Thank you so much for creating such a thorough, concise & professional quality review! I’m looking into doing my 1st build & was very apprehensive to begin, as I have no computer background, but intend to run F.Sim someday (& no, I don’t really game, just research & offline archiving). After approaching the guys at the local computer shop, they left me with little hope of being able to run the program with anything less than the best gaming computer that money could buy & custom build. I’m glad that my skepticism kicked in from having the frustrating past experiences of working around people who would rather give a cocky and quick answer when they don’t have the knowledge to fully answer the question with 100% honesty or have the humility to admit they don’t. Thank you for your help & saving me so much headache, embarrassment and money! God Bless!
I mean this title doesn't exactly run on a potato, however it still runs on consoles. I gotta admit those come sort of well equipped and thought out this generation, but a pc build mimicking that performance shouldn't be "the best that money could buy". Your pc shop guys maybe also got a little excited for a nice commission selling a luxurious build that day :D
On the war path to choose and build my new MSFS system I’ve been browsing the Tube for information. Found your channel recently and you came up with this most important video just right in time. Nice content, really like your thorough research and information presenting. Thanks!!
Thanks so much, you have been answering many questions I have had for a long time. Perfect summary and very well reduced to what is necessary to get a feel for what suits your idea and budget. Most informative advice that relates to real life tests that I have come across so far. I subscribed instantly 👍
while that is true you are most likely going to be gpu limited for the most part, from what i heard most flight sim fans are content with 30fps gameplay and 60fps is more than enough. For the most part your horizon changes very slowly and lower fps feels significantly better than something like fast paced first person shooter. Whoever uses high refresh monitors for Flight sim uses for very specific flights. Imo you are most likely going to use high resolution monitors maybe wider than 16:9 aspect ratio, possibly triple monitor setup, high resolution and be limited by your gpu. these 1080p high cpu benchmarks with top of the line gpus to push cpu are useful for sure but they are very far off from realistic scenario
@@h1tzzYT while 30fps may be enough. 60fps is still preferred as it still makes the camera controls much smoother. And a definitely a must for VR play.
@@symol30872 it IS enough though, sure its not ideal, but is enough, then goes the visual quality and only then 60fps target, 60fps is secondary for most (only considering MSFS).
@@h1tzzYT Hardware unboxed showed the 5800x3D had an 18% FPS improvement at 1440p over standard 5800x at "high end" quality setting with a 3090ti. Your attempt to seriously downplay the advantage this CPU has in this title, (but also in Star citizen it is netting in some cases DOUBLE the FPS vs 12700KF), is mostly unfounded. The point is that this CPU is a far better choice than any of the ones reviewed in this video (no fault of the creator here - just a timing issue). Only at 4K and "high end" settings do things actually even out between the 5800x and the 5800x3D (according to the Hardware Unboxed review) - so if you are not currently playing at 4k with a 3090ti on "high end" settings, your framerate stands to be higher with this CPU. You are right, that 30fps is definitely "acceptable" in a flight sim, but I think most people would prefer an "enjoyable" framerate over an "acceptable" one - and in this title if it can be achieved with a $400 CPU, over say an $800 CPU (12900KS), then that is information that people who play this game will want to hear , especially since the title topic we are discussing here is _"Build the _*_best_*_ PC for microsoft flight simulator"._ not _"Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ..."_
@@WaspMedia3D Just because hardware unboxed showed 18% difference in their heavily cpu limited use case (for understandable reasons) doesnt mean you are going to see the same difference using exact same setup with max or ultra settings at most likely different resolution and render scale. You are basing your "acceptable" vs "enjoyable" argument on unrealistic settings and most likely gpu configuration. That is common benchmark trap that many people get themselves into. "especially since the title topic we are discussing here is "Build the best PC for microsoft flight simulator". not "Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ..."" im guessing you havent watched the video as the author himself said its more oriented towards good value oriented, helping to find a good balance between performance and price, NOT the best of the best, watch at 1:42 im guessing you just saw the tittle, clicked on it, skipped to charts and called it a day.
Such a good video! Really appreciate the time and effort put in for some quantifiable results rather than just “opinions” like other videos. Keep up the good work! :)
I came upon this video after checking out controls for flight sims & though the content of this video is not what i would usually watch & i may not watch another video from this channel, however, i liked & subscribed due to the time & effort put into gathering & presenting data, creating the video, etc.
It was a necessity to leave a comment. You examined, explained, analysed and gave recommendations. A proper "review". Fantastic! All information you'll ever need to build the PC yourself. I'll be watching it over and over. Well done and Thank you very much!
Great video. Clear, precise with cost estimates. Wish everybody who tries to tackle this issue on RU-vid would follow your testing and explanation method. Now I know where to start and what to look for. Thanks Mate !
Cant imagine all the countless hours you have gone through to put together this test, this is perhaps the most thorough testing regarding msfs out there on RU-vid. Great effort, really appreciate it.
Great review. I'm on the 12700K, 32G DDR4 and the 3070ti. It's nice to finally have the tech "headroom" to run this thing with great framerates and not have to tweak too much so far.
@@periclesserotini7919 I speak with google translation above the manathan pond 53fps triple screens 32 7780x1440 12700k 5.0Mhz DDR4 4000 cl 18 rtx3080 .h ello from france .
Wow! ...thanks for all the info and hard work you guys put into making this video. Great stuff. Would certainly be interested in your VR test findings and certainly interested in your own in sim/game settings. Thanks again
The big issue comes with Addon planes with a lot of complex system simulations. The lack of spread over the threads and cores causes issues, and its hard to tell if its poorly coded or limitations of the sim. Most planes out there are not that complex at the moment but there are some stand outs, and more than one might think. The PMDG DC6 is the one I think of the most because I love it but 36 FPS is not good enough, especially now that I just got Track IR, it feels pretty bad. There are 3 or 4 other Addons I know having similar issues. But I also know a few that simulate alot of systems and still do well. What separate the good from the bad is often that the good ones are old stuff without GPS systems in them. I have a pretty beefy system now, 5900X and 32 Gb 3200 Mhz ram, 2060 Super 8 gb, and while one might look at the GPU and think, oh thats just... well, its hard to even get MSFS to fully utilize it let alone a 3090... I hope DX12 will sort a bit of this out but as its still in very early stages most of us dont use it, for some it works for others it does not. I see people that have thrown 5k or even 10k USD's in to their systems for this simulator alone, 128 Gb of ram or 64 Gb of ram and 16 or 32 Core CPU's even... but its clearly wasted because the sim have no clue what to do with that at the moment. Only game I have that I know for sure uses my 5900X heavily is Cyberpunk 2077, and that game is pretty terrible even after all its updates. It runs just fine, its even stable, but its still an early Beta at best, and I have completed the game more than once and 250 hours in it. This game will push the CPU to 60% or more at times, nothing else come close. MSFS sits at 10 - 15% mostly... even if I run at Ultra... All this said, its very hard to pinpoint where the issues lie, every plane is a bit different, especially the Addons, the sim is very modular, you can put in your own modules that bypass the systems in the sim to make complete custom stuff and many of the big studios that do the high fidelity planes do just that, and that changes the CPU load completely, especially in large complex multi engined airliners, even old ones without lots of computer screens in them.
WOW---What an AMAZING review! Thank you so very much for the Extremely time-consuming and difficulty in running all of these tests to help answer the questions we "Non-Computer professionals" need to know!! This was the first time I saw this channel and I immediately subscribed and your channel is the first channel I have seen that makes me want to be a Patron! I am looking forward to upcoming videos and will ensure that all of my family and friends (some who think they know computers) visit your site for the "true answers" to our questions!
This was an excellent analysis to help upgrade a PC for this demanding specs. I am running VR with Varjo Aero and my (old) system is struggling and has bottlenecks. Thanks for the video! My specs: i7-7700 Msi Gaming M3 z270 Msi RTX3080Ti Gaming Trio Ram 32G 3333Mhz (XMP)
I want to send out a huge thank-you for creating this video. I have been a student pilot now for some time. Every instructor recommends a flight sim for practice. The problem is flight sim is expensive and ignorance as to what was needed to build an adequate system. This video helped allign costs and set-up my system. I used the video as a guide for parts and then worked to push down the costs of the recommeded parts. I have ordered (and it all arrived today) an i7 1100k; w/ThermalRight Assasin; plugged into a z590; RTX 3070 8gb GPU; 32 gb of DDR; enclosed with a Be Quiet 500DX, powered w/a 649 watt power supply and lastly two 32 curved Z-Edge screens. I have an SSD w/Win10 I can place into the system. I can now order the yoke et cetera. Total cost all in was ~$2,200. The syst is solely for my flight sim training. All that said, I attribute my willingness to finally buy and build this system to this video and your thoughtful dive into what is needed to run a flight sim! I have no doubt there is a reason why every instructor recommends flight sim for practice. We can learn what not to do while mitigating risk. So, on behalf of all us low hour aviation student pilots - thank you! A great video and much appreciated.
Thank you for your kind words! Let me know if you have any feedback and how you found BuildPicker, we're always trying to improve it where we can and listening to the community!
Awesome video, just what I needed as I'm putting a sim together for cadets. Seems like I was on the right track, but wish I found this sooner as had been piecing together bits from multiple sources!
Thanks for this presentation and the amount of work you've put into it. Being a bit dazzled about the technical terms, this video does offer a base to decide which components are best suited for your wallet.
I have an Acer Predator Helios 300, (yes, laptop) but it is well "specced", with 11th Gen i-7, NVIDIA 3070, 8 GB VRAM, 32 GB of DDR4-3200. I expect I will use an external Monitor, but my Screen is 165 HTZ, QHD, as well. Well done. What a lot of time and research dedicated to this project. Thanks again. Well done.
I've been putting a build together to replace a 6600k system from 2015 and I've pored over an absolutely unhealthy amount of benchmarks and tests in the past few weeks. In terms of both quality of data and clarity of presentation, this is far and away the best channel I've come across. It would be great to have this information in article form for easier review of the charts.
I had an i7 6700k before I put an i5 12600k on a Gigabyte H610i motherboard, Great little board with overclock and temp reading abilities with smart fan 6 with a pretty good SIV control panel easy to understand, With a Cooler Master 240 V2 liquid cooler and a 12gb 3060, I run AMS 2 with no problems at all on high settings, No stuttering or freeze framing, I can say the i5 12600k is far better CPU than the i7 6700k I had before I put the i5 12600k in it, It wasn't that expensive to put together if I am totally honest, I ain't got a high end PC but it runs my Sim racing titles.... I will be buying MSFS soon as I can afford it, All the bills I had went into my upgrade, But yeah I can say the i5 12600k is a top CPU for the price.
Very much appreciated your detailed work! Thanks a lot for all these recommendations. For VR with Oculus Quest 2 - imo - at least an rtx 3080 (my config) / rx6800xt is necessary, 3080ti will bring noticably better immersion. Personally, I am going to stick to the rtx 3080 for now and will wait for next gen GPUs rtx 4080 (ti) / 7800/7850xt which should outperform even an rtx 3090ti by around 20-30% in flight simulator (maybe even 30-40% in low 0,1% FPS). Finally, next gen GPUs will bring excellent immersion for VR headsets like Proverb G2 and Oculus Quest 2. Concerning 1440p (ultra) and 4k (high settings) an rtx 4060 (ti) might be the sweet spot.
Super great Video. Take note that the 5800X3D should do super well in such a cache heavy game. I've see some benchmarks that shows the 5800X3D in a league of it own. It's by far the best cpu for this game.
@@BuildPicker Agreed, I've decided to buy it for my aging AMD R7-1700 desktop with a RTX3080ti. I currently only use it for mining and play games on my G17 (3070+5900HX) laptop.
Great video, I am a DCS world guy, but I think MSFS seems to be very comparable title regarding hardware. Agree on alot of your recommendations. I do like the seagate 530 cuda 2tb. Thanks!
Absolutely brilliant! Wish I'd had this before I bought my system a few couple o' three years ago. Simulators are so complex, it's very hard to tell what really matters and how to budget for it. Also, I found MSFS a great program - if it worked. I bought the top of the line version, but it was so problematic, I spent more time getting it to work, than actually playing it. Final step was when Microsoft installed an X-Box account on my machine, then you have to sign in every time you use it, and it forced a reconfiguration as new install, and no support. And of course Microsoft used the opportunity to hoist and hawk new Microsoft products to you every chance they got. Dumped it and was lucky to get my money back. Fortunately there are much better flight simulators out there without the hassle. I just hope you are bench-marking those too so we can make better and more informed choices. Thanks again and cheers!
Very informative. Watching this in 2024. I have a i9 13900H,64gb 5200mhz ram and an RTX4070. I run everything on Ultra but switch off water. I still spend most of my setup time tweaking the look. I think anything over 40FPS is more than usable. But for me performance is measured by the overall quality of the visuals. 3 months before MSFS 2024 comes out. I won’t be jumping for an RTX 4090. But I won’t sit by if the visuals need it for awesome graphics. As for VR I have a quest 3 and it’s more than adequate but I tend to be very tactile when it comes to flight sim. I have physical. A320 MCDU, FCU. A Javasim mini overhead panel and physical radio panel. When they bring out mini EFIS and ECAM later this year I’ll hopefully get those. I generally only use VR for VFR flying the C172 with G1000. And most of that is just sightseeing flights around places I’ve actually been.
Thank you so much for this effort, it is tremendous. I've been battling with making a decision about what is the most pragmatic approach to building/purchasing a desktop that will be specific to FS. I use FS to brush up on an approach that I have not flown previously or have not flown for a while in real life. For me, it is a true simulation of what I will expect in a procedural sense under real IMC conditions. It's not just a game, so getting the most out of it is important, together with not wasting money on a system with specs that bring no additional benefits. Well done!
I appreciate the work you have put into testing, however I have been playing with the Sim Update 9 beta and have seen some big multi-thread improvements on my system (12700k + 3080 Ti) that may mean you have to re-visit this sooner than you anticipated. I'm seeing ~30% FPS improvements in demanding senarios at 1440p at full Ultra settings.
Interesting. I'll be sure to check that. It's always a toss up between whether they can pull threads out of the main engine, or else properly re write the engine to really maximise core counts.... Until they do that I do think we'll still see that main thread performance limit. They've made huge strides in performance since the early days anyway.
Built a budget pc for my dad recently, on which he also wanted to play MSFS on 1080p. It was before this video came out and I went for a 10400, MSI B460m Pro, 16gb 2400mhz cl15, 1tb nvme 3.0 ssd and an old 1050ti that I had laying around. Total system cost including case, cpu cooler, fans and PSU, but excluding graphics card was 600€. It runs great on medium to low settings and once the graphics card prices are down and he'll put in a better graphics card he will surely be able to run it at high to very high settings.
Absolutely fantastic video!!! I am thinking about building my first PC with hopes to make one that runs Flight Sim 2020 very well and this is the EXACT kinda video I was looking for, great work!
Hands down one of the most comprehensive, informative and useful 'benchmarking' exercise I've come across on the internet...and I'm in my mid-40s and have been gaming since I was 8. Traditional benchmarks just compare a component but never actually bother doing some actual work! You got a new subscriber and look forward to more 'game' focused benchmarks :) I have read that the 5800x 3d gives an enormous boost in performance, but at 1080p and matched with a 3090 or 3090ti. Honestly, to me, that is more marketing material as I don't see how anyone would biuy a 3090 to play MSFS at 1080p. The gains at 4k are much less, if any. I do have a question regarding one aspect of the GPU analysis which i don't think I've come across - GPU utilisation. I have a 5900x with a 3090 and 32Gb 3600 CL 18 RAM. I game at 3840 x 1600 (38" ultra wide) at all setting maxed out, including LOD at 400. I tried the flight over manhattan several times and my fps does vary and averages about 30, with 40 fps at most. One issue i have noticed (anywhere i fly) is that GPU utilisation is never maxed (unlike what i see from benchmarks). It always hovers at around 60%, sometimes even dropping to 40%. Did you notice any similar behaviour in your benchmarks, esp with the Ryzen CPUs? and would you be able to explain it because i can't. I noticed that if i reduce the LOD, the GPU utilisation improves but the only way to really max out the GPU utilisation is to increase scaling (yep...increase), with fps remaining the same, until i hit 100%. After that, fps drop even further. What do you think is holding my GPU back given the resolution? Thanks
Hi, glad you found it useful. Your gpu utilisation is easily explained: something else is limiting frame rate, in this case CPU! LOD isn't a graphics setting... Ok, it is, but it actually loads the CPU disproportionately to the GPU. The CPU has to generate all that detail to pass to gpu for render. Basically the GPU is having an easy time of it because you've loaded up your CPU to the point that it can only deliver 30-40FPS. Your experience of increasing render scaling is consistent with this: you're just getting the gpu to render more pixels before downsampling increasing the load on it. If you want more fps, reduce LOD settings to lift CPU performancs. If you need LOD at 400, then that's your limit! Could try 300? Performance uplift should be marked. This ties in with your point re 1080p testing, that's precisely why we run that res with a powerful gpu, to keep gpu utilisation low and expose CPU limitations. We're actually more interested in the CPU performance at its worst (those 0.1% and 1% lows) than average fps, because the higher we lift the floor of performance, the less stutter and hangs we experience.
@@BuildPicker THank you for your feedback. My conclusions was also CPU limitations but gaming at such a high resolution (almost 4k) at ultra, I wouldn't have expected the 'mighty' 5900x to still hold a 3090 back...But how do you explain other benchmarks, with 5900x, who seem to max out the GPU then?
wow that is a LOT of information and all based on solid-testing not guesswork. I learned a lot, thanks so much. Particularly appreciated the GPU tests across different screen resolutions - as this doesn't get talked about much. My own experience - on a mid-range system - is that I only rarely need to pull-down the in-sim graphics settings a little and most of time the sim works just great without spending extra cash on upgrades.
@@salmansirajsalarzai7237 I don't run everything in Ultra for sure but I usually get fps in the 30's and 40's. It's playable for me. I run on my 4k monitor but set it to 2k for the game.
Incredibly well done comparison / test video for MSFS2020! Thank you so much for all your hard work on this, i can see many hrs must have gone into this! I am also pleased to se the Buildpicker option you created! Wi9ll check this one out for my eventually new PC! :) One again Thanks! David.
I'll add it to the list of stuff to test: It can take a while to develop a robust testing methodology, and then of course running through the various hardware configs takes a while!
Wow 🤩. New sub here. I hope you are remunerated for your hard work! That was the best breakdown and presentation on hardware with MSFS I’ve ever watched. Thank you 🙏. FYI, my system 32GB ddr4@3200, 8700k cpu @4.8 and 3080ti undervolted I’m getting a good 40-60 fps in both screen and vr settings. Screen at max insim settings, vr at mid to high settings with my HP g2. Very happy with that on wide screen tho I’m thinking about upgrading my cpu. Thanks again!
The 8700K was always a strong performer and it's holding it's own! I'd hold off a CPU upgrade until we've seen what intel 13thgen and Zen 4 from AMD can do!
Very helpful video. Thanks for taking the time to do this. Have you made a video on picking the best flight sim components (ie: yoke, stick, pedals, etc.) And have you made one for the best monitors for MSFS. I wonder how much these recommendations will change with MSFS 2024 coming out soon.
I am currently using a B660 board. Amd Ryzen 9 3900x with 64 gigs of 4400 ram and a RTX 6700xt and a 500 gig solid state drive thats dedicated to MSFS and so far I am pretty happy with it. I felt like it was a very capable build for my budget.
Wow, what a phenomenal amount of work you have put in to this video! Thank you so much for taking the time to help people like me to choose components for this great simulation errr game 😁
Hey, so long as you're having fun who cares what it's called, right? (Personally I'm of the opinion that when it's descendent of the original flight simulator, has 'simulator' in the name, and lets you adjust your prop pitch and speak to ATC, it's probably a simulator... But that's just me and apparently some people don't like accessible things or something, I don't know...)
very cool info - I am making some changes to my system to get the best possible performance in MSFS VR specifically - your video helped me confirm some upgrade plans thank you for putting this together!
I play MSFS on a 2600X with 16GB RAM, and a 2070S at 1400p 30fps, with no issues whatsoever. I use high settings, and turn off 'silly' things like lens flare, motion blur (can't recall if that's an option...haven't played for a while), etc. At worse I may get some mild stuttering at busy airports using live traffic, such as JKF or Heathrow, for example, but otherwise, and as I fly GA exclusively, it's not an issue for me.
Crumbs! What an impressive Channel! Scary, though. I had to watch this video whilst hiding behind the sofa. I'm so out of touch... A sign of just HOW out of touch with the modern computing world I am is that I (literally) couldn't even afford the ELECTRICITY to run a modern system. 🙂 My home music recording studio (built in 2005, kids!) has no internet connection, uses a single core AMD Athlon 64 CPU, 2GB of RAM, a 160 GB HDD, a decent sound card, Sonar, and Windows XP. I've not changed it because it still does everything I need it to. I'm into making music, not cool graphics and stat-chasing, so I'm content to get on with using what I've got instead of constantly seeking more of everything. I know that's not an attitude that'll go down well on a Channel like this...🤭 I often wonder if a simulator addict would ever say, "This is fine, the system's performance is perfectly adequate, the sense of 'immersion' is all I need - now let's just fly", and spend the next 10+ years perfecting his skills on that setup, or whether he'd be forever dissatisfied, seeking faster frame rates and hitting those 'ultimate' settings because deep down he's more interested in tweaking than flying. That'd be sad. I understand how 'more, more, more' can become an obsession, but it's a pity if gear lust and system envy gets in the way of the reason peeps took up gaming or flying (or composing) in the first place. Please note - I'm not criticising anyone for doing what they really want to, here - by all means, compare and upgrade and replace and hone and perfect if that's what makes you happy. It's a free world. (Er, if you can afford it...)
100% - First things first given the game, sorry, sim, is on Xbox game pass for $8/mo is *just try it*! I've shown it running on intel UHD 750 integrated graphics on this video! From there you can work out if it's satisfactory to you, and if not hopefully this video gives you a good idea where to start before you just throw money at everything.
Thanks so much. Excellent presentation. Helps a great deal. Cuts through all of the 'clutter' re info about these components, Appreciate your time and effort.
Very helpful and interesting video, thanks for your work. What a confuse indeed in SSD section. Probably Direct Storage will change something in that matter.
The absolute most comprehensive and complete analysis I've found thus far on the internet! I was hoping you could address displays. Specifically, how important is refresh rate with this simulator? I would speculate any 4k monitor with 60Hz or greater would work the same since there isn't much quick action scenes. I of course would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Thank you!
60FPS and 60Hz is a sensible target for the sim - and variable refresh rate monitors tend to be limited down to ~48Hz or so at the low end which provides quite a narrow range of operation, and many people run the sim closer to 30fps with settings cranked up. Whilst higher refresh rate isn't necessarily useful for flight sim, a good variable refresh rate monitor can help get the most out of the GPU. The most important thing is to match the settings to your monitor - and fixing refresh rate can be the biggest step to a perceived improvement in performance. Note the 'fps' settings in graphics menu aren't accurate, but refer to a fraction of your monitors native refresh rate! Confusing!
Thank you for this comprehensive tutorial to inform folks, agree with most of what was stated! I want to comment on DX12, i am running it for weeks and i am happy with it. The perceived downgrade in performance isn't one, they just have very different LOD tables, much higher details on the same settings compared to DX11. To get good results with DX12 you have to decrease your LOD's (without loosing details) And what everyone is missing with this GPU comparisons is that some of the settings, (again e.g. LOD) aren't simply applied as set in the menue, if the sim detects that it isn't able, it drops the LOD down automatically. Means a 4 core performs similar just because you see much less details and the viewing range is degraded. Hard to compare anyways... I got my 5800x well over 70% usage in demanding areas, and this only in 1440p-coming from a 5600x with heavy stuttering... again, comes down to the settings you want to run. Maybe i am a pixel peeper and most people don't notice the changes in viewing distance and details, but for me it's critical for immersion. Final goal is "Looks like real" as i understood. Thanks again, i believe this video helps many folks and i hope for follow up videos covering MSFS in it's development. Quite big changes ahead in the next 8 years. THANKS!!! 💙💛
I have an AMD B550 MB, Ryzen 5 3600 CPU, a RX-580 GPU with 16GB DDR4-3000. I have no problem running MSFS 2020 at 1440P getting at least 30FPS 99.9% of the time. I may upgrade my GPU when prices come down but so far, I am very satisfied with my setup.
My only comment would be that to make the 747 work well on both PC and XBox, it is likely gutted with respect to detail and cockpit functionality - like the included A320 neo. A better and more interesting test would be to use a fully-fleshed out airliner like Fenix or PMDG, where hydraulics and electrical are fully simulated, and cabins are dressed (not so on 747/Neo). I also have a suspicion that for MSFS, the extremely wide-ranging bugs that are reported are brought on by unfinished workload or computations not ready in time to be used by other processes. Perhaps this could be explored in future testing?
Great video, nice to see RAM configs tested as well, as this often gets ignored. On that point, it would have been interesting to see whether running it in ultra settings with a large draw distance would have teased out more difference between the RAM capacities. Certainly a year ago, there were some reports that 64GB actually gave an advantage at times, with the PC using a little over 32GB when it was available. This may of course be better optimised now though...
I'd love to test all the things, but sadly adding one variable like that means another 20-40 runs, so it's a lot of work! And ultra settings/ higher resolution /draw distances introduces a large GPU component to performance, and makes it very difficult to see subtle differences because of RAM.
@@BuildPicker Thanks for the reply... I can definitely appreciate that, there are so many variables that it's almost impossible to try out all the possible combinations. Definitely some great testing here anyway, thanks!
This really helped me decide what to spend my cash on for my new PC. i7-12700K, 32GB DDR4 3600 mhz, RTX 3080 12GB, Kingston KC3000 Gen4 SSD Really hoping for some good VR restults for MSFS :) Cheers.
I have a $200 pc with an i3 intel, 32ram and some readon 500 graphic card...2t hd and I love it. Up close the buildings are melted but at altitude it's good. So unless your power crazy, if you're broke like me, a cheap gaming pc is probably going to run mfs2020 just fine. If it doesn't we'll, I have my Xbox S.
Great comprehensive overview. No critical comment. What I would still want to have from an "operating system" is a simple and transparent tool to assign specific jobs/tasks to specific CPU cores (and hopefully such a program/service might learn something over time and automate it for me). It looks like FS does not scale well beyond 4 cores and that may be a consequence of how it was written, but alternatively there might be something bottlenecking. Are the CPU cores running FS doing something else? How much I/O do the cores need to do and could a pair of thread cores with a single I/O channel be bottlenecked by that single channel? (This is why Intel launched their CPUs with a few single thread-core cores.) I am not convinced that either Windows or drivers take care of carefully placing loads across the cores, so then the question is, can we manage that ourselves. As to your RAM test - excellent in itself and faster latency may exist? - and me not running FS but e.g. Lightroom Classic (LrC) and Photoshop (Ps), I uncovered several problems to get these to perform with two 4K displays and very high resolution raw images. Windows (10-64) may in theory be able to run without page file, but in practice it is absolutely not. For LrC and Ps, 16GB RAM and 4GB discrete video RAM in a notebook was not enough and I could only start one of the two after a cold reboot and nothing having run before. Rebuilding a deskside workstation again with 64GB RAM and 11GB video RAM made clear in the Taskmanager that memory use frequently shot over 32GB and video memory use easily surpassed between 6GB and 8GB. As LrC maintains track of what I do with my images in a database (called catalog) and I also save the edits to an .XML sidecar file, there's considerable burst and sustained I/O going on. Therefor I constructed a RAID 0 array with a simple PCIe expansion card. This connects SSD directly to CPU lanes, thus bypassing the South Bridge (SB) bottleneck. The "question of conscience" then is what data to keep on SSD tied to the SB (these are all RAID 1 - gives faster reads, more IOPS and more I/O cache) and what data on the RAID 0 array (faster writes). So the RAID 0 array (software defined) hosts page file, catalogue and cache folders. So, if we knew more about how FS works, scales and where it has potential bottlenecks, and if we could manage how to distribute workload to CPU cores, then it might even scale better - by a lot?
I built a system about 18months ago with almost that exact mid-range spec (@25:35 ) ( 5600X and 3060ti with 32Gb of 3600 ) . I am now using it with an HP G2 Reverb VR headset - I have to turn some of the settings down a bit but it is still very "flyable" .... Given the elec costs these days it would be interesting if you could show the actual running cost (e.g. per hour ? ) between the different specs when the PC /graphics card is in heavy use ( i.e. when running FS) 👍
I'm in the process of putting together the same/very similar build for the same purpose. 5600X is already in but the GPU I'll get in a few weeks most likely. I have had 3060 Ti (or 6700 XT) on crosshairs, but considering the potential VR performance, I do have some second thoughts. Initially 3070 or 3070 Ti didn't justify themselves at all considering price/perfomance...but even now, I don't feel like going for them. I'd rather get 3060 Ti now and wait 1-2 years then to get a newer generation GPU. In this regard it is interesting that you mentioned the electricity bills, I'm curious to see what really happens with the next gen.
