CPU for DCS VR: new AMD or 9900K

Is it already clear which overclocked CPU is the best for DCS VR; the new AMD 3900X / 3800X or still 9900K? Or maybe it is too early to say.

I want to buy a new PC for DCS VR only, i don't mind other things like streaming etc.

cheers

You don't even need 9900k. 8700k@5Ghz is still the way to go

You don't even need 9900k. 8700k@5Ghz is still the way to go

Yes but you need to delide it and it has less cash memory and lower boost frequency without OC. Except that it is very similar and i'm considering 8700K also.

You don't even need 9900k. 8700k@5Ghz is still the way to go

8700K 5GHz is beaten by 199$ R5 3600 on dissent B450 MB.

Also, have in mind how R5 3600 + MSI B450 Tomahawk is the equal price as i5 9600K alone. Also, ad on this how you need 150$ AIO cooler and 9900K OC to 5GHZ is just 10% better than stocked 330$ R7 3700 with Box cooler.

Even R5 3600 is here near in just maybe max 12%. All this difference in price is better to invest in RTX 2080ti.

For the same price, you can get i9 9900K with 2060 or R7 3700X with 2080ti what is always a better choice with after all much better performances.

With AMD vs Intel with similar performances, you got Rift S for free.

Yeah those new ryzens are looking very good if your upgrading.

I don't see any reason to upgrade from my 8700k to either platform right now.

But ryzen is looking to be very polished compared to the other previous generations.

As for dcs and vr.

Well I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Unless we get a CPU that can do 6ghz and Ram to keep up, like 4-5000mhz, that's not going to happen.

The difference between these will be very very slim.

And we will still rely heavily on ASW or projection modes.

That's not our hardwares fault, dcs was simply designed for the hardware we had a decade ago, with some eye candy slapped on top since.

8700K 5GHz is beaten by 199$ R5 3600 on dissent B450 MB.

Also, have in mind how R5 3600 + MSI B450 Tomahawk is the equal price as i5 9600K alone. Also, ad on this how you need 150$ AIO cooler and 9900K OC to 5GHZ is just 10% better than stocked 330$ R7 3700 with Box cooler.

 

Even R5 3600 is here near in just maybe max 12%. All this difference in price is better to invest in RTX 2080ti.

For the same price, you can get i9 9900K with 2060 or R7 3700X with 2080ti what is always a better choice with after all much better performances.

 

With AMD vs Intel with similar performances, you got Rift S for free.

I'm having 2080Ti also, this time i'm not on a budget, for the first time, i just want as many fps in DCS VR as possible.

I'll buy either one of new Ryzens or 8700K/9700K/9900K.

Eh happy as I am with my AMD system, it's a budget build. I got in cheap with a B450 and R5 2600, I'll slap a 3600x in there when I get around to it, not gonna bother to overclock, and it's all close enough, considering it's a game and all. Not everybody looks at it that way.

DCS engine is still heavily bound to pure core speed, so Intel with higher speeds will do slightly better than Ryzen which from limited benchmarks is topping out around 4.4-4.6Ghz.

That being said, after all the windows/Intel vulnerability patches, there's no telling how gimped Intel will be.

AMD has the best value but Intel still has the best gaming CPU with the 9900/9700K's.

Intel 8700K is still the best CPU for the money. It runs far cooler than the overrated 9900/9700K.

It doesn`t matter what cooler you use the 9700K`s run way to hot. Heat kills a CPU in short order.

Get the proven 8700K and cool with Noctua Air.

DCS engine is still heavily bound to pure core speed, so Intel with higher speeds will do slightly better than Ryzen which from limited benchmarks is topping out around 4.4-4.6Ghz.

 

 

That being said, after all the windows/Intel vulnerability patches, there's no telling how gimped Intel will be.

AMD is claiming a boost in instructions per tick so the theory is 4.4GHz should be as good as Intel running 5.0GHz. There was some hoopla couple days before launch suggesting they did just that, although apparently that was BS. But supposedly it ain't bad. See for example https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/ where in *single core* performance a 4.2GHz AMD is about equal to the 4.6GHz intel. The R5 3600X, which bursts to 4.4, should be getting real close to a decent CPU

SInce we are talking about VR, remember the goal isn't raw frame rates but how much stuff you can turn on and still run 40 or 45FPS. Here, its basically going to boil down to having the shadows or vis range we want without so much stuttering close to the ground. Step in the right direction, maybe a good enough step

Well I’ll know tomorrow how the 3700x does.

It’ll replace my 2700 OC’d to 4.0. I’m curious how much just the CPU will help. I have a 2070 super coming Friday to replace my 2060. So I’ll get a few hours of just a CPU upgrade to see if it makes any difference. I’m using a rift S with settings fairly low/med and on the Caucasus 107th open beta server I get about 20fps on the ground then up to 40 in the air but it drops to the 20’s often.

Also have 32Gb of 3200 cas16 mem.

Intel 8700K is still the best CPU for the money. It runs far cooler than the overrated 9900/9700K.

 

It doesn`t matter what cooler you use the 9700K`s run way to hot. Heat kills a CPU in short order.

 

Get the proven 8700K and cool with Noctua Air.

You mean 8700K @ 5GHz is cooler than 9700K @ 5GHz?

I don't think so, 8700K needs to be manually delided to have proper heat transfer.

But delided and overclocked it's still one of the best.

On the other hand 8700K cost as much as 9700K (in my shop 8700K is even marginally more expensive) + cost of deliding. So 9700K is a bit cheaper.

And DCS VR may or may not prefer Hyper Thread to be off.

Well I’ll know tomorrow how the 3700x does.

It’ll replace my 2700 OC’d to 4.0. I’m curious how much just the CPU will help. I have a 2070 super coming Friday to replace my 2060. So I’ll get a few hours of just a CPU upgrade to see if it makes any difference. I’m using a rift S with settings fairly low/med and on the Caucasus 107th open beta server I get about 20fps on the ground then up to 40 in the air but it drops to the 20’s often.

Also have 32Gb of 3200 cas16 mem.

I'll be very much intrested in knowing your results, DCS VR performance is the only criterium for my choosing the new CPU.:thumbup:

SInce we are talking about VR, remember the goal isn't raw frame rates but how much stuff you can turn on and still run 40 or 45FPS. Here, its basically going to boil down to having the shadows or vis range we want without so much stuttering close to the ground. Step in the right direction, maybe a good enough step

That's why i'm waiting for DCS VR specific tests.

AMD is claiming a boost in instructions per tick so the theory is 4.4GHz should be as good as Intel running 5.0GHz. There was some hoopla couple days before launch suggesting they did just that, although apparently that was BS. But supposedly it ain't bad. See for example https://www.techspot.com/review/1871-amd-ryzen-3600/ where in *single core* performance a 4.2GHz AMD is about equal to the 4.6GHz intel. The R5 3600X, which bursts to 4.4, should be getting real close to a decent CPU

 

SInce we are talking about VR, remember the goal isn't raw frame rates but how much stuff you can turn on and still run 40 or 45FPS. Here, its basically going to boil down to having the shadows or vis range we want without so much stuttering close to the ground. Step in the right direction, maybe a good enough step

Ryzen's IPC has greatly improved with this generation, to the point where the difference in IPC is for all practical purposes is equal to the Intel counterpart....which is awesome. However, no matter how you slice the cake, being equal clock for clock, higher speed is higher speed no matter if it's in VR or traditional screen; so Intel, at least in gaming applications, will push out ahead based on pure speed. This has manifested if pretty much every gaming review/benchmark I have seen, including the one you posted, just scroll down to gaming.

That being said, I myself am waiting for some DSC benchmarks as I would love to go back to AMD...I really miss the days of Athlon XP 1700 and 2500...those were beasts.

FYI, closest thing to DCS is "Total War: Warhammer 2 Campaign Benchmarks" by gamers nexus

I'm having 2080Ti also, this time i'm not on a budget, for the first time, i just want as many fps in DCS VR as possible.

I'll buy either one of the new Ryzens or 8700K/9700K/9900K.

Sorry but pay 500 to 600$ more for just few FPS?! It is more than 100$ per frame in this difference and it is questionable because Drivers and Bios optimization still didn't happen. It is just released and it's already looking good.

Intel right now is giving you a minimal advantage for the maximum price difference and only if you are just gaming and do nothing else and in any other task, AMD is clear winner price or performance.

BTW I'm Intel user but I'm not a slave of branding. For my hard earned money, I will buy the best buy option for my needs.

If you already own some i5 9600K or better CPU it is pointless to think about upgrade because benefits are minor. With such CPU you will gain more benefits with better SSD, more memory or better GPU and will be good for next 3 years minimum and then will be 10nm Intell and Zen 4 on the market and then will be the right time to upgrade such CPU.

Good news is AMD is pushing Intel for the first time in a while. This will hopefully get Intel off their butts and force them to innovate. Also what ever happened to moving to Vulkan? Wasn't it supposed to help DCS scale?

Welcome to ED's piss poor development cycle, one that can only be found again in Star Citizen, where people pay shitloads of money for pixels, to play a game that runs like shit and will barely ever be optimized. At least it's out. Can't believe they get away with having us pay for the maps we fly our planes on. Reddit users can get more out of this game by editing files than ED ever would. Don't believe me? Here:

OP, get a damn 3900X. You'll barely see a difference, you get 160% the CPU that the 9900K is for the same money and you'll upgrade next year to a 4900X that will also beat it in single core without even changing your motherboard.

Also see the linked post, it will do far more good to you than buying a terrible CPU for a terrible price

Let's see when this guide is out. ATM it's nothing more than claims.

DCS engine is still heavily bound to pure core speed, so Intel with higher speeds will do slightly better than Ryzen which from limited benchmarks is topping out around 4.4-4.6Ghz.

 

 

That being said, after all the windows/Intel vulnerability patches, there's no telling how gimped Intel will be.

~4.5 GHZ on Ryzen is about as capable as Intels 5 GHZ in real world performance output.

Let's see when this guide is out. ATM it's nothing more than claims.

The OP literally posted gameplay. Ralfidude is currently making a guide about this that'll he'll post on his channel as well. I don't see how it's only claims, people are already seeing a significant performance uplift

CPU for DCS VR: new AMD or 9900K

Sorry but pay 500 to 600$ more for just few FPS?!

you know some of us purchased a 2080TI, right?

you know some of us purchased a 2080TI, right?

Read carefully what I'm saying. That is exactly my point.

2080Ti with i9 9900K 5GHz OC have just few FPS more than 2080Ti with Ryzen 5 3600.

Focus on 4K benchmarks because those benchmarks are closest to compare with VR performances.

Ryzen 5 with 2080Ti is 500 to 600$ cheaper than i9 9900K with expensive AIO for OC. When I'm talking about a few FPS I mean literally few. It is a matter in VR 2 to 3 FPS max.