Hello
Has anyone here tried the 9950x CPU in MSFS?
Reviews are very bad
It has scheduling issues. Wait for a software update, which will bring another set of reviews. The problem it has now will be fixed. They need to fix how it works with windows.
Even when it is fixed, it looks doubtful to be the best option for gaming. The 9950 looks to be a pure working machine CPU. The 9950x3d maybe a different beats, but wait for reviews, as ever.
Gamers nexus gives the most through rundown from my POV.
2 Likes
Meh just get the 7950x3d with a 670 mb for now and change after they sort it all out next year, if it’s even necessary.
2 Likes
Wait for the X3D versions and what the reviews say. In MSFS probably the 5800X3D is a faster option that the 9950X
1 Like
I was waiting to see how this faired before upgrading to a 9750x3d, glad I came across this post, think I’ll stick with my original plan, maybe the 9750x3d will come down abit in price too now theres a new kid on the block.
1 Like
If you are looking at building a primarily gaming setup, just stick with the 7800x3d unless you are willing to wait for the next generation x3d chips. These initial 9000 series chips are more for production workloads.
We actually don’t know just yet how they fare in gaming. There is a fix coming for the issues that were reported. The 7800x3d are extremely cheap atm, but if you want peace of mind on your purchase then wait for proper reviews.
Meh, again why bother? You can probably sell your 7800X3D for half or better when the time comes, so consider it a ~$250 CPU and can do a lot of things except waiting for the next great thing. Just get a 670 MB. I built the 7800/650 to get me through this and 2024 and I’ll revisit it in 4-5 years. I’m not for wont of anything other than a better optimized/modernized FS to actually utilize it.
1 Like
True. I think people should be wary of putting any chip into a “gaming” or “not for gaming” pigeonhole. It’s the specific game that matters. With the 7-series – some games performed best with the non-3D chips, whereas other game titles performed best with the 3D vcache chips.
1 Like
Thank You. Still running a 7950x. Was planning the 9950. Might wait to see what if intel does any better with the upcoming 285 chip. I’ve been using AMD for a few generations but they have me on the fence.
Bad advice. 7950X3D is faster than 7800X3D even in games thanks to the latest Windows updates, AND you get the benefit of twice the performance in desktop thanks to having twice the core count.
As of Sept. 2024, there is no reason to buy the 7800X3D unless cost is the limiting factor.
In gaming, only half the cores are used on the 7950x3d, which have essentially the exact same specs as the 7800x3d. Only the non-3d cache cores have the higher clock speeds, but the majority of games (including the sim) will have worse performance if you try to run it on them. Considering the sim doesn’t even completely load up the 7800x3d, the additional cores provide little benefit.
Even if the 7950x3d performs better in the sim, it’s not worth the extra cost. The comparisons I’ve seen have them within a few fps of each other. Looks like there’s at least a $120 difference between them at the moment (more at some retailers) which could be better used on another component or simply save it.
That’s why the 7800x3d is considered the king of gaming, because of the value, not because of a few fps difference.
Plus for gaming it’s pretty much trouble free with every core matching. In 2020 the CPU is rarely above 25% it’s all pinched shoving stuff down one garbage disposal.
I suggest you read my post again.
Not everyone buying high-end is purely gaming, and this idea of “7800 is da best” is bad advice.
I use my system for work during the day, and I’m sure as hell not giving up DOUBLE MT performance because “7800”.
It was true a year ago that 7800X3D was best, but that is NOT true today.
When watching this review, look at 7950X3D vs. 7800X3D, and pay attention to the 1% lows. Hell, I’m even tempted to get a 9950X because even allowing for non-X3D, it is still 5x faster than my current i7 9700K. There is only $50 difference in price.
Except this forum, and the OP of this thread are specifically about sim performance, not mixed use performance. That makes most of your argument irrelevant, and I’ve already addressed the relevant points in my last comment. I even specified in my first comment that I was basing my opinion on it being a gaming specific setup as indicated in the OP.
I use my laptops or the office computer (or its virtual desktop) for productivity.
Purely price:performance for gaming, the 7800X3D is good (great?) value for gaming ONLY, but as soon as you want to do anything else, it is poor value.
The reason the 7800X3D was ever recommended in the first place was because a year ago the operating system wasn’t able to handle the multiple dies of the processor properly, resulting in poor performance as programs were split between CCDs/cache, and the 7800 avoided this problem by literally having the second CCD completely disabled.
Those issues have now been fixed, so that argument has largely evaporated.
If the OP comes back to say they are looking for a gaming and production based processor, then maybe that becomes relevant. As it currently stands, we are ONLY discussing sim performance, and I stand by my opinion and sounds like you agree. Cool.
References? I know fixes have been pushed to properly handle core parking, but not for using the non-3d cores for gaming. Or at the very least, not in the sim, which has been shown to benefit greatly from 3d v-cache. The video you posted from JTC still falls in line with my earlier opinion that the small benefit you may (or may not in this case) get from the 7950x3d does not justify the price in a gaming focused system.