I’d need a new MB anyway cause I’ve been waiting to upgrade to the 9900k and didn’t, but I haven’t pre-ordered or anything.
Newegg there says ETA 5/20 so a week, not sure if that’s just for more pre-orders. I’m not in danger of buying anything just yet so not too worried 
Also, holy crap they have watercooled MB’s now? I haven’t been keeping up it seems
Yea, take a look at my board, which has a water cooler block built in (it’s optional to use water):
Thats a badass board. How much overclocking are you throwing at it?
None!
I just let it stock turbo, it runs all cores at 4.7ghz.
I would have thought DCS would push a core to the single core 5ghz limit but apparently it seems to think the others are busy enough to run an all-core boost.
I haven’t played with the idea of O/C yet as I vastly prefer stability, and DCS runs fine with my 9900k and 1070ti - until 2.5.6 came and now its usually good, sometimes mediocre at near max settings (1080p/2D). As 2.5.6 pushes on if I feel I need the extra HP then I would aim for maybe a 5ghz O/C.
4.9ghz is easy on that chip. Silicon lottery statistics show 90% of 9900k’s can hit that with 1.28w. Drops off rapidly after that to about 30% hitting 5ghz @ 1.3v. I ended up getting the 9700k for the OC headroom. Running 5ghz all core w/ an avx offset of -2. Temps very manageable, under 75c when under full load.
Show me 12 cores running at 6GHz stock on air and I’ll be impressed.
My mobo bit the dust about a month ago, so I had to upgrade from my Skylake chip. I was hoping to make it to 10th gen, but I think the 9th gen stuff should remain competitive for a few years. If you’ve got at least 6 cores running at 5ghz, you will most likely be bound by GPU when gaming for the foreseeable future. That is a strange looking word. I’m honestly looking more forward to the 3080/4080 stuff from Nvidia. I’ve more CPU than I need as it is.
It’s interesting…I am due for an upgrade at some point, but the reality is that my 5-year old, incrementally upgraded rig fares quite well still, for DCS anyway.
Life in VR land would be different, as even top end rigs today can’t quite run on maxed-out everything, I think…but for non 4K, non-VR, sliders mostly to the right, gaming, you really don’t need to be right at the pointy end to have a good time.
It’s all subjective to your life situation and what you’re after, but I think we’re fortunate that people with $8k super rigs can share the same DCS experiences with people on sub-$1k setups. 
Yeah, they were supposed to have gone to 10nm by now.
However, the label is irrelevant. What matters is whether the new generation is faster than the previous one. So far, they have managed that every time, although some jumps are bigger than others.
AMD vs Intel is down to what applications you are running because neither is ever the clear winner. You can’t even say one for games and the other for business because that isn’t true either. It’s more WHICH game and WHICH application.
I’ve been with Intel for awhile now. I started with them, switched to AMD about 20 years ago for many years, then switched back around the time of Core 2 Duo I think? As my upgrade cycle stretched from a CPU every other year to about every 4 years I’ve found it to be less important.
I upgrade the video card more often, though.
Ive owned both brands, switched to Intel with skylake. To be honest, the only reason I ever went with AMD was money. At that stage of my life I couldn’t justify the extra costs of Intel. Same reason why I didn’t switch to Nvidia for some time. I’m glad they have competitive offerings at lower prices because that means more people have potential access to our hobby, which is what keeps it going.
Come to think of it, I started with intel 386, 486, pentium 2, and then I think it was athlon, A10-6700k (was a good chip at the time, ran with onboard graphics for a while because of $$$), then I went Skylake for 4 or so years, to 9th gen which I hope will last 4 or so years.
I’ll say this though, the first skylake chip i had was i5-6600k which I overclocked to 4.5 ghz. This chip with a GTX 970 runs DCS like a champ at 1080p resolution. Completely destroyed the AMD A10 with the same GPU. Todays sims just don’t need a bunch of cores. It’s been looked at several times, and yes I know FS2020 with downloadable RAM will use all 32 cores, but games and sims especially just aren’t made to take advantage of that yet.
FS2020 can because it’s a civilian sim. Other than you, the rest of the world is doing what it’s doing. It doesn’t react to you.
I don’t think the same will work in a combat sim. I can’t imagine DCS ever having weather like we see in FS2020 as a result. There doesn’t seem to be enough cycles for good AI half the time.
I just built a 9th-gen pc because every time i looked at 10th gen specs , the phrase “how do you like your eggs” ran through my mind .
And minimal performance gains , and adding useless (for DCS) hyperthreading to the 10700k .
Yeah , me too . Looking at the 3080/ti if the vram rumors prove accurate . And waiting a little will allow for comparison to RDNA 2 if it offers more vram . Preparing for DCS Vulkan .
Vulkan needs less out of your PC.
Every game I have with Vulkan runs faster than the DX11/12 version. Doom, R6 Siege, GR Breakpoint…
Looks like the 10th gen rework of the IHS has paid off. Seems to be running well with a 280mm AIO cooler.
It was super hot when he let the motherboard run at 1.5v 
. But even then, 10 cores running at 5.2ghz, hitting 90’s @1.5v and then when he actually tuned the voltage it stayed in the 60’s is pretty impressive. I’ve watched a few of the review streams, seems like the 10900k is a monster for gaming, really its overkill. Curious to see what 10c/20t looks like in DCS or ARMA.
Newton and his 2nd Law of Thermodynamics laughs.