Modern CPU Benchmarks in DCS and Il-2

[LuftManu]

Dear friends,

I did some tests on our beloved processors where we are also going to talk about their daily use.

The frame rates are very good check to know what to buy and what not, and I'm sure there are a lot of specialized sites where they will have better summaries than the ones I'm going to put today. My idea is not only to share that, but also their daily and real use with Flight sims.

 

Today I present you some testing with the:

 

I7 14700K (SP72)/ I9 13900K (SP109) / I9 13900KS (SP113) / I9 14900K (SP96)

7700X / 7800 X3D / 7950X / 7950X3D

 

The tests were performed in a real case (No open bench).

 

GPU:

RTX 4090 Strix (Both)

RAM:

Kingston Fury 6000 Mhz 64Gb EXPO profile (AMD)

G-Skill Z5 6000 mhz 64Gb XMP 3 Profile (intel)

Motherboard:

Asus Maximus Hero Z790 (Intel)

MSI X670E Carbon Wifi (AMD)

PSU:

Corsair Hx1500i (Both)

Cooling (Liquid) (Contact frame used for Intel)

EKWB Nucleus CR360

Asus Riyjin III 360

Cooling (Air)

Noctua DH15 Chromax Black (offset used for AMD)

Case

Corsair 7000 D Airflow

 

 

Before I start I want to write the summary for all those who don't want to read a lot of text (I'm sometimes one of them :D). And first and foremost... MT still doesn't use 400000 of cores. No need for an I9 or Ryzen 9 for this. (The Clocks and IPC YES, Cores NOPE).

The 7800 X3D is acclaimed as the best processor for gaming, is it? At first glance yes, but there is more to it.

Stability on AM5 has been problematic for me (I've builtal least 40 AM5 rigs since its release and while it has improved, Intel still has the edge.)

 

On the other hand, the 7800 X3D seems to be the only 7000 with cache worth paying for. The 7950 X3D loses in performance to it in gaming and the normal one beats it in work tasks. It makes no sense and even more so when it is still more expensive than the 14900K in Europe.

 

The one that stands out here is the 14700K above 400€ in Europe. Not only we beat the 7800 X3D by a landslide in tasks and diverse use of the PC, but we also stay very close to it in performance, without requiring a mammoth of a cooler (Read below).

On the other hand, the one that has given me the best performance has been the 14900K with a heavy OC. (7200 Memory and Chill water) Of course, the price to pay for the whole ecosystem is too high.

 

We are speaking about a couple of FPS at most in many cases between these "high end CPUs". So in my honest opinion, a higher number of cores justifies more the price we are going to pay. Almost 400€ for 8 cores in the 7800X3D is too much and although the 3D cache is great, Intel gets close without it.

A 5800 X3D is still very good value for money for 8 cores, with the already mature AM4 platform. (and the newly released 5700 X3D could also be).

 

 

So... What to choose?

The answer will surprise you... Any of the ones mentioned here! They will all perform very well in Il-2 and DCS. Decide now if you are going to want to have cores according to what you are paying or just the 3D cache. (8 Cores perform good in various task for the 7800 X3D, but it's still pricey IMHO).

 

If I don't want to spend huge amounts of money, I would choose a 14700K with a Z790 and 6000 Mhz of memory (64gb). I will have functional equipment not only for gaming, but also for more things during its lifetime (not everyone changes PC every year).

 

So now, let's go to the Intel platform first...

When we talk about intel, four will come shouting Heat, Heat! Electricity!

Well, sorry to take away the drama.... Not even a 14900K with beastly OC is going to go over 100W on average at DCS or Il-2. Sorry to the Fanboys who want to use this as ammo! (The good thing about having both platforms is that you can see how stupid some arguments are).

Many motherboards (and this is the manufacturers fault) apply stupid options like Asus MCE or absurd Power Limits The good thing? It takes you 2 minutes to set it to factory defaults and from there, you can tweak it.

 

My average usage in DCS on the PC I use now is 80W on my 14900K at 5.8 all its cores and without passing 1.3V. (And with temperatures below 50 ºC). With VR it reaches 100 and with excellent frames. Il-2 is even lower.

 

And yes, you can run a 14900K with an air cooler and enjoy DCS with full performace. (As well as a 13900K).

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/858771282883510292/1215076097562124309/IMG_1442.jpg?ex=65fb6ecc&is=65e8f9cc&hm=35d82bc7eb347ae38179f35d9e58ee1f638f594a68f2deb2517a60f78fd03d12&

 

(over Marianas with 100 fps Cap at 3440x1440 maxed out with MSAA on my liquid cooler. With air it will be somwhat hotter, but not the forge of the hell like some clickbait review videos show)

 

 

These 3 CPUs performed great, the worst being the 14700K in frames, but with a slight overclock and undervolt it was at similar levels to the 13900K.

 

I repeat that the differences were minimal. What I have noticed the most is that the 14 gen are a little cooler.

 

The 13900KS surprisingly was able to get the best performance earlier (with some UV). I thought the 14900K was a 13900KS by another name, but indeed DCS still likes the speed. With the 13900KS it was easier to maintain a high speed.

This coming week the 14900KS comes out, it will surely put Intel in the lead and maybe even well tuned it will consume 10% more (from only 70/80W current) with another 2-3% difference in fps.

 

Is it worth paying for it? That's a question for you, dear reader! But fear not about temps and/or wattage. In gaming you won't notice such a thing and with 1 minute in BIOS you can set up Intel limits. (And still outperform 7950X in tasks) as I tested with my 14900K with 253W PL1/PL2 and 350A.

 

I also tried HT ON and OFF. Intel is getting rid of it in the next 15 Gen, and so far, there was a slight increase in performance and decrease in W and Voltage.

 

And what about AMD?

7800 X3D, plug and play.

You don't need expensive memories, you don't need a high end board... just install and forget about it. (Curiously it was warmer than the i9 and it's hard to dissipate heat from a small surface, yes).

 

Here it is not necessary to do much more than some UV with the PBO and we are ready. It's as simple as that.

Unfortunately I had stability problems with the memory and then I had to RMA my board.

 

The 3D cache is magic and works magically on DCS. I was going to keep this rig if it wasn't for the problems encountered and that it took more than twice as long on some tasks. Yes, I consume half as much, but if I take twice as long... I end up consuming the same and wasting more time. Insert some of those high-IQ memes here.

 

Jokes aside, the 8 cores work well, but once you have tried something with high cores, you find the other inefficient. That's how it is.

Almost €400 for this CPU seems excessive to me. AMD is taking advantage of the cache to justify the price. They are a company, why wouldn't they?

 

The other option, the 7950X is worse than the i7 and is more expensive. Out. The 7950X3D is also another strange purchase. The cache forces its cores to slow down and only one of the CCDs has a cache. So you are buying a 7800 X3D with another group of cores slower than the normal 7950X... and more expensive than a 14900K.

 

I dont like it. Personally, the 7800 X3D is the best option for X3D cache here.

In DCS they all perform well. (Even the 7700X could keep up with the 4090 and in VR, but the difference is big enough to consider other options such a 5800 X3D). For the other hand, I wanted to test an I5 14600K but couldn't. Maybe could be a decent option for also various work actions with a higher amount of cores (With E).
I suspect that in Il-2 it would be even better as the CPU load is less. 

 

In Il-2 (and adding this as an special part) everything went butter smooth. But as many know the simulation slowsdown when there is tons of action. In this case, Il-2 liked more Intel than AMD. Probably because of the higher clocks? Not sure, but I noticed more slowdows on Il-2 Tank crew campaign and I could speed up more the time in Intel (Both KS and 14 gen i9)

 

Whatabout Cooling? (I need moaaar water)

The EKWB Nucleous was a beast! But the Riujin III with Noctua fans performed the best. The Asetek 8th gen pump is more noisy, but the overall experience is good enough for both to tame any I9 or Ryzen 9.

Even a Noctua will do, remember this. If you plan to push it then go for an AIO. It will be better for temp spikes.

 

Also, please stay away from those telling you that 90 ºC are dangerous.
"I knew I was right! Look at those posts of damaged CPUs because of the new high-temps"! Sure champ. I still need to have at least 5 bad CPUs in my hands (And I've built many setups).

 

These things are meant to run hot. That's how they achieve their published scores (that sometimes don't mean a thing to us while gaming).

They are not needed and if you tune your BIOS, you will find there is nothing to worry about. Also, please refrain from touching thing in the BIOS if you don't know what you are doing!

 

Any questions? Feel free to fire them here! For BIOS configs etc.

Kind regards and stay safe!

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Would you mind running the Vander Benchmark with these cpus? It would be very interesting.

 

Thanks for the report!

[LuftManu]

11 hours ago, =DW=_Drewm3i-VR said:

Would you mind running the Vander Benchmark with these cpus? It would be very interesting.

 

Thanks for the report!

Hi!
 

Unfortunately I don't have time to test in a controlled environment on something that could be taken as a "base" for pure performance.
 

Every PC is different and the users who usually post in that thread have their machines well tuned. I can't tune all the options for the above processors, but the picture in the tests does seem to show a bit of what I've been telling here.
 

This has taken me all week and the weekend. It was only a few hours with each processor.

So far, with time dilation 14900K (delid) -> 13900 KS -> 13900K -> 7950X -> 7800 X3D (small difference)
And with performance in VR 14900K (delid) -> 7800 X3D -> 13900 KS -> 13900 K -> 7950 X3D -> 7950X (Last two show more difference than the first 3)

Kind regards,

[chiliwili69]

Thanks very much for this review, it is great to have all these good CPU options.

Regarding RAM for IL2 in VR you know that 16Gb is enough, right?

What you were using to measure the fps when testing them?

And just curiosity, how do you get access to all those CPUs?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

For me buying Intel is not good option because the platform is dead end. New CPU would require new motherboard. Am5 is future proof, I can upgrade to new CPU series. The price is also a big difference 7800x3d cost me 0.6  less than i9 14900k. 

[HazMatt]

What would you say is the best bang for the buck upgrade from a 12100? 

[LuftManu]

2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Thanks very much for this review, it is great to have all these good CPU options.

Regarding RAM for IL2 in VR you know that 16Gb is enough, right?

What you were using to measure the fps when testing them?

And just curiosity, how do you get access to all those CPUs?

But 16gb is not for DCS ?

In this case I aim for both my work, DCS and Il-2 on the same rig so I wanted to test 64gb. In this test I kept 6000 mhz for everything as it's the correct speed for AM5.

 

Thankfully I have a good friend who is into the OC and Benchmark wrold. These are all open Box tests.

 

When I'm testing this and other games I always use HWinfo paired with Rivatuner (and if availble internal performance indicator). My friend also has a good variety of tools (including multimeters, teperature sensors) and even a massive Mora 420 external radiator for extreme OC purpouses but I guess we are not doing that here ?

 

There is also something that he told me and the 13 and 14 Intel gen are having tons of issues with CPUs degrading. Too much voltage? 

I was curious and took a look on my V/F curve too and it's certainly worse in my 14th gen chip than on my 13th gen chip. 

Why I am commenting this here? Because the amount of people I've seen is enough for me to take this into account. The same happened months ago with AMD frying it's chips.

Reddit is filled up: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/is-your-intel-core-i9-13900k-crashing-in-games-your-motherboard-bios-settings-may-be-to-blame-other-high-end-intel-cpus-also-affected

 

 

Some people are on his third chip!! This is alarming for me and AM5 is now more mature, just saying. I might even cancel my 14900KS.

 

Kind regards,

56 minutes ago, HazMatt said:

What would you say is the best bang for the buck upgrade from a 12100? 

7800 X3D, B650 board and 6000 Mhz ram. 16gb Will be enough for DCS. You don't need more.

[Aapje]

6 hours ago, LuftManu said:

7800 X3D, B650 board and 6000 Mhz ram. 16gb Will be enough for DCS. You don't need more.

 

Is replacing the CPU, motherboard and RAM really going to be more cost-effective than getting a 12600k or such?

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

 

Is replacing the CPU, motherboard and RAM really going to be more cost-effective than getting a 12600k or such?

Yes, in long run, AM5 just started where Socket 1700 just ended.

[72AGs_miky]

What would you recommend for 4070ti and 3440 x 1440 in IL-2 (currently i7-9700k)? I'm less interested in the future upgrade.

[Aapje]

Since you need a new motherboard anyway, a 7800X3D system. Even without considering the upgradability, it is very good value for money and very efficient.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

8 hours ago, 72AGs_miky said:

What would you recommend for 4070ti and 3440 x 1440 in IL-2 (currently i7-9700k)? I'm less interested in the future upgrade.

Best Intel for that socket. I9 for more cache and higher clocks. 10 cores vs 8 - it's old CPU generation so prices are not that significantly higher I believe.

[sevenless]

10 hours ago, 72AGs_miky said:

What would you recommend for 4070ti and 3440 x 1440 in IL-2 (currently i7-9700k)? I'm less interested in the future upgrade.

 

I am on a i9-9900K and 4070 playing in 4K with 100-120FPS all on max except AA on FXAA. 4070TI should give you plenty of performance headroom for IL-2 on a 2D screen.

 

Graphic settings here:

 

Edited March 14, 2024 by sevenless

[LuftManu]

19 hours ago, Aapje said:

 

Is replacing the CPU, motherboard and RAM really going to be more cost-effective than getting a 12600k or such?

Yep!

btw today the 14900KS has been released. Looks like 7800 X3D is still winning against the new Intel flagship of at least 700€. So I would say the upgrade is going to be cost-effective.

 

Maybe with an upped 14900KS with incredible cooling it might get the lead.
 

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intel-core-i9-14900ks-cpu-review

 

[Aapje]

@LuftManu

 

Hazmatt has a 4070 Super, not a 4090, so the gain will be substantially less than in your graph. The less strong the GPU, the less demand on the CPU.

[LuftManu]

18 hours ago, Aapje said:

@LuftManu

 

Hazmatt has a 4070 Super, not a 4090, so the gain will be substantially less than in your graph. The less strong the GPU, the less demand on the CPU.

The CPU is something that needs to last. The best performing CPU in games right now is also cost senstiive and in a improving platform that hase some margins for the future. 


I wouldn't say it's not a good choice.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Summary from Tom's hardware:

The Core i9-14900KS will need the highest-end motherboard and PSU to pump 400A and 320W+ of power to the processor, along with a potent liquid-cooler to handle the 100C operating temperatures when the chip is under heavy load. If you're buying this class of chip, you'll also want to buy a quality XMP memory kit to eke out a bit more performance. Overall, you'll pay a high price for a few percentage points (at best) of extra performance over the standard 14900K, not to mention that AMD's competing 7000X3D chips still hold the lead in gaming.

Edited March 15, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Aapje]

1 hour ago, LuftManu said:

The CPU is something that needs to last. The best performing CPU in games right now is also cost sensitive and in a improving platform that has some margins for the future. 

 

You advised him to replace his entire platform, which is inconsistent with saying that it should last. The advice to have him last as long as possible on his platform is a cheapish upgrade to a 12600k.

 

If he upgrades his platform when he replaces his 4070 Super, he will be able to get a motherboard with more recent technology & DDR5 for cheaper or with better timings/speed for the same price.

[LuftManu]

1 hour ago, Aapje said:

 

You advised him to replace his entire platform, which is inconsistent with saying that it should last. The advice to have him last as long as possible on his platform is a cheapish upgrade to a 12600k.

 

If he upgrades his platform when he replaces his 4070 Super, he will be able to get a motherboard with more recent technology & DDR5 for cheaper or with better timings/speed for the same price.

Hi, 

No, my recommendation is not inconsistent.

If he changes from a 12100 to a I5 12600, the benefits will be minimal. Most of the time, jumping in the same gen only matters if you need more cores. In this case he uses an I3 so he would notice a bigger change, but nothing to write home about. He is better off going for a 13600K. It's 20€ more and has better IPC, clocks and more cores (12600 180€ vs 13600 200€ vs 14600 315€) 
He has a 12th gen CPU, a 12100. That means he is using the 1700 socket and he has compatibility with up to the latest 14 the gen.

A jump in the same 12th gen is a nosense with the cheap 13th gen around. (12th gen vs 13th gen has more difference than the 13th gen vs 14th gen) He is better off going for a I5 13600 if he wants only to change his CPU.

 

But even then it's a dead end. The 1700 socket it's at EOL since yesterday, Intel won't be releasing more CPUs for that one.

As he wants to upgrade his motherboard, then it's better to buy a AM5 (Around 200€) and a 7800X3D (Around 380€) with DDR5. This will give better performance than a i9 14900K for a fraction of the price in Il-2, DCS and probably more games.

 

Also, AM5 still has at least one and a half years in developmet as the next Zen5 will be compatible, alongside the X3D options. 

 

So yeah, if he buys a 7800 X3D with a usable Motherboad and DDR5, he won't bothe with parts sans a GPU for at least 3-4 years. And even then, he can just put the next X3D chip where he will find more improvement than going 12 gen to 14 gen. (Probably).

 

Kind regards,

PS: This is my opinion, as you have yours.

 

[HazMatt]

I guess I wasn't clear. I don't have the budget to do a complete system upgrade for a while.  I was just trying to figure if there was an inexpensive CPU that I could get that would give me a performance increase that would be worth the money or should I wait and hope the prices drop on the 13th and 14th gen cpus.

[egetaskent]

Hi thanks for doing all the testing. I play Il-2 and also MechWarrior5 in VR only. I don't play dcs. My understanding is 7800x3d is the better choice. But this blurb below confused me. The exact reason I want a new cpu is to have more units. I currently have 3090 and 9900k. I was considering 7800x3d or 13700k or possibly 13900k. But definitely not 14900ks its way too expensive... So for il2 vr is 7800x3d better than 13700k or 13900k or is intel still better because of higher clock speeds? Thanks

 

 

"In Il-2 (and adding this as an special part) everything went butter smooth. But as many know the simulation slowsdown when there is tons of action. In this case, Il-2 liked more Intel than AMD. Probably because of the higher clocks? Not sure, but I noticed more slowdows on Il-2 Tank crew campaign and I could speed up more the time in Intel (Both KS and 14 gen i9)"

[Aapje]

@egetaskent

 

The 14700 is pretty much a rebadged i9, so I would pick that if you go Intel and want top tier performance.

 

But a major detriment of the Intel CPUs is that they use way more power. It's so bad that the fastest Intel processors are almost impossible to keep cool, so they will clock themselves down to not overheat, if you try to put a heavy load on them.

 

If you have a blank canvas, I would go with AMD right now. Also because of upgradability.

Edited April 6, 2024 by Aapje

[egetaskent]

Thanks for your quick reply. It seems like I'm going to have to upgrade my motherboard regardless so I'll probably go with amd hearing lots of good things about it.

[HazMatt]

Is 14700 the best bang for the buck upgrade I can get for 12100?  Do you guys think the prices will come down anytime soon?

Amazon is showing 14700KF for $378 US and the 14600 for $239 US.

 

Userbenchmark.com shows a 17% speed difference between and a 54% speed increase from the 12100 to the 14700KF.

Not sure how these numbers would translate into IL2

[Aapje]

Userbenchmark is a clown website run by someone who hates AMD and who rigs the benchmarks to make AMD look bad, don't use them.

 

The issue with Intel is that they are behind on technology, so they have to sell the CPUs with lower margins than they would like anyway. So they'll only lower prices further if AMD forces them to. Rumor has it that Zen 5 will come in Q3, so that is the earliest I would expect price reductions.

[RavenSystem]

Many times, a good CPU power configuration can be a cheaper solution, without buying a new one. I personally have an Intel i9-10910 (10850K) with a 4070 Ti Super, and I have not CPU bottleneck.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, RavenSystem said:

Many times, a good CPU power configuration can be a cheaper solution, without buying a new one. I personally have an Intel i9-10910 (10850K) with a 4070 Ti Super, and I have not CPU bottleneck.

In my case this 10th gen CPU with 4070ti was a bottleneck in some games, switching to 7800X3d helped. Now I'm waiting to new Nvidia series cards.

[Rooter]

Hi! Upgraded recently from Ryzrn 5 3600 to Ryzen 7 5700X3D.
Here ti is my test in DCS
Spoiler: it's good fps boost!

 

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by Rooter

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

I use an AMD 7800X3D on ASUS TUF X670E Gaming PLUS motherboard coupled with 2 x 32Gb G.Skill Trident Z5 6000/CL30 memory and Arctic Freezer III AIO liquid cooler. No issues with temps, ever. Done the curve optimizer with -25 negative offset and some other small tweaks.  Runs without a glitch. I am using latest beta bios 3040 that has AGESA 1.2.0.2 version on it.

 

While I agree with the Intel part they just fall behing in one thing: power draw. 7800X3D beats all new Intel CPU's in that department hands down. As of the 7950X3D you have to disable the other CCD(without V-Cache) to get most performance out of it in gaming. Can be done in task manager etc. I am very interested in the new Intel CPUs coming out as well as the 9800X3D. Competition is good for us all

 

Edited October 22, 2024 by LLv34_Flanker