Jump to content

Ryzen build (half)


Recommended Posts

I was looking at the 3900x for a possible build but I can't seem to find any compatible motherboards that have at least 9 usb ports, like there is for Intel chips. Is there any compatible motherboards that have that many ports?

 

I also don't like how the X570 boards have a fan on them. Fans are a traditional reliability issue because they are almost guaranteed to fail after a few years, so I have a lot of questions about the longevity of those boards. I've seen a lot of videos about poor fan position causing high temps on some boards and complaints about how loud the fans are.

 

I really don't like how the previous boards (X470, B450, etc) don't have bios compatibility with Ryzen 3000 out of the box. Having to flash the bios before installing the cpu is a major annoyance. When you're spending 700 to 1000$ on a cpu/motherboard combo, it should just work. I shouldn't need to download a bios and flash it myself or take it to a professional and receive it in working order days or weeks laters.

 

It's like they are trying to do everything to NOT get me as a customer, even though I want to be lol.

 

You could either route the front panel conns to the back and thus get more USB back there, or add a USB card.

 

This is not a show stopper, just a minor build challange imho.

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was looking at the 3900x for a possible build but I can't seem to find any compatible motherboards that have at least 9 usb ports, like there is for Intel chips. Is there any compatible motherboards that have that many ports?

 

I also don't like how the X570 boards have a fan on them. Fans are a traditional reliability issue because they are almost guaranteed to fail after a few years, so I have a lot of questions about the longevity of those boards. I've seen a lot of videos about poor fan position causing high temps on some boards and complaints about how loud the fans are.

 

I really don't like how the previous boards (X470, B450, etc) don't have bios compatibility with Ryzen 3000 out of the box. Having to flash the bios before installing the cpu is a major annoyance. When you're spending 700 to 1000$ on a cpu/motherboard combo, it should just work. I shouldn't need to download a bios and flash it myself or take it to a professional and receive it in working order days or weeks laters.

 

It's like they are trying to do everything to NOT get me as a customer, even though I want to be lol.

 

Flashing the MSI boards is very easy . Essentially , download and extract to usb , rename usb file to msi.rom , plug usb into indicated mb port (after hooking up atx & cpu power cables) and push a button . The updated bios is in the old-style text format to save space , but fully functional .

MSI is also bringing b450 and x470 boards with a larger bios-capacity chip to allow the more modern bios gui . The board names are suffixed "MAX" . I have not found them on the market yet .


Edited by Svsmokey

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not possible to have too much CPU for dcs. I have my eye on the ryzen 5 3600x, bursts to 4.4 GHz (with a 10% increase in instructions per cycle over gen2) and feel that's well worth the price for dcs. I'd rather have that than more cores or a fancy mobo

 

Zen2 can't really handle more than 3600mhz ram very well

 

Whichever Mobo you pick, I'd go to the manufacturer website for ram known to run at rated speed. Maybe the newer boards aren't as picky but still

 

Whaaaat, whilst I agree generally that more CPU is better than less CPU, with DCS (if that's the only thing you care about) It's mainly single-core speed you should look for. Playing DCS on my i5 9600k running at 5Ghz maxes out at 40% I'd say I've got too much CPU (or to be precise, the RTX 2080 I have is the limiting factor on frame rates not the CPU. My old i5 4670k was running at 4.5Ghz permanently...! so a 4.5 boost speed for ryzen is nothing really to boast about when compared to Intel boost speeds or overclocking capabilities. That coupled with Ryzen's apparent dependence on compatible memory and the relatively low speeds of that memory would say to me not to bother with Ryzen for DCS as it doesn't add much value, if any.

Windows 10 64 bit | Intel i5-9600k OC 5 Ghz | RTX 2080 |VENGEANCE® LPX 32GB DDR 4 OC 3200

 

Hotas Warthog | Logitech G Flight Rudder Pedals | Track IR 4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys. After waiting for the new AMD stuff to I've decided I want to upgrade from my struggling i5-4690k. I'm interested in the 3700x but haven't been keeping up with the tech stuff and want to know if I should get a X470 or X570? Would you guys be able to give me a half build (keeping psu, gpu, ssd, case etc just need need cpu, mb and ram) based on my requirements:

 

R7-3700X which I will keep stock so no intention to oc

 

No interest in pci-4

 

16gb ram not sure what speed

 

At least 8 USB ports

 

Also will a 620w evga gold psu be able to handle gtx 1060 6gb and all this new stuff?

 

Mainly getting it for fps games and il2 and Dcs.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Go 3700X with a X470 given your USB requirement. (B450 motherboard is ruled out by your USB port requirement unless you use an add in card / hub). Memory go for 3600 CL16 2x16GB if I were you. PSU go 750-850W if I were you... just to future proof yourself if you every want to upgrade to a more power hungry GPU. But for the setup you have there 620W will cut it okay.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whaaaat, whilst I agree generally that more CPU is better than less CPU, with DCS (if that's the only thing you care about) It's mainly single-core speed you should look for. Playing DCS on my i5 9600k running at 5Ghz maxes out at 40% I'd say I've got too much CPU (or to be precise, the RTX 2080 I have is the limiting factor on frame rates not the CPU. My old i5 4670k was running at 4.5Ghz permanently...! so a 4.5 boost speed for ryzen is nothing really to boast about when compared to Intel boost speeds or overclocking capabilities. That coupled with Ryzen's apparent dependence on compatible memory and the relatively low speeds of that memory would say to me not to bother with Ryzen for DCS as it doesn't add much value, if any.

 

Currently you are correct that DCS is very clock sensitive. However what you are not considering is how many instructions per clock cycle (IPC) that a CPU can do. This is an important factor and why many times a CPU can complete a task much faster at the same clock speed as an older cpu. The new Ryzen cpu's complete more IPC's then the current Intel CPU's. What I'd like to see is if it's enough to overcome their clock deficit (compared to intel) with DCS.

5800X3d, 32GB DDR4@3400, 6800 xt, Reverb G2, Gunfighter/TMWH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's mainly single-core speed you should look for. Playing DCS on my i5 9600k running at 5Ghz maxes out at 40% I'd say I've got too much CPU (or to be precise, the RTX 2080 I have is the limiting factor on frame rates not the CPU. My old i5 4670k was running at 4.5Ghz permanently...! so a 4.5 boost speed for ryzen is nothing really to boast about when compared to Intel boost speeds or overclocking capabilities. That coupled with Ryzen's apparent dependence on compatible memory and the relatively low speeds of that memory would say to me not to bother with Ryzen for DCS as it doesn't add much value, if any.

 

Yeah, should have clarified dcs can't use more than 2 cores yet, but worth mentioning there's talk that the bigger ryzen3 cpu's overclock better (eg at lower voltage) if that's what you're into. Between that and the IPC it's not bad. I don't think it's any better than intel, but ya know if you can get close with a $250 CPU, a $100 mobo and $200 of RAM, well... what's the marginal benefit? and what's the marginal cost? that's AMD's business model in a nutshell and I gotta give em credit

 

You make a valid point, question is, what's enough? In VR at least i've noticed a lot of variability in CPU render times, it really depends on what's going on in the map. Flying solo over the caucasus is a lot different from spawning in GAW during prime time lol I'm not sure what it would take to cram that through a single core. But it sure is fun to try

Ryzen 5600X (stock), GBX570, 32Gb RAM, AMD 6900XT (reference), G2, WInwing Orion HOTAS, T-flight rudder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, should have clarified dcs can't use more than 2 cores yet

maybe at one point this was the case, but i don’t think this is true anymore

 

there have been multiple posts here that show DCS uses a bunch of execution threads and each of those threads can be assigned to separate cpu cores (unless limited by process lasso, or some other utility).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But one should point out that ED has made no official statement to this effect , and that the last , only a few weeks ago , re-iterated 2 cores . One wonders though , if perhaps those multi-core posters are seeing early Vulkan tests short of full implementation . Certainly performance seems up marginally , and something seems to have changed with Voiceattack , which now seems to cause stuttering issues on my system .

9700k @ stock , Aorus Pro Z390 wifi , 32gb 3200 mhz CL16 , 1tb EVO 970 , MSI RX 6800XT Gaming X TRIO , Seasonic Prime 850w Gold , Coolermaster H500m , Noctua NH-D15S , CH Pro throttle and T50CM2/WarBrD base on Foxxmounts , CH pedals , Reverb G2v2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can literally go into task manager and disable all but 2 cores and see no degradation in DCS FPS/performance. Kill it down to 1 core and the sound stops working properly. My understanding that the appearance of DCS using more then 2 cores is a windows thing, not a DCS change.

5800X3d, 32GB DDR4@3400, 6800 xt, Reverb G2, Gunfighter/TMWH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can literally go into task manager and disable all but 2 cores and see no degradation in DCS FPS/performance. Kill it down to 1 core and the sound stops working properly. My understanding that the appearance of DCS using more then 2 cores is a windows thing, not a DCS change.

 

IIRC this has been shown to be a false statement.

 

Need to dig the forum to show you those tests made by others

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can literally go into task manager and disable all but 2 cores and see no degradation in DCS FPS/performance. Kill it down to 1 core and the sound stops working properly.

this is not a valid test.

 

 

if you limit the number of cores available, the operating system will just reschedule the work to the available resources. it’s exactly what an operating systems job is, to manage resources!

 

you test does not prove that dcs does not use more than one core.

 

what your test proves, is that your one cpu core is not fast enough to do all the things dcs needs to do before the sound buffer runs dry.

 

thats completely different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can literally go into task manager and disable all but 2 cores and see no degradation in DCS FPS/performance. Kill it down to 1 core and the sound stops working properly. My understanding that the appearance of DCS using more then 2 cores is a windows thing, not a DCS change.

 

The principle reason your statement is not accurate, is that DCS is very multithreaded in IO operations. So while the general simulation and audio are not as much, the process of loading assets into memory loads way more than 2 cores. Its very noticeable when panning or rotating the view as you'll see many cores suddenly get loaded up. People have demonstrated real performance differences as a result going above 2 cores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding that the appearance of DCS using more then 2 cores is a windows thing, not a DCS change.

 

to be clear, a thread is a a list of instructions that get processed. each application has at least one thread, but most have many threads (DCS often uses 50+ threads).

 

A core is the physical hardware that works on the thread. It's the part that actually does the work.

 

The operating system will schedule a task (a thread) to a core to execute when it's ready. If more than one thread is ready to run, then both will each be assigned to a free core and they will run simultaneously (at the same time).

 

When you limit DCS to one core, you are asking the operating system to take all 50+ threads and run them one at a time, on that single core. It's no wonder you have sound stutter problems.

 

If you limit DCS to two cores, you are asking the operating system to take all 50+ threads and run them two at a time (one thread on each core). Obviously, this is much better.

 

But better still, is to allow DCS to schedule those 50+ threads onto any available cpu cores. maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 8... it depends how many threads are ready to run, and how many free cpu cores you have.

 

The only time DCS uses "2 cores" is on the old Core-Duo chips from 2008... and that only happens to be true because there were only 2 cores in the whole cpu ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to be clear, a thread is a a list of instructions that get processed. each application has at least one thread, but most have many threads (DCS often uses 50+ threads).

 

 

 

A core is the physical hardware that works on the thread. It's the part that actually does the work.

 

 

 

The operating system will schedule a task (a thread) to a core to execute when it's ready. If more than one thread is ready to run, then both will each be assigned to a free core and they will run simultaneously (at the same time).

 

 

 

When you limit DCS to one core, you are asking the operating system to take all 50+ threads and run them one at a time, on that single core. It's no wonder you have sound stutter problems.

 

 

 

If you limit DCS to two cores, you are asking the operating system to take all 50+ threads and run them two at a time (one thread on each core). Obviously, this is much better.

 

 

 

But better still, is to allow DCS to schedule those 50+ threads onto any available cpu cores. maybe 2, maybe 3, maybe 8... it depends how many threads are ready to run, and how many free cpu cores you have.

 

 

 

The only time DCS uses "2 cores" is on the old Core-Duo chips from 2008... and that only happens to be true because there were only 2 cores in the whole cpu ;)

 

Even though there may be many threads, most of the work can still be done on one thread. So at any given time you might not have more than one or two threads that are ready to run. In this situation having more than 2 cores will put you firmly in the lands of diminishing returns.

 

Writing a graphics engine that efficiently utilizes multiple cores is very difficult. Most games are still not very good at utilizing multi-core processors, even though they have been mainstream for 15 years or so. But it seems like we are finally starting to get somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though there may be many threads, most of the work can still be done on one thread. So at any given time you might not have more than one or two threads that are ready to run. In this situation having more than 2 cores will put you firmly in the lands of diminishing returns.

 

Writing a graphics engine that efficiently utilizes multiple cores is very difficult. Most games are still not very good at utilizing multi-core processors, even though they have been mainstream for 15 years or so. But it seems like we are finally starting to get somewhere.

 

 

Simply not real world applicable.

 

You should not isolate DCS and forget the rest, it's ONE big soup ... and that soup loves cores

 

 

Take any modern CPU with more than 4 cores, limit it to 2 cores, turn off HT...and report back. I have done this too, out of curiosity, and switched right back to ALL cores and HT.

 

Installing and patching DCS as well loves cores. Done that with 2 cores and it takes forever ( in VMware )


Edited by BitMaster

Gigabyte Aorus X570S Master - Ryzen 5900X - Gskill 64GB 3200/CL14@3600/CL14 - Asus 1080ti EK-waterblock - 4x Samsung 980Pro 1TB - 1x Samsung 870 Evo 1TB - 1x SanDisc 120GB SSD - Heatkiller IV - MoRa3-360LT@9x120mm Noctua F12 - Corsair AXi-1200 - TiR5-Pro - Warthog Hotas - Saitek Combat Pedals - Asus PG278Q 27" QHD Gsync 144Hz - Corsair K70 RGB Pro - Win11 Pro/Linux - Phanteks Evolv-X 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply not real world applicable.

 

You should not isolate DCS and forget the rest, it's ONE big soup ... and that soup loves cores

 

 

Take any modern CPU with more than 4 cores, limit it to 2 cores, turn off HT...and report back. I have done this too, out of curiosity, and switched right back to ALL cores and HT.

 

Installing and patching DCS as well loves cores. Done that with 2 cores and it takes forever ( in VMware )

 

Of course more cores are better, you can run some background processes on them and chances are that if you have 50 threads, every once in a while you will benefit from them in DCS. Maybe when you install the game, load resources, or you might simply get an extra frame per second.

 

I'm not saying there's nothing to be gained from having more than 2 cores. I'm saying that after that it will scale very badly for DCS as things stand today. 4 cores are still better than 2. And 8 cores are better than 6, but you might be hard pressed to be able to measure the difference. Especially if you don't have a very high-end graphics card, something OP doesn't.

 

I've never disabled cores. I don't see the point. I did however disable HT on my first i7.

 

So to summarize my opinion and advice to you guys: If you're not on a budget, get the best CPU. If on a budget, consider spending less on CPU (prioritizing single thread performance) and more on GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course more cores are better, you can run some background processes on them and chances are that if you have 50 threads, every once in a while you will benefit from them in DCS. Maybe when you install the game, load resources, or you might simply get an extra frame per second.

 

I'm not saying there's nothing to be gained from having more than 2 cores. I'm saying that after that it will scale very badly for DCS as things stand today. 4 cores are still better than 2. And 8 cores are better than 6, but you might be hard pressed to be able to measure the difference. Especially if you don't have a very high-end graphics card, something OP doesn't.

 

I've never disabled cores. I don't see the point. I did however disable HT on my first i7.

 

So to summarize my opinion and advice to you guys: If you're not on a budget, get the best CPU. If on a budget, consider spending less on CPU (prioritizing single thread performance) and more on GPU.

 

@thurs

I would not listen to this guy Katj if I were you. Of course there are diminishing returns as you move up in cores. And of course higher clock speeds are better than low clock speeds. But DCS does scale fairly nicely with more cores and threads. I have a 6 core / 12 thread 4.8 GHz OC CPU and the CPU runs at very high overall utilisation with all cores contributing meaningfully to DCS. I'd just point out the blindingly obvious that a 48 core / 92 thread 2.4 GHz server CPU might not do you any favours in DCS.

 

You asked about the Ryzen 3000 build that you had proposed. There is plenty of excellent feedback here that addresses your questions. And the proposal to get a 3700X is an excellent choice. I hope you enjoy your new build: it should be awesome. :thumbup:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...