Ryzen 5 1600X or i5 7600K for DCS

not really usable 24/7 for most of us. :D

 

It doesnt matter, one year down the road we will get a direct CPU replacement if your not happy with single core scores. They will be ambitious with the IPC and if we are this close to intel now in gaming, we will pretty much matching those but with 2 more cores under the hood.

Indeed !

My current dream-machine would read AMD Threadripper, that is for sure, for the lanes alone and not even considering the more cores

That damn chiller is 969,-€ !!!

A few of us, Run Water Cooling Lines to a Radiator Attached to an AC Vent of the home in the summer,

in the Winter the Same Radiator is moved to outside a window.

This is why I think the 1900X will be a good place to be.

If DCS moves to multithread capability you can upgrade to the 1950X.

If they fix SLI then get a couple of 1080ti's.

Either way your ready.

With Ryzen you need to pray on a new chip and the lane limit basically rules out SLI.

Intel are unfortunately just too expensive when you move to their 44 lane capable chips.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Im more interested in the higher clockspeeds and more mature mobo/ram setups with TR. I doubt ED will sort multicpu/gpu within the l8fetime of the machine.

I doubt ED will sort multicpu/gpu within the l8fetime of the machine.

Agree.

Agree.

I won't rehash my thoughts in another thread that ED really needs to fix this or at least provide some sort of time line when we can expect it. Understand that everything changes, but at least we'd have a rough idea so we can plan a bit better.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Some reviews showed that stock clocked Ryzens clock higher than the same CPU overclocked to 4 GHz-All-Cores in IPC tasks. The reason I guess is that while overclocking all cores to 4GHz one voids the XFR trigger. They never boosted to 4.2G. With stock settings those CPUs did actually make use of XFR.

 

For me, that reads like this: For IPC-Games, dont overclock but rely on XFR and a good cooler.

This is interesting. I had the same theory a while ago and did some personal investigation on this with my 1600X to see if I should OC to 4, or rely on boost/XFR for DCS.

What I found is that, even after a complete BIOS reset (stock settings), I could not get my 1600X to boost higher than 3.7 (all cores, strangely). I ran real world single threaded apps (DCS), and synthetic single core (Prime95 and Cinebench). In no case did my 1600X ever go higher than 3.7ghz. I even locked affinity to one core to stop the scheduler from bouncing it between threads, and nothing - stuck at 3.7ghz.

I actually think something in my setup is incorrectly configured, but I can't figure it out. BIOS was reset to optimized defaults several times, and updated several times. Obviously, I ensured turbo mode is enabled in BIOS.

In the end, I couldn't be bothered to keep chasing the problem and I just OC'd all cores to 4Ghz.

Sandman1330,

Did you try resetting to factory defaults in BIOS?

Optimised defaults may have a base clock boost or a voltage boost, which from what I've read, will prevent XFR from running. Of course if you're happy with the OC then I wouldnt be trying to mess with it any further, just curious to know.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

Sandman1330,

 

Did you try resetting to factory defaults in BIOS?

 

Optimised defaults may have a base clock boost or a voltage boost, which from what I've read, will prevent XFR from running. Of course if you're happy with the OC then I wouldnt be trying to mess with it any further, just curious to know.

 

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

As far as I can tell, on the Crosshair VI Hero, optimized defaults are factory defaults by another name. I couldn't find any "factory defaults" setting, though you may still be on to something...

Check cpu voltage, mine defaults to 1.5v which is crazy high. I have 1.39 for my 3.9ghz overclock, you should be able to get lower voltages for six cores

Check cpu voltage, mine defaults to 1.5v which is crazy high. I have 1.39 for my 3.9ghz overclock, you should be able to get lower voltages for six cores

I leave it on auto - it fluctuates in the high 1.2s to low 1.3s at stock clocks. At 4Ghz it goes as high as 1.48, which is quite high but temps are well within reason and I only plan to keep the chip till Ryzen+ or Ryzen 2.0 come out. Manually controlling the voltage got me down under 1.45, but wasn't fully stable. LLC is at level 1...

Maybe I can try manual voltages at stock clocks, but I suspect stability at boost (if it does work) would suffer...

Some reviews showed that stock clocked Ryzens clock higher than the same CPU overclocked to 4 GHz-All-Cores in IPC tasks. The reason I guess is that while overclocking all cores to 4GHz one voids the XFR trigger. They never boosted to 4.2G. With stock settings those CPUs did actually make use of XFR.

 

For me, that reads like this: For IPC-Games, dont overclock but rely on XFR and a good cooler.

It makes sense but do you have a link to that?

Use the AMD Software to OC 2 Cores Differently than using BIOS to Overclock all Cores .

https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/ryzen-master

It makes sense but do you have a link to that?

over at HardOCP.com in the 1920+1950 review iirc.

I've seen those options in Ryzen master, but haven't tried it yet.

Maybe if I park 2 cores, I can get 4+... but then again, Ryzen seems very consistently capped at 4, regardless of core count. Worth a try, but I don't have high hopes.

I tried disabling 2 cores once, it made zero difference in overclocking my 1600x. For the related question of how it handles single thread using boost + XFR instead of an overclock, the answer is 3700 MHz all the time for all cores when playing DCS, BoS or any other game in VR. If using high performance mode, it keeps everything at 3.7GHz even when idle. When set to balanced, it will park cores at 2.2GHz and randomly boost 1 to up to 4.1GHz. however, it will not exceed 3.7GHz with any sort of load, even a simple browser tab. Basically, XFR gives an auto 100MHz boost but the boost function doesn't actually work. And so a 4.0GHz overclock is better. Also, this isn't a thermal issue with boost mode since it's running around 40°C under a light load and 60°C under an all core stress test when overclocked. Not exactly a hot chip.

I tried disabling 2 cores once, it made zero difference in overclocking my 1600x. For the related question of how it handles single thread using boost + XFR instead of an overclock, the answer is 3700 MHz all the time for all cores when playing DCS, BoS or any other game in VR. If using high performance mode, it keeps everything at 3.7GHz even when idle. When set to balanced, it will park cores at 2.2GHz and randomly boost 1 to up to 4.1GHz. however, it will not exceed 3.7GHz with any sort of load, even a simple browser tab. Basically, XFR gives an auto 100MHz boost but the boost function doesn't actually work. And so a 4.0GHz overclock is better. Also, this isn't a thermal issue with boost mode since it's running around 40°C under a light load and 60°C under an all core stress test when overclocked. Not exactly a hot chip.

Yeah, sounds about right. Seems like the boost is very much a marketing gimmick, since in the real world there is rarely only 1 thread operating at a time with all the background processes and the like running.

It is strange, my old i5-4690 had 1 core max boosted basically all the time with the stock cooler. And there really isn't any reason the 1600x couldn't do this on at least 2 cores. As is well known, getting a 3.9 to 4.0 GHz all core overclock is trivial at AMD specified safe voltages.

The 1600X I am running in an office went to 4.0 on all cores with a Noctua DH-15 SE cooler.

It barely touched the 70's°C when priming for hours.

I think most 1600X will likely do the same.