Ryzen5 1600X ordered along with a GTX-1050 and 16GB, SSD

No, sadly I havent had the time ( and mood ) to put my parts in :(

Tomorrow it will move to the office and stay there, so I wont reallyhave the opportunity to

put my parts in. Also, sadly, I am down with activations with only 1 or a few left on most modules since I changed hardware so often due to crashes and corrupt hardware that I really hesitate to work/deinstall/"mess-it-up" with my current DCS installs.

All I can say, this R5-1600X is a blast and I could very well loose 20% fps and still have plenty at 1440p. As long as my MINIMUM fps dont drop its all OK. If I get 120 or 140 or 160 fps is not really a game changer. If I trade 35 fps from top down and keep my lowest but therefor get EIGHT more REAL cores I am super happy ;)

If I had to buy a new gaming rig I would get me this AMD Ryzen-R9 1976X Threadripper :)

More cores, 12c/24t, more RAM bandwidth ( 4-channel 256bit ), MORE PCIe Lanes ( 60 total ).

Maybe..by the end of the year I will move to that platform. Once the motherboards are out for a few months and microcode for those Linux crashes when compiling are out, Hyper-V fixed and 2.5 is stable.

I love this 7700k as well, it just gets SO HOT compared to Ryzen, and those cores..yumyum

I dunno, time will tell, but I have to admit I changed my attitude towards AMD. Love it !

yeah that is exactly the chip i was going to get but the price cuts talked me round, and the 4820k is nearly 5 years old now and it just felt it was the right time. :) also the fact that the am4 socket is supported up till ddr5 is released (in 2020 or there abouts) so if i fancy a change in a couple of years then i can do it on this board. yeah i like where amd are going as well. :thumbup:

I replaced my I5-4690 (locked) with an R5 1600x last week, hell of an upgrade even for DCS. My minimum fps went from 30-ish on the deck near batumi to about 45-50 with medium view distance and 10km trees at 1440p with an rx480. An I7-7700k would have given better results, but I have no interest in crippling my new machine in every game but DCS just to get a few extra frames here. In properly multithreaded games, the 1600x should be a decisive winner (it is 40% faster out of the box). I can also update games while playing other games without penalty.

New system is: R5 1600x, MSI b350 tomahawk motherboard, rx480 8gb (reused), 16gb G.skill tridentz pc3200 (running 2667 till bios update) and win 10 on a Samsung 960 evo nvme. I can get a stable 4.0 GHz on all cores at 1.35v and am playing with 1.30v but not sure of stability.

I replaced my I5-4690 (locked) with an R5 1600x last week, hell of an upgrade even for DCS. My minimum fps went from 30-ish on the deck near batumi to about 45-50 with medium view distance and 10km trees at 1440p with an rx480. An I7-7700k would have given better results, but I have no interest in crippling my new machine in every game but DCS just to get a few extra frames here. In properly multithreaded games, the 1600x should be a decisive winner (it is 40% faster out of the box). I can also update games while playing other games without penalty.

 

New system is: R5 1600x, MSI b350 tomahawk motherboard, rx480 8gb (reused), 16gb G.skill tridentz pc3200 (running 2667 till bios update) and win 10 on a Samsung 960 evo nvme. I can get a stable 4.0 GHz on all cores at 1.35v and am playing with 1.30v but not sure of stability.

And you will be able to squeeze more performance out of that bang for buck beast with further optimisations and BIOS updates to increase memory speed. 6 cores and 12 threads will provide plenty of longevity. Congrats on your new rig.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I also switched to Ryzen 1600 from I5 3550.

Old system:

I5 3550, Asrock B75 Pro-3M, 16GB 1333Mhz DDR3 RAM, GTX660 TI, SSD.

Current system is now: Ryzen 5 1600, Gigabyte B350 Gaming 3M, 16GB DDR 3000Mhz Corsair RAM, GTX 660 TI (soon replacing it with AMD Vega) and SSD Disk.

I must say that Ryzen is running my PC & DCS much better than my I5 based system.

For a mere 220€ this CPU is insane, comes with a very nice stock cooler also.

Definitely recommend!

4 threads are not enough anymore. this is why moving for an AMD 6 core feels snapier than I5's from intel even with a clock disavantage and all the memory latency quirks that Ryzen has.

You can get a faster 6 core from intel but then you can get an AMD R7 8 core for less money.

I go as far as recommending getting an I7 at the very least for DCS now, because even though DCS only needs 2, any background processes gearing up will easily have an impact on your experience. It only goes away when excess cores are present.

I replaced my I5-4690 (locked) with an R5 1600x last week, hell of an upgrade even for DCS. My minimum fps went from 30-ish on the deck near batumi to about 45-50 with medium view distance and 10km trees at 1440p with an rx480. An I7-7700k would have given better results, but I have no interest in crippling my new machine in every game but DCS just to get a few extra frames here. In properly multithreaded games, the 1600x should be a decisive winner (it is 40% faster out of the box). I can also update games while playing other games without penalty.

 

New system is: R5 1600x, MSI b350 tomahawk motherboard, rx480 8gb (reused), 16gb G.skill tridentz pc3200 (running 2667 till bios update) and win 10 on a Samsung 960 evo nvme. I can get a stable 4.0 GHz on all cores at 1.35v and am playing with 1.30v but not sure of stability.

Tbh, I have both CPU's ...it is NOT 40% faster out-of-the-box.

Reality is, both at stock settings and performing Blender the R5 1600X is 2.6 sec faster, same difference when both are overclocked, R5 @ 4G and the 7700k @5G.

It's only the R5's extra 2 cores that break even with the speed advantage of the i7.

30sec vs 32.6 is not worlds inbetween, but 130€ cheaper is definitly 130€ left in your pocket, PLUS TWO CORES

more cores + extra cash for GPU Power...

CPU :1600x 3.9@

MOBO: Gigabyte Gaming K5

GPU :XFX RX 480 8GB

RAM: Gskill tridentz 16GB at 3200 CL16

SSD...

i use the same setting in both (1.5 and 2.1)

So DCS 1.5.x i use MSI Afterburner to OSD the use of all core..

Test. running instan mission Mirage 2000C Takeoff...

i load at airfield.... and i see CPU12 running 100% CPU6 about 20% and all other CPU sleeping around.... and my FPS 85+- 10...... GPU load 45% no more..

now if i do on task manager an disable all the threats.. and use only the 6 cores....the power spilt to all cores and GPU use goes to 100%

.i done the same test at Nevada map...and i notice a bit better threats friendly client... it can run my GPU at 100% without disable the threats.....

Now the only we can do are to wait for 2.5 and we hope(for AMD users.mostly) be optimize like all new game and use the multi core/threads CPU...

i will try to upload some photos..

(sorry for my english)

CPU :1600x 3.9@

MOBO: Gigabyte Gaming K5

GPU :XFX RX 480 8GB

RAM: Gskill tridentz 16GB at 3200 CL16

SSD...

 

i use the same setting in both (1.5 and 2.1)

 

So DCS 1.5.x i use MSI Afterburner to OSD the use of all core..

 

Test. running instan mission Mirage 2000C Takeoff...

 

i load at airfield.... and i see CPU12 running 100% CPU6 about 20% and all other CPU sleeping around.... and my FPS 85+- 10...... GPU load 45% no more..

 

now if i do on task manager an disable all the threats.. and use only the 6 cores....the power spilt to all cores and GPU use goes to 100%

 

.i done the same test at Nevada map...and i notice a bit better threats friendly client... it can run my GPU at 100% without disable the threats.....

 

 

Now the only we can do are to wait for 2.5 and we hope(for AMD users.mostly) be optimize like all new game and use the multi core/threads CPU...

 

i will try to upload some photos..

(sorry for my english)

Which basically says, if you disable SMT the GPU usage doubles.

Pilotasso...can you counter-check on yours ???

unless all they are going to play for the next 3-5 years is old single threaded poorly optimized games.

You mean a combat flight sim junkie?:music_whistling:

Tbh, I have both CPU's ...it is NOT 40% faster out-of-the-box.

 

Reality is, both at stock settings and performing Blender the R5 1600X is 2.6 sec faster, same difference when both are overclocked, R5 @ 4G and the 7700k @5G.

 

It's only the R5's extra 2 cores that break even with the speed advantage of the i7.

 

30sec vs 32.6 is not worlds inbetween, but 130€ cheaper is definitly 130€ left in your pocket, PLUS TWO CORES

Depends on workload, that's just one program. Ryzen loves integer and floating point math but isn't anything special for compression and similar tasks. I do a lot of number crunching and never even finished a sphere 3d modeling tutorial, so my perspective is a little different from yours.

Which basically says, if you disable SMT the GPU usage doubles.

 

Pilotasso...can you counter-check on yours ???

Just checked mine in DCS 1.5, BoS and Rome 2, no measurable difference in fps or cpu usage ( DCS had 1 core maxed, 1 barely touched, rest idle unless Windows does something).

You mean a combat flight sim junkie?:music_whistling:

Unfortunately yes. Damn shame DCS doesn't properly use any cpu made in the last 10 years. It certainly isn't alone with that problem, Rome 2 is also single threaded I noticed.

Disease it's interesting to know this.

With my i7 there is no difference with or without hyper-threading - afterburner graphs are identical in 1.5 (and also in 2.1).

You didn't precize the fps when running only 6 cores/6 threads... I suppose they where better ?

You mean a combat flight sim junkie?:music_whistling: