i7 worth it for DCS?

Lots of good input here. I pretty much decided on a 8700k. My 1060 6gb will carry over to the new system until a 1080 is not crazy expensive anymore.

Last time i fired up DCS was right after 2.5 beta came out in january, and my fps on ground was 25-35 fps slowly climbing to 60 at altitude :( single player 1 aircraft loaded in caucasus.

Hopefully some improvements have been made in a couple of months.

The DCS itch is real now!

Forget that 1080, the 11 series are about to be released and a 1170 is almost as fast as a 1080Ti, thats the one you will want.

Forget that 1080, the 11 series are about to be released and a 1170 is almost as fast as a 1080Ti, thats the one you will want.

Yes i do want that when it comes out but im sure it will have mining tax from day 1? Surely the current "mining" price will be reduced on the current gen cards. here in Swe prices for 1070,1070ti,1080 are about the same about 550-600+ eur :cry:

that’s because the same “job” is being context’d switched over to the next free random core. but none of the cores are being fully utilized.

 

most likely, someone could turn off 2 of those cores, leaving you with 4 and you wouldn’t even notice the difference.

No, I do not agree. My graphs and logs tell me a different story and this "DCS is 2 threads only" has been ditched by the devs already some time ago , which they have stated numerous times.

The thing is, there are a lot of people asking questions because their DCS wont run properly.

When you tell them how it works better, they either accept it, or not. I couldnt care less, my DCS runs fine and smooth, regardless of their attitude and theories.

that’s because the same “job” is being context’d switched over to the next free random core. but none of the cores are being fully utilized.

 

most likely, someone could turn off 2 of those cores, leaving you with 4 and you wouldn’t even notice the difference.

Exactly, but it's not clear,,, of how much cores DCS need in total. Maximum utilization and operating operation is not the same. The rate of sampling of a monitoring software can be an issue. Even DCS can't tell in their "Recommended system requirement". Multithreads don't means that you necessarily need more cores, as long as you feed the video card. It's coming :thumbup:

I'm glad I found this thread right before I was about to pull the trigger on a 2700X. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I feel like I am torn between a 8700k and the Ryzen 7 2700x. I am not looking to overclock the CPU anytime soon as I usually don't for the first few months after making a new build. Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I have read here, if I am someone who is looking for best performance out of the box in DCS, the 8700k is the CPU of choice when compared to the 2700x. Yes?

8700K will work overclocked @5GHz with absolutely no effort. Totally worthy for its performance/core as well as total performance it is delivering. Having the K version is just a loss of money if not running OC.

I'm no guru but if your gaming at 2k ir more, the 2700x achieves parity with the 8700k. Only at 1080p fo yiu see the 8700k out pace the 2700x out of the box. Sure you can oc to 5ghz but the gain you achieve is very minimal since it's all GPU at higher resolutions. Also, out if the box the 8700k will reach 4.3 and the 2700x 4.0. 300mhz is insignificant. You also get 2 extra cores with the 2700x and it easily beats the 8700k in multithreaded applications, which makes sense considering it has 2 extra cores.

Both platforms will tear through games with probably no perceptible difference, but it's really tough from a value/performance point of view to go against the 2700x.

I think this argument is a faith thing. People have more faith in blue because they've sat atop the hill year in and year out making it tough to go the red route. But just speaking from a benchmark point of view, if I'm understanding what I'm reading, the 2700x is really good.

I'm still on the fence as well, but I've yet to see anything to pull me away from the red team this cpu cycle. Maybe if I put off my purchase until we get into the time ehen the 9700k is on the verge of being released - doubt well see ice lake for some time since intel still has issues with their 10nm die process, and by that time ryzen 3 at 7nm will be a real thing and probably still be on the am4 platform.

I would love to see a side by side dcs benchmark at both stock and doable o'clock. 2700x @ 4.0(all core boost) and 4.3 (all core oclock) vs 8700k @ 4.3(all core boost) and 5.0(all core oclock).

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'm still on the 7700k Kaby, very happy and it can still fed the 1080ti

What I'm really waiting on before I build a new pc down the track is how much is DCS going to utilize cores /threads and GPU(s)? with vulkan api.

If I was to build today I think I would go wit the 2700x on the notion that DCS will perform better and better with up coming updates possibly?? and it will still be very close to the 8700k with performance. I'm going to hold out until I can see just how much benefit cores will have, then I may even go with a threadripper.

I think this argument is a faith thing. People have more faith in blue because they've sat atop the hill year in and year out making it tough to go the red route. But just speaking from a benchmark point of view, if I'm understanding what I'm reading, the 2700x is really good.

 

I would love to see a side by side dcs benchmark at both stock and doable o'clock. 2700x @ 4.0(all core boost) and 4.3 (all core oclock) vs 8700k @ 4.3(all core boost) and 5.0(all core oclock).

I would rather see a real world test in a large mission in DCS

Pilotasso 2700x @ 4.2Ghz (Red corner) VS BitMaster 8700k @ 5.0 Ghz (Blue corner) :D

Both are running 1080ti's....

.

What a coincidence! I found a video of the fight :clap:enjoy!

One has to not forget that IPC will become relevant AGAIN once new GPU's are out that are 50-100% faster than what you have today. Unless you have more LOD to crank in and a higher resolution to sink the GPU power in, you will need more IPC to gain more frames....or a code that uses more cores and can thus avoid producing a CPU bottleneck.

In a face-2-face comparison I dare to say the 8700k, when overclocked, will beat the 2700x. With about 800MHz advantage ( x 6 ) the 8700k can substitute about 1 core of the 2700x, so it won't fall THAT MUCH behind in all-core tests..but it will fall behind the 2700x, that is true too.

I personally would NOT buy my 8700k again, I'd grab a 2700x !

It's no easy decision and some gambling involved as to what kind of beast DCS will become with Vulkan and more threading. My guess is that more cores will be the winner over less cores but slightly higher IPC.

Time will tell.

At least well get to see Intels 8 core main offering pretty soon.. Read that intel is releasing their mainstream 8core coffee lake by September. Still will be on 14nm. Probably cost an arm and a leg. Still dont know if it will maintain the high frequencies the 8700k has. My guess is no at 14nm without some some serious cooling. I'm also guessing they'll drop their z390 boards - the chipset they were supposed to release instead the rushed z370.

Yay for competition.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I am not fighting. ;)

The 8700K is a great gaming CPU. I just chose AMD side in order to get an affordable 8 core and be able to upgrade without a full disassemble or throwing away any of the components. Thats all theres to it. :)

I dont think cooling will be an issue for overclockers if you consider delidding.

my own 8700k went down more than 15°C instantly and being able to tune the Volts then even lower due to lower present temps in the CPU, it went down another guessed ~6-8°C.

If you dare to play Intel's evil game and chop the head off your CPU then I don't see a Temperature Problem :)

My guess is that Intel's latency will become bigger again, with each pair of cores they seem to add. My 7700k had 40.8ns at 3600 CL16. My 8700k has 49.8ns with same RAM, same settings. That's 25% south :(

When looking at the QVL of Z270 and QVL of Z370 boards across the shelf, you can see that the Z270 supports lower latencies at 3600 and above.

There is no supported 3600 CL16-16-16-36-2T anymore in 4x8GB.

That kit was standard from Gskill and Corsair, i have both sets, one 16GB and 32GB kit. Now only 2x8GB is supported at that speed with z370.

Intel's IMC shows weaknesses. Gladly Samung started 16Gbit dies production with 2666MHz base speed. That means faster and denser, the Samsung B-die's successor is in the pipe guys ;)

That's what is holding me back buying another Z370 board to get my RAM working as intended. I fear I will end up at the exact same spot as Z370 just doesnt like 4 modules at those speeds.

Unfortunately, there is no lower settings that I coukld find, and I booted the hell out of that thing, really, i think about 100 x by now, to find a No-BSOD setting higher than 3200 with either AUTO and CL17-18-18 or XMP set to 3200 and CL16-16-16. Just that this exact XMP-3200 started to act up since 2 Bios' ago but I think this brand new release fixed it again. So i can avoid 2133 or 2666 that always worked and avoid a 3200 with a real bad latency.

It will boot till 3866 with 4 modules, but you have to fiddle and fumble and in the end, it will either crash with BSOD or just wont reliably boot and prompt, which takes very long for each boot to do. 5 minutes for 1 boot is then not really abnormal, it's rather normal. It eats your time like nothing.

If I knew somebody who'd buy my CPU and Board for fair money, I'd turn my back to Intel and would go 2700x, a new Waterblock, a new board, my "OLD" RAM and give it a try, cant get worse.

When you overclock the RAM and XMP wont work or you think your VCC-IO/SA is too high your trouble begins. When you have to tune those two to get it to prompt and beep, it takes ages to try things. That alone turns me off from Z370 and CoffeLake's IMC. I run a 1600x in the office, a good win in the lottery. it does 4G out of the box on Noctua DH15 but I have it stock as it really only does Office stuff. It's so damn reliable, no fuss no BS USB beep here beep there because VCC_IO freaks out. I am really sick of that shit. This 1600x tells me AMD does it better. Less quirks that I thought were long gone with Win95 or WinXP era. No, those rushed out chipsets brought them back.

Considering that there is almost no week without a new Intel CPU flaw discovered, as today, one really thinks " WTF have you done all those years ?" sitting on billions and getting nothing done.

For me, AMD is the only option left today, for home, gaming and very sure for servers. The next one will be Epyc.

I was really thinking...take 16GB out, enable XMP and be happy...and then I got the Hornet ..DANG...15GB online instantly on 104th...and my 16GB XMP option died.

soo. ...again I tried XMP reduced to 3200 @ 16-16-16-36-2t.....holds 4h and then BSOD's when in idle in the middle of the night. Back to 3000 XMP, same CL...will see.

I really don't want CL17-18--blabla that is lame :(

Thanks to all here contributing; you surely helped me gain a great deal of knowledge in my search for my next build.

My current rig, a i7-950 (@4,2), died yesterday; I guess running a 24/7 OC that high didn't help. Although that CPU and mobo was already 8-9 years of age. :)

I'm still highly doubting between a 8700K or 2700X. I'll probably be running 1080p on a 970 for some time before new GFX cards become available that will run my sims on 4k.

Pro for the AM4 platform seems to be that AMD will support it until 2020, so that will give me an upgrade path.

Not sure about the 1151 platform: Intel seems to be dropping support after this last round of Coffee Lake?

I'm open for your opinions, much appreciated! :)

I'd get a 2700x and 32GB supported RAM @ 3200 or better over my kit.

Down the road, this chip will last longer imho.

...and no delidding, relidding...3 years laters same again etc... AMD saves you from that trouble, and you would need to go through that to make the 8700k THAT MUCH faster to make a difference.

IRL, if you do not overclock, only 1 core goes to 4.7G, 3 will do 4.4, 4 or more will stay at 4.3G. That is not that much difference to the 2700x in combination with a good cooler that keeps it in XFR2.

YOu can overclock the 2700x too, with much less effort.

Has anyone compared how much oc'ing actually improves performance in DCS, like running a 8700k at stock vs 5+ GHz?

Would like a basis to see if the extra money is worth it vs a smaller gain.

It's NOT that easy, as different resolutions and LOD will greatly alter the outcome.

Whenever a 5GHz CPU bottlenecks, maybe a 1080ti at 1080p + low LOD could yield more fps, say 211 instead of 189... like that.

Most people play 1080p still, but then at med or high LOD, some play 1440p and a few play 2160p/4k or VR. For 4k and VR you dont need a 5GHz CPU as the GPU bottlenecks long before.

Look at those 1600/1600x to 2700x pilots, no one regrets the AMD move, not a single one that I talked to in here.

*If you'd live close by I'd say buy the AMD and we trade ;) I am not convinced by the Z370 chipset, the 8700k itself is not so bad, but the chipset is raw, anything but nice & smooth. it may come, but right now I dont recommend it, dont like it

Yeah, I'm a VR pilot so that really cements looking at the AMD upgrade path.

There are many happy AMD-VR Pilots around here, maybe they can add some here.

For VR I'd also get 32GB right away, as a 4 x 8GB pack from QVL.

My one and only AMD PC was an Athlon 64 3800 Venice core with a twin built for my wife. They were built about a year before Intel released Core2Duo. They were kind of the "I5" of that time... the best cost/performance for gaming. I still have both running with Windows 7 64, but they are single core and their motherboards are limited to 4GB of DDR2 RAM, which makes them slow for just about everything now... though they still run the old games built for their tech at great speed and maxed out gpu quality.

The idea of going AMD again is appealing to me... as long as I know it isn't going to get skunked by an Intel chipset that is faster, cheaper, and more stable.

When my Voodoo 5500 was obsoleted by the collapse of 3DFX and the arrival of Windows XP, I bought only ATi Radeon GPUs until my relatively recent purchase of the nVidia 1080 GTX (for $470 just before the prices went through the roof). I really wish AMD would produce a new GPU that represented the huge jump in performance/cost effectiveness that happened with the 9700 Pro/9800 Pro gpus. I would go back to AMD Radeon in a heartbeat if they had a great card for a great price after so many good years of great graphics quality and performance for generally lower prices than nVidia.

If AMD can't ever win a development cycle on CPUs and GPUs, Intel and nVidia are going to be left as monopolies, which is bad news for all PC gamers. I keep rooting for AMD, but they keep putting out more hype than tech break-throughs. Is Ryzen a win? Or another cost-effective, but lower performance cpu?

.........I keep rooting for AMD, but they keep putting out more hype than tech break-throughs. Is Ryzen a win? Or another cost-effective, but lower performance cpu?

Ryzen is a WINNER :thumbup:

Hi,

Thinking of changing my old rig (I5 2500k + RAM 8Go) and replacing it by :

Which one is the best I7 8700k or 9700k ?

- 8700k : 3.7Ghz / 6 cores / 12 threads

- 9700k : 3.6Ghz / 8 Cores / 8 threads

Monocore frequency is little higher with the 8700k.

To play DCS?