well. Im talking about FS Realistic, Simshakers, spad next etc. Do you know if that has any impact on CPU give amd has 8cores vs Intel 16c
Hi, yes it does have an impact, but with MSFS being predominantly single core, the difference between 8 and 16 cores in nominal if anything in my experience.
Improved fps translates directly into VR performance, as commented on at the end of the video. VR pilots are likely to benefit the most from this additional L3 cache.
You think so? I saw a Video about a year ago (Lukas S. / Wolta). He compared the new AMD X3D Technology with a conventional CPU, in DCS in VR, without Multithreating. He showed good results.
@@SimHangerFS i would like to see a video showing fps beetween both in VR, i know is a little bit hard but maybe Dan Crook can show us the pros and cons
@dboss7239 got the point. It would be essential to run i9 13900K at overclocking to have a true comparison with R7 7800 X3D. @dboss7239 "I'm late to this review, however I have a very important question which affects all of us thinking of upgrading. Both MSFS and XP12 are essentially single thread operations regards the primary flight model and graphics functions. Hence the primary attribute is the CPU clock speed. Were these benchmarks done at the max continuous overclock of each processor? Because if not then I suspect the 13900K will meet or better the 7800 X3D as their max overclocks are nowhere near each other. I seriously doubt he ran at the max overclock speed of the 13900K, as it draws over 250 watts when overclocked. The problem is the base and OC frequency of each is: 3.0 GHz for the 13900K and max overclock single core is 5.8 GHz 4.2 GHz for the 7800X3D and max overclock is 5.0 GHz So if you ran them at their base clock freq, then the 13900K will be performing at 71% of the speed of the AMD, but at overclocked the AMD runs at 86% of the Intel. Hence if not overclocked this was not an apples to apples benchmark, as for optimal flight sim of any kind (they are all single thread) you want to overclock, which means hefty cooling and lots of heat and somewhat noisy machine to obtain the cooling of both the CPU and the RTX4090.... I have a Ryzen 5600 now and overclocked it runs at 4.65 GHz which isn't enough to run at decent settings. I also have extensive experience running actual simulation software and the nature is that for simulations whether for mechanical stress or electromagnetic attributes and behavior, you are limited to single thread as is the case for the physics and aerodynamics of flight simulation. Yes a bigger cache helps, but the main driver is the clock speed. (and flight sim has the added burden of the speeds and relative motions of all the graphics relative to the moving aircraft which the CPU must generate before the graphics card can render them, you cannot parse out any of these tasks as all are dependent upon the aerodynamics so it's a linear process - you can't really split it up into different parcels that a bunch of cores can work on separately - it is iterative maths that have to run through a gazillion iterations of the basis or root parameters to generate a solution for the next frame) "
I'm late to this review, however I have a very important question which affects all of us thinking of upgrading. Both MSFS and XP12 are essentially single thread operations regards the primary flight model and graphics functions. Hence the primary attribute is the CPU clock speed. Were these benchmarks done at the max continuous overclock of each processor? Because if not then I suspect the 13900K will meet or better the 7800 X3D as their max overclocks are nowhere near each other. I seriously doubt he ran at the max overclock speed of the 13900K, as it draws over 250 watts when overclocked. The problem is the base and OC frequency of each is: 3.0 GHz for the 13900K and max overclock single core is 5.8 GHz 4.2 GHz for the 7800X3D and max overclock is 5.0 GHz So if you ran them at their base clock freq, then the 13900K will be performing at 71% of the speed of the AMD, but at overclocked the AMD runs at 86% of the Intel. Hence if not overclocked this was not an apples to apples benchmark, as for optimal flight sim of any kind (they are all single thread) you want to overclock, which means hefty cooling and lots of heat and somewhat noisy machine to obtain the cooling of both the CPU and the RTX4090.... I have a Ryzen 5600 now and overclocked it runs at 4.65 GHz which isn't enough to run at decent settings. I also have extensive experience running actual simulation software and the nature is that for simulations whether for mechanical stress or electromagnetic attributes and behavior, you are limited to single thread as is the case for the physics and aerodynamics of flight simulation. Yes a bigger cache helps, but the main driver is the clock speed. (and flight sim has the added burden of the speeds and relative motions of all the graphics relative to the moving aircraft which the CPU must generate before the graphics card can render them, you cannot parse out any of these tasks as all are dependent upon the aerodynamics so it's a linear process - you can't really split it up into different parcels that a bunch of cores can work on separately - it is iterative maths that have to run through a gazillion iterations of the basis or root parameters to generate a solution for the next frame)
It will be really interesting to see how the new msfs2024 will run with the new tech. From what I have heard they are optimized to run on the newer generation hardware unlike msfs2020. Have you heard the same thing @SimHangerFS? I am like you chasing the fps in msfs since the mid 80s. I think I'm going to wait until 2024 comes out to see if I need an upgrade or not.
Thank you Mark. very informative. Holding off building an MSFS VR rig until the dust settles. I think AMD is the way to go though🙂. Cheers for all your good work and exceptional detail.
I upgraded from a 5800X and a 3080 with 16GB RAM to a system with a 5800X3D, a 4080, and 32GB RAM, and oddly enough, the most noticeable difference is the CPU performance vs the normal 5800X
You've got the right idea gentleman. The increased performance will allow you to skip a current generation rebuild, focus on updating peripherals, enjoy gaming, and prepare for a rebuild 2 or 3 years from now.
Hello Mark!! I watch your videos all the time. I have a conflict. I am buying all the components to build a super gaming PC specifically to run MSFS with the PIMAX CRYSTAL and I wanted to ask you about the AMD Ryzen™ 9 7950X3D 16-Core, 32-Thread Desktop Processor vs the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core, 16-Thread you talk about in this video. Is the 7950 better than the 7800?
Ok i have one 7800X3D and it awesome - Sim arcing MSFS - it runs everything (with my 4090) great price - Just updated the bios too ( very easy and no issues!)
Eye opening test!! As others have mentioned tho I am also interested in the results when you start throwing in multiple addons and external programs; your virtual airlines monitoring programs, navigraph, multiple web pages, complex airplanes like the phenix or pmdg, AI or Vatsim traffic, streaming and/or recording..and of course your watching youtube or netflix on the other monitor as well right? lol. I had a similar issue when I was big into playing Eve Online, sure just a low core high speed CPU was great for the single game. But I was running 10 accounts at the same time..there weren't so many tests for that lol.
Just went 7800X3D + MSI 650 Tomahawk + 64GB GSkill with Hynix chips. Absolute beast of an upgrade from the 11600k @ 5Ghz. Bought 3x 7800X3D's and tested all of them. Kept the golden sample. Also tested 4 kits of RAM and holy hell am I skint until all the refunds come in :D
If one can afford top tear CPU I would wait for the 14th intel gen CPU that’s breaking the 6Ghz barrier, that’s going to announced in the Intel event in 20th of September. Nothing worse than spending a lot of money in a new computer and a couple of months later a brand new and better tech comes out.
Interesting video as always Mark I’m just going through the same process at the moment I am running a Ryzen 9 5900x What I am wondering now is if I should just buy the 5800x3d which will just slot strait into my existing motherboard or go the 7800x3d which means a rebuild. It might give me less bottlenecking and save me around £650
Thank you very much for this video, Mark. Two days ago I ordered an AMD 7950x3d and 64Gb ram 5600 (I’ll keep van rtx3060ti, it’s already expensive enough). It was time to build a new system because my i7-4790 was getting too slow with all these great new payware/freeware heavy aiports and hifi airplanes. As a long time Intel user I decided to go for AMD this time after a long time research. I don’t need 100, 150 or more fps. The most important for me is that I have a fluid running sim without stutters on my 4x 22” monitors and that I can run other fs software in the background. About all the pro’s and cont’s I could read here, it looks like a competition between MSFS vs X-plane, Airbus vs Boeing, Porsche vs Ferrari, BMW vs Mercedes and so on and so on. Sometimes it looks like a “children-garden”. Anyway the best is which you can pay and will never leave you alone. Stay safe mate 😉 and all of you. Don’t forget … keep loving flightsimulation whatever sim you have !
Really appreciate this video. I guess I’m getting my first AMD processor. Just got the Varjo Aero and a 4090, no point in cheaping out now. I was just going to upgrade from the 13600k to 13900k, but that is an immense gap in performance.
Great test. Next time on the graphics regarding usage/power/temps where you only have the 2 CPUs, make sure to put Intel in blue and AMD in red, it was confusing for a few seconds the other way around 😄
Hey Mark, thanks for that video. I actually run into the same question about Intel vs AMD when building my new rig last month. I have to say Im glad that I made the move to AMD form my 10900k. With my Gigabyte4090 and some CPU overclocking my FPS at 1440p are accutaly around 118
13:30 One factor to consider is the cost difference between Intel and AMD motherboards. Although cheaper AMD motherboards have recently been released the cost differential can be $50 or more.
My picks for very good CPUs as far as MSFS is concerned... AMD is ok with the X3D chips(5800,7800..ect) I have tried the 7800X3d recently and I hear from other AMD users that the CPUs are quite good but in MSFS but FPS not much better than my previous12900K/3090 was getting except not as smooth as the AMD X3D chips. Next on the intel side is i9 13900KS, Yeah I got the KS version and just as a side note it's fun to watch 2 cores running @ 6GHZ!!! Ok fun aside, the 13900"KS" CPU that I actually have and game on is putting out some serious FPS for MSFS... London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo... and at all the other graphically demanding areas the KS rips right thru... For example KJFK inibuilds version(very heavy on FPS) @ 4K almost Ultra settings, with FSLTL traffic set at 40%... I've seen FPS from 45-57FPS !!!!! WOW!!!! I do have the Tuf 4090 and when DLSS3 is turn on then it gets insane with 75-100 FPS is acheivable. Keep in mind these numbers are at the MOST resource demanding areas in the sim no doubt.
@@caribbaviator7058 I can't say I've seen stuttering on my setup since having a big cache drive. Without it, I used to have stutters but now a rolling cache of 500GB I don't have such issues and I'm running fairly modest by standard 5800X3D RX6950XT Reference 16GB DDR4 3600 CAS 18 Gen 3 512GB NVME 1 X 1TB SSD 1 X 500GB SSD
@@TheGodfatherUk those storage specs are so whack lmao why do you have it divided like that instead of just partitioning a larger drive? That setup is rough
Good video. Why did you perform the test in DX12 for both platforms? In VR, DX11 performs better when using Nvidia GPUs? Curious why not run the test in VR and DX11?
Any thoughts on MSFS 2024 changing these results significantly? I'm a current X-Plane on a Mac user prepping to move to MSFS 2024 on a PC when it's released.
Great video! I've somehow missed it. I'm on a 4090 and an i7 13700k and I will be getting my Crystal in a matter of days. My motherboard is a ASRock Z790 PG Lightning, so I'm not sure if a 7800 X3D will fit? If anyone who sees this knows, I'd appreciate an answer. The 7800X3D sounds like a great choice for MSFS. Thanks again, Mark. Love from Norway ♥♥♥♥♥
Is the Ryzen 5 7500F a good budget alternative to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D? Or is it better to go straight for the 7800X3D? Will MSFS stutter at landings with the 7500F?
7:36 - Since this is a rare case of testing two of the _same chips,_ anyone who sees this should immediately think: "wow, so all those 'reviews' who say 'X is better than Y!'--when there's only a 2.2 FPS difference--are TOTAL BS. When there's less than 3% difference, that's completely within the margin of error, as clearly shown here between two otherwise _identical_ chips." Sometimes I wish reviewers would just show something like: Intel blah900K: 12_ fps (+ or - 10 fps) Other brand blah900X: 12_ fps (+ or - 10 fps) (Leaving a blank in the 1's place)
The R7 7800X3D does not render as well as the Intel. It's not about frame rate in Flight SIM, 60 to *0 is all you need. Also, problems with memory speed with AM5 is now popping up. Intel all the way for me now, and with the 13th Gen refresh now here today, it will be even better.
Thanks for this test! I am about to build my first pc rig for flight sims but I am wondering if the AMD 77800x3d would be the right choice also for DCS, over a i7 14700K. And also, do you think 4090 as the only good option to achieve such good performances or a Radeon 7900xt could do (given that CPU does most of the heavy work) ? Any input will be much appreciated! Thanks!
Nice video but is this still valid with 2024 right around the corner? I’m getting close to getting a PC for 2020 but want to make sure it can handle 2024.
Hi i am running a b550 gaming edge Wi-Fi motherboard and a msi rtx 4070 12gb vengeance 2 graphics card with a Ryzen 5 600x processor i am a big flight simulator fan. what is best for a CPU upgrade the Ryzen 7 5800x3d or the Ryzen 7 7800x3d please and the ram i am using is 2x 32gb 3600mhz ddr4. vengeance. could you help and give me advice please.
for who dont know 7950x3d is a bit faster due to higher clock but it have to use parking cores in games similar to intel E cores, so it use only chiplet with 3d cache in games, but you have the advantage of much faster productivity performance
THANKS....I was ready to purchase a new system w/I9 & 4090 GPU and saw your video. As a result, I chose the 7800 X3D / NVIDIA 4070 combo. Saved $1K and XPlane runs with max graphics options and excellent results as you showed.
The 7950X3D is better at workload type tasks such as video editing etc, but for flight sim only the 7800X3D beats it due to the application of the 3D cache on this chip. The 7950 has L3 cache but due to the chiplet design less efficient in single core applications.
1stly I preferred to build up a system based on i7 13700 & 64GB DDR5 on DDR5 MoBo but meanwhile Ryzen 7800X3D could make the difference...hmm?🤷♂️very nice&useful content to make your decision👏👏👍
Don’t quite understand.. maybe it’s because he isn’t over looking anything? My 13900k with 4090 and 64 gigs of ram averages 78-82 on 4k with everything maxed, bad weather near towns or airports etc… so guessing something else is going on here.. my cpu is over locked by the mother board so just a basic overclock and same with gpu, just a basic overclock. Either way I’ll stick to the better quality intel product. The AMD chips are not better so again not sure what’s going on here. We have 22 gaming pcs with all kinds of amd and intel chips at our MFS gaming studio where there is 20 of us that all play.
Wow, I would never expect a 30%-40% boost in performance. And that Intel power draw... Looks like they learned _nothing_ from when Apple absolutely trounced them last year and the year before.
Well.. being an Intel man I've also considered AMD at this point. However, I am seeing lots of POST + memory issues with the Ryzen 7xxx3D platform. Not to mention ASUS latest tendency to overcook the processors... I cant really think of doing the purchase nor recommend it atm...
@@mplmpl7780 i guess it is a specific mobo/chipset incompatibility.. glad to knownit works for you!!! PS you mind sharing the mobo + fw verdion and ram sticks used in your system?
@@alu2387 Hi mate , Msi Pro x670-p, Msi Gaming trio 4090 , corsair dominator platinum 6000 2 x 16Gb and latest FW on MB and all drivers newest. Running DCS and MSFS stable 90 FPS ,100 percent Res on G2.
@@mplmpl7780 thx for sharing. I am on a 9900k with a 3080 and the reverb g2 too. The system is still capable of giving a a kick in usual desktop simming.. but it is clearly breaking a sweat when I switch to vr.
See my follow up video here… ua-cam.com/video/5fhM6XRgpOs/v-deo.html
Apparently, 2024 says it will do this. Fingers crossed!
The real game changer will be when we get off single core and take full advantage of all the cores modern CPU’s have to offer.
So true !
... and we will still be watching an 8 core smoke a 24 core on MSFS. Yeah, that'll be fun ! (DCS challenge anyone ?)
i read 7 cores kick in when its at highest peak in the sim,,when i.monitor the sim i get even activity all cores and threads.I dont know
Not sure about that. Eventually all work needs to be coordinated by a single thread.
A conductor in front of single instrumentalist has an easy job. That instrumentalist could even do without that conductor. Add a few dozen instrumentalists and the conductor will be quite busy. Add an entire choir, an organ and a metal band and you might need more conductors to manage them all. These conductors need to be coordinated as well.
Some tasks are easily divided up, In the example above one could record several songs in separate studios simultaneously without a problem but a single song with hundreds of instrumentalists and singers needs a conductor that can deal with all the seperate 'threads'.
Is this in the pipeline?
Mark after your group flight in April where my PC crashed and BSOD, due to faulty RAM that was the final straw for my struggling i5 system. I switched to the 7800x3d. Like you I have been a Intel convert for years. I am pretty happy with the 7800x3d and seeing better and smoother results in 1440p and VR. It has taken some time to tweak settings and stabilize the system. -Messmeriza
I've built about a half dozen PC's over the years and I always used AMD because they were more affordable. With the last build I wasn't as concerned about money but I still went with AMD. I had a 3900x but recently swapped in a 5800x3D. I wish I could give you more info on MSFS performance but I am just completing my flight/driving/space simulator buildout. If I were you I'd go with the 7800x3D build even though I am always cautious of a new chipset and socket. They always start out buggy but then get stable over time. The numbers don't lie and the technology is not hard to understand. Notice how your guest did not recommend the more expensive AMD chip even though it has more cores and is also a x3D chip. It's not because of price that he did this. It's because of the layout and architecture of the current x3D implementation. The 7950x3D has 16 cores split over two chiplets while the vcach resides on only one of the chiplets. So when one of the other cores needs to use the level 3 cache, the processor (sort of) needs to stop what its doing and go over to the other chiplet and use it. This reduces the efficiency of the higher vcach implementation. The 7800x3D has only 8 cores with the cache sitting right on top of it so with respect to level 3 cache efficiency, it's faster. To be frank, the higher x3D model chips' implementation could fairly be described as disappointing and problematic. The 7800x3D is a winner though. It will save you money and noise... AND ... It will wipe the floor with that expensive blue space heater that used to be the best at this sort of thing. Love the videos, cheers !
Nope 7950x3d use parking core similar to intel 12/13k seriers with E cores in games, so when you are in game its use only chiplet with 3d cache that's why 7950x3d its a bit faster compared to 7800x3d due to higher clock speed but you have the advantage of much faster productivity performance
Save your money on the core counts, games don't make use of even Core i5's or Ryzen 5's, go for the graphics cards.
Wow 100 videos later I finally find my answers. Go AMD. Thanks.
This might be your best video yet. Because of this video I put a R7 7800 X3d upgrade over my I9 10900k and the results were amazing... RTX3080ti is now my bottleneck.. FS2020 has never looked this good.
I am literally thinking about upgrading from my i9 10850k to the 7800x3d
If you get an RTX 4080 you get the AI frame generation which makes MSFS a buttery smooth 200 FPS in 1440p
Really ?i have the same GPU 3080ti and u're telling le with 7800x3d you got better experience?
@@UltimateSimVR i just switched over and the performance is night and day i run the 7900xtx and 7800x3d from a rtx3080/i9 10900k @ 4.8GHZ build , less heat, less wattage, more performance msfs2020 is purely a latency bottlenecked sim
I currently run an i9 9900K and a 3080ti. Had long considered a 13900K as Ive always had Intel. the 13900 started to feel somewhat 'old' as its been out for sometime so I held off after hearing rumour on the 14th Gen but these have now been reported to be quite disappointing. Ive been considering the AMD 7800x3D as the 79 version is just too expensive. For gaming it seems great but I also do photoshop work so I am unsure. Changes in how MS2024 handles cpu cores etc is also leaving me wary of upgrading yet. Really do not know what to do
Thanks for putting this together. It would be interesting to see the results from X-Plane 12 as well.
ua-cam.com/video/U8N4ODbu-Do/v-deo.html
For those querying the VR performance. TDLR there will be a slight uplift from the 13900k. If you notice on the graphs, the GPU is at 50%, giving headroom to render "the other eye", but CPU will lock this to it's bottleneck; ie the 76fps you see will be in VR. The 5800X3D gives similar performance here to the 13900K and I can confirm you will be looking at around 70-80fps peek (fluctuates wildly with the scene though, from around 55fps-80fps).
Will the 7800X3D allow 90fps? Probably not yet. You will still hit a number of brick walls, even with the 7800X3d and the 4090. One of the biggest sticking points is having the CPU supply the scene data to both renders (I know its not exactly like this, but it is partly true so the reference is appropriate). ie Turning up Terrain LoD will easily tank your fps in VR. Right now around 100 is suitable to get around 70fps in VR on either 13900K or 5800X3D. I would imagine you could increase this slightly (maybe 150) on the 7800X3D to get similar performance. However, there will still be drops to the 50's from time to time.
Overall, GPU's and CPU's of today still are in no way ready to give you that 90fps locked fluid fps rate in MSFS. (by fluid I mean no 5%, 1% or 0.1% lows to the 50's etc).
However, with some tweaking, you can achieve mostly smooth 90fps in VR with a 5800X3D and 4090 in DCS World MT with reasonably high settings and foveated rendering. Although you still get the odd stutter down to the 50's when other things are requested of the CPU. Turning of HAGS helps here somewhat too.
In all these cases you can tweak the GPU to keep up, with tricks like DLSS and Foveated rendering, but there are no tweaks for current CPU's other than lowering those CPU demanding settings. Like you said this requires brute force of speeds, there is no magic wand. The technology is just not there yet ... but we've been given a glimpse, and potentially, it is coming (soon TM)
I've also noticed utilisation on many gaming performance charts to be half on the 13900K processor compared to the 7800 X3D however, I'm not sure what that means in real terms, especially when factoring in E-cores. It does appear though if games can be better CPU optimised, there might be more headroom there for the Intel processor in the future.
Thank you. I own a 5800X3D and planning to buy a VR set. I thought I might need a complete platform upgrade (incl. 7800X3D), but apparently I don't need to. Your input is very helpful
I changed to the 7800x3d a few months ago and I have to say it worked amazing for me. VR is so much better, I would totally recommend this chip
Just curious if 4090 and the 7800x3d in VR is there still or CPU bottlenecks? I’m on 5800x3d and 4090 with VR and wondering if to upgrade
from what did you change?
@@gaurlglmistrz I had a 5900 amd chip
@@steveellis1001 you had still a really good chip but yes for flight simulator vr and almost all games if you want pure performance 7800x3d/7950x3d its way to go
@@uruwashii5231I’m your shoes I’d just hold off till next Gen Ryzen. The 5800X3D is still a great chip
i9 13900ks (more v-cache) is running everything beautifully maxed-out with an Asus MB & 4090 Strix. Doesn’t even break a sweat and runs between 50-60deg on most demanding games and sims. Ignore the naysayers 🤫
13900KS is twice the cost and still outdone by the X3D for MSFS...
@@Ben-my4nv Perhaps. But it’s a super sweet CPU nonetheless and not a moment of config hassle. It’s eating MSFS plenty 🙂
Arguably the 5800 X3D holds the best bang for your FPS at the moment, so these results on the 7800 X3D make my next upgrade deserving of more thought and consideration.
True. That's why I'm so deeply disappointed, most reviewers on YT go for the same old game benchmarks with barely any differences between generations, while MSFS keeps getting ignored while profiting the most.
@@ColinDyckes The cache helps them at ALL resolutions as this video results show. Even overclocked and with faster ram, it won't be nearly enough to make up for the huge difference. Not to mention the increased power draw and way higher cost.
@@Bluth53 Reviewers ignore MSFS because benchmarks require as little variability as possible. That means the exact same conditions every play through, and a set start and end point. Most, if not all the games used by the big reviewers have built in benchmarking tools to ensue everything is the same. MSFS can have run to run variances just based on the cloud rendering, and has no built in benchmarking tools.
Even if it could be reliably benchmarked, that would only include the vanilla game. There will be a lot of people complaining that isn't enough. They will insist (and I have seen this happen many times) that any true benchmark for these high end components need the game, plus a litany of third party mods and add-ons.
So yeah, I can understand why the sim isn't used by many reviewers. Of those that have tried to use the sim as a benchmark, the results have varied wildly between reviewers, which renders the results skeptical at best.
I’m on a 10900k and 4090 @ 4K. Decided a long time ago I’m going AMD this time but leaning toward the 7950x3D as I have seen some information which indicates it is better than the 7800x3D if you have multiple other applications running in the background.
@@speedbird8326 I've seen a number of people claiming this, but not any benchmarking results to prove it or not. Even if there is improvement, one has to also factor in whether or not the extra cost is worth it for the amount of uplift it (hypothetically) provides. It would have to be a huge bump to justify an extra $250 over the 7800x3d.
The sim runs great on my pc with the 5800x3d and 32mb ram at 36000 on am4 board. very happy i changed my chip from the 3700x to the 5800x3d well worth it.
Excellent comparison.
Thank you both.🎉
Intel 13900k for a content creator, without a doubt. As a raw MSFS use AMD has a few more FPS, but once you start recording videos at the same time, running scripts, addons and more outside of MSFS, Intel has the lead for sure. I went back to 13900k and couldn´t be happier at the moment, at a cost of a few fps i have a very stable system, no matter how much multitask. Power, Temps etc... always comes up, how many do actually really care outside of Benchmarks? 100DEG is not an issue for Intel, mine runs at 65DEG and is absolutely fine. My recommendation: Focus on stability with headroom instead of pure fps, the experience is the most important.BTW, I have turned off fps preview in all my games, super smooth and i really dont care what the number is, Smooth is key and much more enjoyable.I would challenge anybody who can tell me the difference between 90fps and 117fps in MSFS (outside of VR)
Outside VR yes, but we need every frame in VR . Also if its just a gaming rig the 7800x3d beats the 13700k hands down.
@@mplmpl7780 so you're not aware that the 13th gen is better for VR then the 7800X3D?
😂
@@DingleBerryschnappsnot heard about this, any links ? . but 13 and 14 cpus are destroying themselves atm so staying well away.
Very happy to have waited until the 7800 X3D released. It runs beautifully with the 4090. Very glad to have the build finished now. I also went for one of those Arctic 360 AIO as a bonus treat. Astonishing performance.
Yeah, it's painfully obvious now why AMD held this back. Its made the 7900 X3D and infact the entire 7900 line up redundant for pure gaming, what a shame.
@@dtrjones It also runs very cool. Even under heavy load in 4K games I have yet to see the temp rise above 70°C, this is while boosting to 5 ghz.
And with regards to everyone saying it's only for gaming, it's not like you can't render videos with it in resolve. I manage to render 4k video just fine. It just takes an extra 10 or 20 minutes on a big file. 👍
Hi! What motherboard are you using? Ram? Thanks!!
@@theegodelpozo Hey there. I went for the Gigabyte Aorus Elite AX board with 32gb G-skill Flare X5 6000mhz RAM. 👍
1. What is the best cpu nowadays in the end ? 2. What will happen when mfs24 comes out with multicpu support.... i feel like intel 13900k should be the way to go ... good overclocker, better than amd alternative nowadays it looks and stronger for mfs24... I m.right?
I wish you could have included DCS in the benchmarks.
How would the 7800X3D perform in flight sim when enabling addons like FSLTL, GSX, FS2Crew and others along with a PMDG 737 or say Fenix A320? I think this test would be interesting as most avid simmers wouldn't be flying around in the Asobo A320 with minimal addons. If I am not mistaken, I think these addons would definitely make a difference and more cores would be a huge plus here.
Since the sim is not multi-threaded, it would make no difference.
Then you’ll be better with the amd 7950x3d
And me with my I7 and RTX 2080 Super ;) Holds up well so far eh! :)
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I’ve been hanging out for just this comparison as I have suspected the AMD would do better, just not this much better.
I can't get over how well it runs on my I5 6600K with a GTX980Ti. Obviously not maxed out but looks very pretty still. VR would be out of the question as well I guess.
What I’m seeing from dcs with multi threading is where we should be focusing our money for future builds because msfs can’t stay single core for the next 6 years they have to recode and release the game
as the other guy said, that sounds logical until you consider that MSFS is kind of tied to the Xbox now
7800x3d Mark rather than say the 7950x3d. The 7950x3d only has v cache on one side of the chip and thus leads to xbox game bar and drivers having to decide which side to use for the game. The 7800x3d only has one die with the v cache on it and so negates the rigmarole with software work arounds.
I was going to upgrade my RTX 3080 to a 4090 but may getting a 7800X3D CPU might be a good first step?
I’m still rocking a 7700k @5.1 ghz and a 11gb 1080ti ! It’s gives an ok representation of the sim , brought to its knees depending on the scenery load .
Thanks for this. In the middle of designing a new build. I was planning on the i7-13900K. This has put a cat among the pigeons.. Moving from Intel to AMD. for me is a huge wrench. I know this is for MSFS, I'm aware the AMD doesn't do well in X plane 11 as for 12.. given up on that.
I’m very much in the same position !
@@SimHangerFS Glad you concur.. I may have something that helps... A chap who is involved in X Plane and an expert on all things CPU/GPU has performed similar tests with XP 11/12. He's arrived at the same performance differences.. up to 15% better performance with the AMD. What's more he suggest the RTX 4070 as the ideal 'partner' for the AMD CPU (something I was going to use anyway except mine is going to be the 4070 Ti ) BUT.. he did put a caveat on 'add ons' in so far he didn't test them. Hope this helps.
@@ralphconnell8163 thank you 👍
There is also a Question about running additional programs with MSFS. Wish that could be answered as well.
Im talking about FS Realistic, Simshakers, spad next etc.
Do you know if that has any impact on CPU give amd has 8cores vs Intel 16c
Hi, yes it does have an impact, but with MSFS being predominantly single core, the difference between 8 and 16 cores in nominal if anything in my experience.
Then you’ll be better with the 7950x3d
the most interest part you miss, what about VR? I can't play msfs on the screen for the last 3 years, i think in VR the things change a lot for intel.
Improved fps translates directly into VR performance, as commented on at the end of the video. VR pilots are likely to benefit the most from this additional L3 cache.
You think so? I saw a Video about a year ago (Lukas S. / Wolta). He compared the new AMD X3D Technology with a conventional CPU, in DCS in VR, without Multithreating. He showed good results.
@@SimHangerFS i would like to see a video showing fps beetween both in VR, i know is a little bit hard but maybe Dan Crook can show us the pros and cons
@dboss7239 got the point. It would be essential to run i9 13900K at overclocking to have a true comparison with R7 7800 X3D.
@dboss7239
"I'm late to this review, however I have a very important question which affects all of us thinking of upgrading. Both MSFS and XP12 are essentially single thread operations regards the primary flight model and graphics functions. Hence the primary attribute is the CPU clock speed. Were these benchmarks done at the max continuous overclock of each processor? Because if not then I suspect the 13900K will meet or better the 7800 X3D as their max overclocks are nowhere near each other.
I seriously doubt he ran at the max overclock speed of the 13900K, as it draws over 250 watts when overclocked. The problem is the base and OC frequency of each is:
3.0 GHz for the 13900K and max overclock single core is 5.8 GHz
4.2 GHz for the 7800X3D and max overclock is 5.0 GHz
So if you ran them at their base clock freq, then the 13900K will be performing at 71% of the speed of the AMD, but at overclocked the AMD runs at 86% of the Intel. Hence if not overclocked this was not an apples to apples benchmark, as for optimal flight sim of any kind (they are all single thread) you want to overclock, which means hefty cooling and lots of heat and somewhat noisy machine to obtain the cooling of both the CPU and the RTX4090....
I have a Ryzen 5600 now and overclocked it runs at 4.65 GHz which isn't enough to run at decent settings. I also have extensive experience running actual simulation software and the nature is that for simulations whether for mechanical stress or electromagnetic attributes and behavior, you are limited to single thread as is the case for the physics and aerodynamics of flight simulation. Yes a bigger cache helps, but the main driver is the clock speed. (and flight sim has the added burden of the speeds and relative motions of all the graphics relative to the moving aircraft which the CPU must generate before the graphics card can render them, you cannot parse out any of these tasks as all are dependent upon the aerodynamics so it's a linear process - you can't really split it up into different parcels that a bunch of cores can work on separately - it is iterative maths that have to run through a gazillion iterations of the basis or root parameters to generate a solution for the next frame) "
I'm late to this review, however I have a very important question which affects all of us thinking of upgrading. Both MSFS and XP12 are essentially single thread operations regards the primary flight model and graphics functions. Hence the primary attribute is the CPU clock speed. Were these benchmarks done at the max continuous overclock of each processor? Because if not then I suspect the 13900K will meet or better the 7800 X3D as their max overclocks are nowhere near each other.
I seriously doubt he ran at the max overclock speed of the 13900K, as it draws over 250 watts when overclocked. The problem is the base and OC frequency of each is:
3.0 GHz for the 13900K and max overclock single core is 5.8 GHz
4.2 GHz for the 7800X3D and max overclock is 5.0 GHz
So if you ran them at their base clock freq, then the 13900K will be performing at 71% of the speed of the AMD, but at overclocked the AMD runs at 86% of the Intel. Hence if not overclocked this was not an apples to apples benchmark, as for optimal flight sim of any kind (they are all single thread) you want to overclock, which means hefty cooling and lots of heat and somewhat noisy machine to obtain the cooling of both the CPU and the RTX4090....
I have a Ryzen 5600 now and overclocked it runs at 4.65 GHz which isn't enough to run at decent settings. I also have extensive experience running actual simulation software and the nature is that for simulations whether for mechanical stress or electromagnetic attributes and behavior, you are limited to single thread as is the case for the physics and aerodynamics of flight simulation. Yes a bigger cache helps, but the main driver is the clock speed. (and flight sim has the added burden of the speeds and relative motions of all the graphics relative to the moving aircraft which the CPU must generate before the graphics card can render them, you cannot parse out any of these tasks as all are dependent upon the aerodynamics so it's a linear process - you can't really split it up into different parcels that a bunch of cores can work on separately - it is iterative maths that have to run through a gazillion iterations of the basis or root parameters to generate a solution for the next frame)
AMD blue, Intel red??? 😅
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2GHz Socket AM5 💜💜💜💯💯💯
such a coincidence as I was looking up cpus yesterday. Thanks to Dan for the insight. Hope to see how you decide (wink wink nudge nudge).
Many thanks. The whole self-emolation thing had me procrastinating on a much needed upgrade. I think I have popped through the confidence threshold :)
Running my 7950X3D almost all games pull around 65 watts, not much different than the 7800X3D seen here.
It will be really interesting to see how the new msfs2024 will run with the new tech. From what I have heard they are optimized to run on the newer generation hardware unlike msfs2020. Have you heard the same thing @SimHangerFS? I am like you chasing the fps in msfs since the mid 80s. I think I'm going to wait until 2024 comes out to see if I need an upgrade or not.
Thank you Mark. very informative. Holding off building an MSFS VR rig until the dust settles. I think AMD is the way to go though🙂. Cheers for all your good work and exceptional detail.
I upgraded from a 5800X and a 3080 with 16GB RAM to a system with a 5800X3D, a 4080, and 32GB RAM, and oddly enough, the most noticeable difference is the CPU performance vs the normal 5800X
too many issues with AMD better the devil you know -- Intel
What issues are we talking about ?
Wish you guys would have added the 5800X3D to those benchmarks. Pretty sure it beat the 13900K in MSFS as well
I also heard about that...and its a lot cheaper...perhaps 4 the saved money a RTX4090 would be integrated than the cheaper 4070ti🎉🤩🥳
You've got the right idea gentleman. The increased performance will allow you to skip a current generation rebuild, focus on updating peripherals, enjoy gaming, and prepare for a rebuild 2 or 3 years from now.
Why would you color code the 7800x3d with blue and the I9 with red blows my mind, I'm having hard times reading those numbers😮
What are your thoughts on a R5 7600x and 7800XT? Or even upping it to a 7900 GRE?
I just picked an R9 7900 non-X 12 core, for this sim and my DCS. along with an rx 7900XT and new 4k LG monitor ; )
At this point anyone buying a 13900K over a 7800X3D to play MSFS has messed up.
If you play MMOs, 7800x3d is indispensable, that 3d v cache or whatever it's called is simply magic.
Hello Mark!!
I watch your videos all the time.
I have a conflict.
I am buying all the components to build a super gaming PC specifically to run MSFS with the PIMAX CRYSTAL and I wanted to ask you about the
AMD Ryzen™ 9 7950X3D 16-Core, 32-Thread Desktop Processor vs the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8-Core, 16-Thread you talk about in this video.
Is the 7950 better than the 7800?
No difference in gaming. 7050 better at multitasking operations
Ok i have one 7800X3D and it awesome - Sim arcing MSFS - it runs everything (with my 4090) great price - Just updated the bios too ( very easy and no issues!)
Eye opening test!! As others have mentioned tho I am also interested in the results when you start throwing in multiple addons and external programs; your virtual airlines monitoring programs, navigraph, multiple web pages, complex airplanes like the phenix or pmdg, AI or Vatsim traffic, streaming and/or recording..and of course your watching youtube or netflix on the other monitor as well right? lol. I had a similar issue when I was big into playing Eve Online, sure just a low core high speed CPU was great for the single game. But I was running 10 accounts at the same time..there weren't so many tests for that lol.
More tests planned, including VR.
Fantastic video as always, Mark!!! Thank YOU!!!
The 7950X not X3D is very good too for msfs
Something told me they would eventually start using more than 8 cores in games at some point in the future.
Just went 7800X3D + MSI 650 Tomahawk + 64GB GSkill with Hynix chips. Absolute beast of an upgrade from the 11600k @ 5Ghz. Bought 3x 7800X3D's and tested all of them. Kept the golden sample. Also tested 4 kits of RAM and holy hell am I skint until all the refunds come in :D
baller !
Hello and the ryzen 9 7900x3d with 140mb cache would be a better option than the
R7 7800 X3D ?
If one can afford top tear CPU I would wait for the 14th intel gen CPU that’s breaking the 6Ghz barrier, that’s going to announced in the Intel event in 20th of September. Nothing worse than spending a lot of money in a new computer and a couple of months later a brand new and better tech comes out.
14 gen was just marketing ..8% more much performance .. yeah
Interesting video as always Mark
I’m just going through the same process at the moment I am running a Ryzen 9 5900x
What I am wondering now is if I should just buy the 5800x3d which will just slot strait into my existing motherboard or go the 7800x3d which means a rebuild.
It might give me less bottlenecking and save me around £650
Upgraded my 10600k @ 5ghz to the 7800x3d after seeing this video. Huge performance uplift with the 4090.
This video convinced me to switch to AMD from Intel. I've been a strict Intel guy for years but these numbers are hard to ignore.
Thank you very much for this video, Mark. Two days ago I ordered an AMD 7950x3d and 64Gb ram 5600 (I’ll keep van rtx3060ti, it’s already expensive enough). It was time to build a new system because my i7-4790 was getting too slow with all these great new payware/freeware heavy aiports and hifi airplanes. As a long time Intel user I decided to go for AMD this time after a long time research. I don’t need 100, 150 or more fps. The most important for me is that I have a fluid running sim without stutters on my 4x 22” monitors and that I can run other fs software in the background.
About all the pro’s and cont’s I could read here, it looks like a competition between MSFS vs X-plane, Airbus vs Boeing, Porsche vs Ferrari, BMW vs Mercedes and so on and so on. Sometimes it looks like a “children-garden”. Anyway the best is which you can pay and will never leave you alone. Stay safe mate 😉 and all of you. Don’t forget … keep loving flightsimulation whatever sim you have !
I have a 13900K and the Nvidia 4090. I feel rather foolish.
Still a great combo….👍
Really appreciate this video. I guess I’m getting my first AMD processor. Just got the Varjo Aero and a 4090, no point in cheaping out now. I was just going to upgrade from the 13600k to 13900k, but that is an immense gap in performance.
“Astonishing Miracle Deliverer” - Drunk Acer Computer representative on stage with Dr Lisa Su
Great test. Next time on the graphics regarding usage/power/temps where you only have the 2 CPUs, make sure to put Intel in blue and AMD in red, it was confusing for a few seconds the other way around 😄
What about 7900X3D vs 7800X3D?
Thanks for this - a genuinely useful video!
I have a 5600x currently and was thinking of going for the 5800x3d im running a nvidia 3090fe is 249$ worth it for cpu?
Dude ... your a perfect candidate .. do it ! ... your mind will be blown !
Hey Mark, thanks for that video.
I actually run into the same question about Intel vs AMD when building my new rig last month.
I have to say Im glad that I made the move to AMD form my 10900k.
With my Gigabyte4090 and some CPU overclocking my FPS at 1440p are accutaly around 118
AMD equals problems. Stood away from it and can't be best decision
Hello and the ryzen 9 7900x3d with 140mb cache would be a better option than the
R7 7800 X3D ?
I believe the ‘’usable’’ cache is the same on that cpu.
Just ordered a 7800x3d system this morning. Exciting times.
13:30 One factor to consider is the cost difference between Intel and AMD motherboards. Although cheaper AMD motherboards have recently been released the cost differential can be $50 or more.
wow comment deleted ;) that says everything. perhaps working for amd ?
My picks for very good CPUs as far as MSFS is concerned... AMD is ok with the X3D chips(5800,7800..ect) I have tried the 7800X3d recently and I hear from other AMD users that the CPUs are quite good but in MSFS but FPS not much better than my previous12900K/3090 was getting except not as smooth as the AMD X3D chips. Next on the intel side is i9 13900KS, Yeah I got the KS version and just as a side note it's fun to watch 2 cores running @ 6GHZ!!! Ok fun aside, the 13900"KS" CPU that I actually have and game on is putting out some serious FPS for MSFS... London, NYC, Paris, Tokyo... and at all the other graphically demanding areas the KS rips right thru... For example KJFK inibuilds version(very heavy on FPS) @ 4K almost Ultra settings, with FSLTL traffic set at 40%... I've seen FPS from 45-57FPS !!!!! WOW!!!! I do have the Tuf 4090 and when DLSS3 is turn on then it gets insane with 75-100 FPS is acheivable. Keep in mind these numbers are at the MOST resource demanding areas in the sim no doubt.
Hope you have a 🧯with that ks chip
This is why I subscribed = Quality information! Thank you!
But apparently with DCS you are better of with Intel, pfff and i play both....😢
How is the 1% low for the 13900K is higher at 4K than it is on 1440P !
Great video! I’d be fascinated to see something similar including the 7950X3D.
LOL @ Intel scrubs, enjoy your crashes.
nice channel . deleting fakts. no free oppinion . far away form truth ;)
As an owner of a 5800X3D playing MSFS, you won't be disappointed by going with an X3D.
That's my CPU! But it's not immune from stuttering. The sim definitely needs more optimization on the cpu side. Still better than my 10th gen i7.
@@caribbaviator7058 I can't say I've seen stuttering on my setup since having a big cache drive.
Without it, I used to have stutters but now a rolling cache of 500GB I don't have such issues and I'm running fairly modest by standard
5800X3D
RX6950XT Reference
16GB DDR4 3600 CAS 18
Gen 3 512GB NVME
1 X 1TB SSD
1 X 500GB SSD
@@TheGodfatherUk those storage specs are so whack lmao why do you have it divided like that instead of just partitioning a larger drive? That setup is rough
@@blizzyblob because I re-use old components, especially storage.
Hello and the ryzen 9 7900x3d with 140mb cache would be a better option than the
R7 7800 X3D ?
Good video. Why did you perform the test in DX12 for both platforms? In VR, DX11 performs better when using Nvidia GPUs? Curious why not run the test in VR and DX11?
Vr test coming up 😀
Any thoughts on MSFS 2024 changing these results significantly? I'm a current X-Plane on a Mac user prepping to move to MSFS 2024 on a PC when it's released.
Currently unknown, performance wise overall it should be improved due to multi-thread/core utilisation.
Great video! I've somehow missed it. I'm on a 4090 and an i7 13700k and I will be getting my Crystal in a matter of days. My motherboard is a ASRock Z790 PG Lightning, so I'm not sure if a 7800 X3D will fit? If anyone who sees this knows, I'd appreciate an answer. The 7800X3D sounds like a great choice for MSFS. Thanks again, Mark. Love from Norway ♥♥♥♥♥
😂
So should I get a amd plus 4070 ti super for quest 3 or i7
i thinking to upgrade to 7800x3D ,
Hello, good video, I have an i7 9700k with RTX 3080, the question would be, should I update it to the 7800x3D?
You would see a substantial improvement in fps, but would need to update m/b and memory too.
Is the Ryzen 5 7500F a good budget alternative to the Ryzen 7 7800X3D? Or is it better to go straight for the 7800X3D? Will MSFS stutter at landings with the 7500F?
The 7500 doesn’t have the additional cache so performance suffers.
@@SimHangerFS so basically get the 7800x3d from the get go. Thank you for your reply!
7:36 - Since this is a rare case of testing two of the _same chips,_ anyone who sees this should immediately think: "wow, so all those 'reviews' who say 'X is better than Y!'--when there's only a 2.2 FPS difference--are TOTAL BS. When there's less than 3% difference, that's completely within the margin of error, as clearly shown here between two otherwise _identical_ chips."
Sometimes I wish reviewers would just show something like:
Intel blah900K: 12_ fps (+ or - 10 fps)
Other brand blah900X: 12_ fps (+ or - 10 fps)
(Leaving a blank in the 1's place)
The R7 7800X3D does not render as well as the Intel. It's not about frame rate in Flight SIM, 60 to *0 is all you need. Also, problems with memory speed with AM5 is now popping up. Intel all the way for me now, and with the 13th Gen refresh now here today, it will be even better.
Thanks for this test! I am about to build my first pc rig for flight sims but I am wondering if the AMD 77800x3d would be the right choice also for DCS, over a i7 14700K. And also, do you think 4090 as the only good option to achieve such good performances or a Radeon 7900xt could do (given that CPU does most of the heavy work) ? Any input will be much appreciated! Thanks!
Anybody recommend a waterblock?
Nice video but is this still valid with 2024 right around the corner? I’m getting close to getting a PC for 2020 but want to make sure it can handle 2024.
Still applicable, but there are new CPU’s coming around the corner.
Hi i am running a b550 gaming edge Wi-Fi motherboard and a msi rtx 4070 12gb vengeance 2 graphics card with a Ryzen 5 600x processor i am a big flight simulator fan. what is best for a CPU upgrade the Ryzen 7 5800x3d or the Ryzen 7 7800x3d please and the ram i am using is 2x 32gb 3600mhz ddr4. vengeance. could you help and give me advice please.
7800X3D plus 32Gb ram
@@SimHangerFS Thank you so much for your advice 👍
for who dont know 7950x3d is a bit faster due to higher clock but it have to use parking cores in games similar to intel E cores, so it use only chiplet with 3d cache in games, but you have the advantage of much faster productivity performance
Hello and the ryzen 9 7900x3d with 140mb cache would be a better option than the
R7 7800 X3D ?
@@diegolaporte4653for only gaming nope
@@diegolaporte4653 i would like to know this as well
Pity that you guys did at least started also DCS as from what the community reports there the situation is in favor of 13900.
THANKS....I was ready to purchase a new system w/I9 & 4090 GPU and saw your video.
As a result, I chose the 7800 X3D / NVIDIA 4070 combo. Saved $1K and XPlane runs with max graphics options and excellent results as you showed.
@simhangarfs Can you guys try DCS and report on the performance there between Intel and AMD?
Why do you think, other than price, the 7800X3d is better than the 7959X3d ? Could you run the same tests comparing the two high end AMD CPU’s ?
The 7950X3D is better at workload type tasks such as video editing etc, but for flight sim only the 7800X3D beats it due to the application of the 3D cache on this chip. The 7950 has L3 cache but due to the chiplet design less efficient in single core applications.
check out my comment above, it explains why (with respect to x3D performance) 7800x3D is better than 7950x3D
@@SimHangerFS So what about 7900x3d? Could 7900x3d even perform better than 7800x3d for MSFS?
@@姚寅-i2t I assume so, but not tested.
1stly I preferred to build up a system based on i7 13700 & 64GB DDR5 on DDR5 MoBo but meanwhile Ryzen 7800X3D could make the difference...hmm?🤷♂️very nice&useful content to make your decision👏👏👍
Don’t quite understand.. maybe it’s because he isn’t over looking anything? My 13900k with 4090 and 64 gigs of ram averages 78-82 on 4k with everything maxed, bad weather near towns or airports etc… so guessing something else is going on here.. my cpu is over locked by the mother board so just a basic overclock and same with gpu, just a basic overclock. Either way I’ll stick to the better quality intel product. The AMD chips are not better so again not sure what’s going on here. We have 22 gaming pcs with all kinds of amd and intel chips at our MFS gaming studio where there is 20 of us that all play.
Wow, I would never expect a 30%-40% boost in performance. And that Intel power draw... Looks like they learned _nothing_ from when Apple absolutely trounced them last year and the year before.
Well.. being an Intel man I've also considered AMD at this point. However, I am seeing lots of POST + memory issues with the Ryzen 7xxx3D platform. Not to mention ASUS latest tendency to overcook the processors... I cant really think of doing the purchase nor recommend it atm...
Not seen any problems, mine is also very cool even maxed in VR.
@@mplmpl7780 i guess it is a specific mobo/chipset incompatibility.. glad to knownit works for you!!! PS you mind sharing the mobo + fw verdion and ram sticks used in your system?
@@alu2387 Hi mate , Msi Pro x670-p, Msi Gaming trio 4090 , corsair dominator platinum 6000 2 x 16Gb and latest FW on MB and all drivers newest. Running DCS and MSFS stable 90 FPS ,100 percent Res on G2.
@@alu2387 also came from a 10900k so was a nice upgrade for the 4090.
@@mplmpl7780 thx for sharing. I am on a 9900k with a 3080 and the reverb g2 too. The system is still capable of giving a a kick in usual desktop simming.. but it is clearly breaking a sweat when I switch to vr.