Going from 3090 to 4090.

[dburne]

Yeah I have decided to wait for 14XX series of CPU before I take the plunge on a new MB/chip. My 4090 wiill help make that wait more bearable for sure.

[simfan2015]

@dburne.

Seems you made a great decision that really paid off !

This is about what I have claimed on one occasion (and was downvoted for it at the time) that upgrading the GPU over the CPU pays off ... most of the time.

Personally I never upgraded a (intel) CPU, because it is far easier to wait for the new 2-3 year cycle and then upgrade the motherboard (a.o.) as well because of the new socket, PCI version etc.

But a PCI-e GPU upgrade is a given ... at least most of the time (unless the CPU is really too old of course).

That new shiny 4090 of yours is not always going to be fed appropriately, maybe not even by an (upcoming) 7950 3D, in very heavy missions with lots of assets but still, IMHO, that 4090 is the best upgrade ... in a lot of use cases ... especially high resolution VR headsets !

[dburne]

Ok so an update for you. Spent some time early this morning getting all my controllers set back up. Just did a quick mission in Normandy summer of 44. Me in Spit with some random JU-88's. My graphics settings remain as they were which is pretty high. I ran my Aero at 90% resolution, which gave me 3648x3128 per eye. The sim was simply gorgeous in this headset.

 

Flew close to JU 88 trying to dodge their gunners, kept shooting till it eventually exploded in a fireball. Kept an eye on the fps counter in the game, stayed locked at 90 fps for the entire mission. Really quite nice. I do not expect that when I get involed with multiple planes in a furball, but I expect it will still be a quite good experience.

 

Some stats for you:

During this mission:

My max GPU Boost clock was 2790 MHz ( this at stock settings).

Vram speed was 21004 MHz.

GPU core voltage max was 1050.

GPU Utilization max was 81%.

GPU Temp max was 54c. ( this card apparently has a heck of a good cooler on it).

My room ambient temp is 21c.

 

Yeah I am more than pleased with this new Gigabyte 4090 OC. My rig is an i9 9900k at 5.1 GHz all cores, 32 GB DDR4 3200 MHz CL14 ram. 1000 W EVGA Titanium PSU. I frankly was quite suprised on how large the performance gain was for me with this older processor.

 

Probably the only thing I do not care for on the 4090 is where Nvidia located the power socket on the card. And most if not all AIB's followed suite. You don't want to introduce a crimp in those four cables as that can be dangerous, so you need a beefy roomy case to be able to just have a gradual bend with the case closed.

Edited January 14, 2023 by dburne

[kissTheSky]

Tha same card was still 1709 at Newegg yesterday. You’re making this quite tempting Don. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by kissTheSky

[dburne]

50 minutes ago, kissTheSky said:

Tha same card was still 1709 at Newegg yesterday. You’re making this quite tempting Odn.

 

Lol to say I have been more than pleased would be an understatement I reckon. Very happy.

[chiliwili69]

18 hours ago, dburne said:

I ran my Aero at 90% resolution, which gave me 3648x3128 per eye.

Congrats for your new GPU.  That kind of cards is exactly what VR devices like the Aero were needing. You have now the card that your Aero was deserving.

Future devices of this year (Crystal, MeganeX, Sommium?) will manage resolution, so that 4090 is the card we will need to go if we want to be at 90fps.

[dburne]

45 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

Congrats for your new GPU.  That kind of cards is exactly what VR devices like the Aero were needing. You have now the card that your Aero was deserving.

Future devices of this year (Crystal, MeganeX, Sommium?) will manage resolution, so that 4090 is the card we will need to go if we want to be at 90fps.

 

Keep in mind that 90 fps was 1 versus 1. Probably bigger furball it will drop a little.

But yeah I am pretty ecstatic with this new 4090.

Edited January 15, 2023 by dburne

[Otterman]

Interesting thread, currently have an 9900k, 3080ti, G2 set up in a large case suitable for a 4090.

I have the cash to upgrade just 1 item at present and a second in about 12 months hopefully. I play all 3 major flight sims plus ACC sim racing.  Not that confident about replacing motherboards plus could do with a second PC anyway for more general use. At present don't tend to use that much multiplayer which reduces the argument for going the CPU route, but that may change at some point.

My recent thoughts have been that I need to upgrade the CPU first to a 7800X3D or similar, but now reconsidering this, Unfortunately my 9900k wont overclock above 4.9 even with a decent corsair H100 cooler, just crahes at 5.0. Maybe I should retry again using just one core?

Reading this thread, maybe the GPU upgrade is the best option, could then sell the 3080ti and start the fund for the next item. Another advantage of this route is that later this year some of the flight sims may improve in terms of utilising multi core which would lessen the impact on the CPU. 

If this was the case it opens up the option for going with one of the newer VR headsets that are due instead of the CPU.  The chances are that I wont be able to upgrade all 3 items unless thing change, being retired that is less likely to happen.

Could end up with say 9900k,  4090, Pimax crystal or similar, this would likely be CPU bound but hopefully viable.

Maybe at that stage I need to read up on motherboard replacement, reasonably OK I could learn the motherboard bit, its using my existing cooler and finding a adapter to use it on a new processor that I am more worried about.

Is anything planned for multi core in IL2, Know the other jet combat sim is due an upgrade, not sure on the microsoft end

Interested in views. 

[chiliwili69]

9 hours ago, dburne said:

Keep in mind that 90 fps was 1 versus 1. Probably bigger furball it will drop a little.

I think a I bigger furball (more AI planes/terrain objects) will load more the CPU but no more the GPU. 

You were at 81% GPU utilization with 90% SteamVR SS, so you can even go to 100% and be at 90fps.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by chiliwili69

[chiliwili69]

6 hours ago, Otterman said:

Is anything planned for multi core in IL2, Know the other jet combat sim is due an upgrade, not sure on the microsoft end

Interested in views. 

 

As far as I know the Dev is working on something but I don´t think it is muli-core support. (Just what I think).  The majority of IL-2 users play with monitor and there most of cheap CPUs are more than enough.

But in VR we need very capable processor to run at 90fps if Max settings are used. But we can tune the settings to unload the CPU as required.

 

A 3080Ti perfect for a G2, I think you will be able to run it at 100%SS (19.5Miliion pixels) at 90fps.

But future VR devices will demand more, so they will require a better card.

But if you are happy currently with the G2 (in terms of FOV and edge-to-edge clarity) you can continue using it and upgrade just CPU.

With time VR devices will cost less and they will be better, so you can wait.

 

I think you can run fpsVR while you play with IL-2 (or other sims) to really see how much CPU constrained you are for the settings you use.

Edited January 15, 2023 by chiliwili69

[dburne]

20 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

I think a I bigger furball (more AI planes/terrain objects) will load more the CPU but no more the GPU. 

You were at 81% GPU utilization with 90% SteamVR SS, so you can even go to 100% and be at 90fps.

 

 

Yeah I have little doubt even 100% will be ok, will have to have a go with that and see how it looks. I am running 90% on Aero resolution of high in DCS and still getting in the 60's fps wise so yeah I think IL-2 wilil be fine at the 100% setting. And both are looking gorgeous.

[IckyATLAS]

Thanks Dburne to share your 4090 experience. Finally it seems a good card worth having after all. Temps and power (in some other reviews) in gaming remain acceptable and far from the terrible values that were given a few months before launch.

Power consumption is high but not a disaster again in gaming usage.

I will build a new rig, but more and more as it goes it seems that AMD seems having surpassed Intel and I am very eager to see the upcoming benchmarks in February, of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D that is given at base clock 4.2 GHz, and 5.7 GHz boost clock, 16 cores 32 threads and 120Watt TDP.

The Intel 13900KS cannot be run at 6 GHz all cores at acceptable temperatures without a real chiller type solution. With some good cooling you get still nearly 100C at 5.8 GHz all cores. So comparative benchmarks will be very interesting with an AMD 7950X3D at 5.7 or 5.8 on all cores, but also single core performance that is key for IL2.

It seems that Intel is still lagging behind AMD in their silicon process node, and is running out of steam and I am not sure the 14th generation will close the gap.

Wait and see. I have always been an Intel user up to now and my last rig has an 11900K CPU. But my longstanding fidelity to Intel is now being strongly shaken to say the least.

Edited January 15, 2023 by IckyATLAS

[dburne]

Ya I will be going with Intel but waiting for 14th gen. Hopefully it and DDR5 Memory will be a great match up. I can get another year out of this 9900k at 5.1 Hz all cores thanks to the new 4090 GPU.

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

28 minutes ago, IckyATLAS said:

.With some good cooling you get still nearly 100C at 5.8 GHz all cores. So comparative benchmarks will be very interesting with an AMD 7950X3D at 5.7 or 5.8 on all cores, but also single core performance that is key for IL2.

 

Keep in mind that the 7900X3D and 7950X3D are only running the one CCD that has no extra L3 Cache at the higher CPU frequencies.

The CCD that has the extra cache is, apparently, locked to 5.0 GHz as per the 7800X3D. AMD/ Microsoft will need to sort out how to assign processes to to the optimal CCD in a similar scenario to intel e-cores.

Really going to need to see actual third party test results to know how all that is going to work out IMO.

Personally, I would choose the 7800X3D if going to the 7000 series AMD CPU to avoid the twelve month timeframe it may take AMD/ Microsoft to sort out CCD prioritisation.
 

Edited January 15, 2023 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve
missing word

[IckyATLAS]

11 hours ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

7900X3D and 7950X3D are only running the one CCD

What is the CCD? I know only about camera CCD ? 

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

1 hour ago, IckyATLAS said:

What is the CCD? I know only about camera CCD ? 

Google is your friend...

Core Complex Dies (CCD) The 7900X3D and 7950X3D have two but only one of the CCD's can use the extra Level 3 Cache supplied with 7000 series X3D chips

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_3

Edited January 16, 2023 by RAAF492SQNOz_Steve
improved wording

[chiliwili69]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:24 PM, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

I would choose the 7800X3D if going to the 7000 series AMD CPU

 

It will be interesting to see what is the best 7000 series CPU for IL-2 VR.

 

From previous test we know IL-2 likes the clock frequency but also the L3 cache.

 

The contenders would be (taking the 7950s out of the equation since more cores doesn´t help IL-2, and +0.1 GHz more clock is not worth):

 

Max clock: 7900X with 5.6GHz peak and normal 32Mb L3 cache per CCD.

 

Max cache: Go to the 7800X3D with 5.0 Ghz peak and 96Mb L3 cache.

 

Mixed: Go to the 7900X3D with 5.0 Ghz/96Mb L3cache in one CCD and 5.7 Ghz/32Mb L3 cache int he other CCD

 

Who os going to be the first to try it????

Edited January 18, 2023 by chiliwili69

[102nd-YU-cmirko]

whomever gets a 7900X3D will be able to produce both sets of results for the forum (and on the same ram which is also somewhat important) just by setting core affinity for il2 threads ^^

 

considering pure 5800X3D vs 7800X3D specs (without ram considerations or IPC improvements) , I would say at least 25% increase in minimum frame times in il2 ? 

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

6 hours ago, 102nd-YU-cmirko said:

whomever gets a 7900X3D will be able to produce both sets of results for the forum (and on the same ram which is also somewhat important) just by setting core affinity for il2 threads ^^

 

considering pure 5800X3D vs 7800X3D specs (without ram considerations or IPC improvements) , I would say at least 25% increase in minimum frame times in il2 ? 

At the higher resolutions, required by VR, you are going to see nothing like that in IL2 if you already have a recent release CPU. The best you should expect is a improvement in 1% lows and a very modest improvement, if any in max frame rates as you are GPU limited for higher res VR.
May also be a reduction in micro-stutters.  
I am using a 5800X3D and a RTX 4090 and when measuring IL2, with fpsVR, during flight see typical CPU frame times of under 5 ms whereas GPU frame times are about 9 ms. 'Busy' IL2 scenario's are going to negatively impact GPU performance first and the CPU still has 'spare' capacity to maintain 90 fps+ framerates.

I went from a 5800X to a 5800X3D and the improvements obtained were to 1% lows, less micro-stutters and about a 1 fps increase in fps averages. It was however a much smoother flying experience due to a significant improvement in 1% lows.

MSFS may however get much more of an improvement when upgrading to either a 5800X3D or 7800X3D as it is a very CPU intensive game according to user feedback posted elsewhere. 

[102nd-YU-cmirko]

I had 4fps average (and minimum fps) upgrade from 5800x to 5800x3d on the same exact CPU heavy benchmark we all use ^^

 

it will be interesting to see real minimum fps upgrade with a top end GPU such as yours (between AM4 and AM5 X3D cpu's) 

Edited January 17, 2023 by 102nd-YU-cmirko

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

2 hours ago, 102nd-YU-cmirko said:

<snip>

it will be interesting to see real minimum fps upgrade with a top end GPU such as yours (between AM4 and AM5 X3D cpu's) 

 

Indeed, will be very interested in what reviews find with the 7800X3D especially with regard to MSFS.

I am not convinced that the 7800X3D is going to be a big advance over the 5800X3D at 4K type resolutions.  If AMD had been able to run the 7800X3D at the same boost clock as the 7700X it would have been more promising IMO. 

Not expecting to see any IPC gains over what has already been shown with the 7700X etc.
See the main differentiator, between the 5800X3D and 7800X3D as being the boost frequency and whatever gains AMD can achieve with also having a L2 cache that is double the size of the 5800X3D's L2 cache.

Have seen recent reports that the release date of the 7000 series X3D cpu's has been pushed back and is no longer 14 Feb so the wait may be a bit longer.

[chiliwili69]

12 hours ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

during flight see typical CPU frame times of under 5 ms whereas GPU frame times are about 9 ms. 'Busy' IL2 scenario's are going to negatively impact GPU performance first and the CPU still has 'spare' capacity to maintain 90 fps+ framerates.

 

Your 5ms depend very much of the IL-2 settings you use for normal play game. And more importantly about the scene and number of planes/tanks/trucks/AA in the scene.

If you max-out your IL-2 settings your CPU will became the bottleneck soonner

 

About the GPU, being at 9ms you have just 2ms margin from the reprojection limit (11.11ms, ie 1000/90). With a G2 and a 4090 I thought you had more margin really. What SS%, or Clouds, or MSAA do you use? 

 

You can try to use fpsVR and enter in a dense furball (or just run the SYN_VANDER bench), I think you will see that the CPU frametimes will be above 11ms and the GPU below 11ms.

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

9 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

Your 5ms depend very much of the IL-2 settings you use for normal play game. And more importantly about the scene and number of planes/tanks/trucks/AA in the scene.

If you max-out your IL-2 settings your CPU will became the bottleneck soonner

 

About the GPU, being at 9ms you have just 2ms margin from the reprojection limit (11.11ms, ie 1000/90). With a G2 and a 4090 I thought you had more margin really. What SS%, or Clouds, or MSAA do you use? 

 

You can try to use fpsVR and enter in a dense furball (or just run the SYN_VANDER bench), I think you will see that the CPU frametimes will be above 11ms and the GPU below 11ms.

Hi Chilliwilli, I fly the Varjo Aero with IL 2 High settings, 35 ppd (for Normandy map, other maps can apparently handle 37 ppd) with MSAA x 2 set.

Flying at 39 ppd and no MSAA delivers good results but my impression is that a slightly lower ppd and a MSAA x 2 setting is marginally better for shimmering of distant objects.

The average frame time figures I quoted above  relate to low flying, i.e. rooftop level  over a Normandy Map large town. That is a scenario that works the PC quite hard and where I get my very intermittent micro-stutters. The feeling of speed, at low altitudes, when being able to run at 90Hz is quite enjoyable 

Flying at altitude (say 1000 - 2000 metres) generally drops my GPU to around the 5 ms per frame mark and it is a butter smooth 90Hz flying experience.  I have flown dogfights with 10 or so AI aircraft and have not noted a performance dropoff. Have not been focussing on fpsVR results at the time though......

Will run a VR 2 test with the Aero this weekend and let you know the results. 

Would note that my RTX 4090 GPU is restricted to 450W power as I only have Three power cables running into it. If I needed a bit more GPU power I could upgrade my PSU and turn my PC into a space heater by running it at 600W. Do not think I will bother however as it apparently on gives another 5 - 7% performance uplift based on reviewer results.

[chiliwili69]

12 hours ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

Flying at 39 ppd

OK, you have the Aero. I thought you had the G2. So, those GPU frametimes make sense now.

 

When you say 39ppd, from where do you see that number.

The Aero running on OpenVR via SteamVR  (that´s is IL-2) the resolutions and ppds reported by Varjo in their webpage https://varjo.com/use-center/get-to-know-your-headset/getting-the-perfect-image-quality/ are:

 

12 hours ago, RAAF492SQNOz_Steve said:

Will run a VR 2 test with the Aero this weekend and let you know the results.

Perfect thanks!  Please try to run CPUtest and VRtest1 as well.

Edited January 19, 2023 by chiliwili69

[RAAF492SQNOz_Steve]

4 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

OK, you have the Aero. I thought you had the G2. So, those GPU frametimes make sense now.

 

When you say 39ppd, from where do you see that number.

The Aero running on OpenVR via SteamVR  (that´s is IL-2) the resolutions and ppds reported by Varjo in their webpage https://varjo.com/use-center/get-to-know-your-headset/getting-the-perfect-image-quality/ are:

 

The settings available in Varjo Base are the ones I am referring to

[1Sascha]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:10 PM, dburne said:

Ya I will be going with Intel but waiting for 14th gen. Hopefully it and DDR5 Memory will be a great match up. I can get another year out of this 9900k at 5.1 Hz all cores thanks to the new 4090 GPU.

Just FIY: Squaddie of mine just took delivery of a pre-built i7-13700K/RTX 4090 system and here are his results for Time Spy:

 

Alas, they sold him a DDR4 system and "only" put 3200, CL18 sticks in there (2x16 GB) - that and the fact that nothing is OCed (although we did verify XMP was activated) is probably why his score is so far below average.

 

Guess I should've told him to also run Firestrike Extreme... ?

 

 

But I think this might still be relevant to you seeing how you're on 9th gen and kinda, sorta thinking about a CPU upgrade...

 

 

 

 

S.

Edited January 19, 2023 by 1Sascha

[dburne]

Here are my Timespy scores. Our graphics are really close, my CPU holding me back a little. 

 

 

Gigabyte 4090  i9 9900k @ 5.1 GHz   32GB DDR4 CL14 3200 MHz ram

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 by dburne

[DBCOOPER011]

Yes, the 4090 has some serious horsepower in it...

 

[kissTheSky]

6 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

Yes, the 4090 has some serious horsepower in it...

 

You guys are not helping ?

 

which 4090 do you have @DBCOOPER011?

[DBCOOPER011]

Same as Dburne's. Gigabyte 4090 OC...

[kissTheSky]

Thanks! Keeping away from the temptation will be hard if I find either this or the FE in stock at msrp. 

[DBCOOPER011]

Yea, of course I overclocked it some to get that. But if you look at that time spy run, it only averaged 55c getting close to 3000mhz. Outstanding IMO for a stock air cooler...

 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/34918988

[kissTheSky]

Agreed, definitely good thermal performance! I’m running 58+ on the hybrid 3090 with a 249mm radiator. 

[chiliwili69]

Given that we use IL-2 (DX11) with high resolution VR devices the most logical benchmark to comare our di... would be Fire Strike or Fire Strike Ultra which is a DX11 bench...

[dburne]

8 hours ago, DBCOOPER011 said:

Yea, of course I overclocked it some to get that. But if you look at that time spy run, it only averaged 55c getting close to 3000mhz. Outstanding IMO for a stock air cooler...

 

https://www.3dmark.com/spy/34918988

 

 

Yes the cooling on this card is incredible for sure. 

 

 

1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

Given that we use IL-2 (DX11) with high resolution VR devices the most logical benchmark to comare our di... would be Fire Strike or Fire Strike Ultra which is a DX11 bench...

 

I would not think that matters if the benchmark is used to compare performances between different setups/rigs. Main thing would be just to use the same one. Besides also have the Vander benchmark for that as well.

Edited January 21, 2023 by dburne

[LVA_Picard]

Have a 3060ti , very low power consumption and with these energy prices its important fore me so i takje the 4070 ti in the near future.

[shirazjohn]

19 minutes ago, LVA_Picard said:

Have a 3060ti , very low power consumption and with these energy prices its important fore me so i takje the 4070 ti in the near future.

I have a 4080 which i have undervolted which give pretty much the same performance as stock but only draws just over 200 watts at full power and runs about 10 degrees cooler.

[kissTheSky]

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Given that we use IL-2 (DX11) with high resolution VR devices the most logical benchmark to comare our di... would be Fire Strike or Fire Strike Ultra which is a DX11 bench...

Nothing directed to you @chiliwili69, every body loves a good attachment measuring contest every now and then but here are my thoughts on benchmarking. ?
 

Not once have I ran a benchmark. All I care about is my game performance in VR. And if I’m honest, IL-2 is not the best in utilizing the GPU, so I have my own layman’s benchie that I check temperatures through a session of iRacing with 25 AI cars (45-60 minutes), and then check and compare temperatures with a BoBP or BoN career mission (60-80 minutes). 

 

Even though iRacing is not the best in utilizing the resources, it is much better than IL-2, and does not have constant micro stutters that IL-2 suffers from. Just by going temperatures is a horrible way to make desicions, I know, but that’s my way and I’m sticking to it ?.

[LVA_Picard]

5 hours ago, shirazjohn said:

I have a 4080 which i have undervolted which give pretty much the same performance as stock but only draws just over 200 watts at full power and runs about 10 degrees cooler.

That good to hear very interesting 

[kissTheSky]

You guys are bad influence on me ?. 
 

My local Microcenter had some stock this morning and I ended up with this!
 

Not sure if I’ll go ahead and install it. Haven’t done much research into this, but the other one they had was Asus Tuf OC, and knowing for sure it will NOT fit into my O11 Dynamic, I got this one.