I found another benchmark where the average fps is closer but the 13900K wins in 1% lows.
Most likely just a different test spot that does not load the cache as much. Also Ultra vs High End settings. All CPUs in this test score much higher FPS overall.
Imho that benchmarks are pointless. Those who can buy an high end cpu wouldn’t neither play FHD nor wouldn’t they pair them with an budget gpu. On the other hand one of those with fewer opportunities wouldn’t mix components in an opposite way just as little.
What use is a benchmark in FHD just to prove that under a certain unrealistic scenario one or the other personally preferred component here or there is just better or not?
For me it would be much more interesting to know which cpu is ahead in VR with a 4090 and a G2 and maximized settings f.e…
The benchmarks should be based more on everyday conditions and compare different realistic PC configurations.
2 Likes
While I agree that seeing a full resolution test is also beneficial these 1080p tests do actually provide some very useful info for us by isolating the cpu from interference from any graphics bottlenecks. A realistic full resolution use case will usually be gpu limited and mask the true performance of the cpu.
The most important bits the 1080p tests show are the 1% lows in fps and more importantly the difference between max fps and the 1% low for each cpu. That right there is your smoothness metric. If the gulf between max fps and the 1% is huge you can expect stutters in the sim to be pretty severe, regardless of resolution. The closer they are together the more responsive the cpu will be to sudden scenery loading demands and the smoother your flights will be.
If you run the sim with any kind of fps lock (vsync on or MR in VR) the 1080p charts give a direct read on how much of an unexpected hit each processor can absorb per frame in a worst case scenario before stuttering (think approaching and loading in big addon airports etc).
This is shown nicely in the difference between the 13900k and 5800 X3D. The X3D is a remarkable processor but it isn’t actually that strong under the hood. Its performance comes from cache hits. If those are steady and the demands on the cpu are moderate it really flies, but when it gets hit with a really big demand and a ton of cache misses then it can fall pretty hard due to its lower clock speed and weaker IPC. Stutter resilience and recovery has typically been an intel strong suit due to their generally higher clock speeds.
The 13900k’s power demands though… oy. 
3 Likes
These tests are about pure CPU performance, nothing else. There is no point in testing CPUs against each other while the game is stuck at the GPU limit. To prevent this, tests are carried out in 1080p.
The CPU that performs best in 1080p also has the best performance “in VR with a 4090 and a G2 and maximized settings f.e…”. But it doesn’t bring you much, because the GPU is probably running at its limit at this scenario. Which brings us back to the beginning.
1 Like
Got my 13900K up and running. Loaded the NYC scenario I’d saved from my previous rig, that had given me 40-42 fps on my 3080 and the 4090 without the frame doubling activated on the 10900K CPU. Same scenery gave me about 70-75 fps with the frame doubling active.
So I was disappointed to see that I was only getting 65-67 fps on the 13900K in the same scenario. What the heck had I done wrong in settings that I was getting a slightly slower frame rate on the system with the new CPU?
Then I went into settings and realize the beta opt-in wasn’t in effect on the new system, and I was running SU10. So that 65 fps was without frame doubling!
Heading out to dinner so will have to check the frame-doubled SU11 beta results later tonight, but definitely looks like the 13900K is a worthwhile upgrade for the CPU-bound if you’re running 10900K or earlier!
3 Likes
And back from dinner and under SU11 with the 4090, DLSS set to quality, and the frame doubler enabled, getting 120-140 fps over NYC in the Cessna 208. Awesome – nearly double the 10900K, much better boost than I expected.
1 Like
Still managed to get down to 45 fps with frame doubling, 13900K, and 4090 around Seattle with the detail/LOD cranked up. Kudos, Asobo/MS, for keeping the tradition going, that dates back to the 90s, of flight sims bringing state-of-the-art hardware to its knees. 
Don’t even ask me the frame rate at OrbX KRNT with FSLTL traffic going…
That said, the 13900K is a dramatic improvement in MSFS over my 10900K.
2 Likes
Both my 13900 KF (all 8 P cores) and 4090 are approaching 100% full load on runway (40-60fps). Never seen enough hardware power to satisfy MSFS 2020, especially in VR.
1 Like
I’m sorry but I need to ask.
What was your FPS with FSLTL? What was the scenario? What were your FSLTL settings? Which plane were you flying? I’m hoping a 4090 paired with a 7950 X3D will allow me to fly smoothly with full traffic and ultra settings at 4k. Am I being unrealistic?
It depends on the where you’re flying, but even in a really dense scenario (LAX with pretty high FSLTL setttings, below), I went from a base frame rate of 92 fps with no traffic to 63-65 with FSLTL set to these aggressive settings:
This is on a 5,120x1440 49-inch ultrawidescreen, so pushing a similar number of pixels as 4K.
That’s with DLSS set to DLAA (so no upscaling), Terrain LOD at 250, object detail at 200. Everything on Ultra except Bloom, depth of field, and motion blur set to off.
Again, that’s a worst case scenario. Up at 35,000 feet, chasing an FSLTL airliner in the M-346, I was getting about 130 fps with FSLTL at those settings.
I’m essentially getting about 150% of the frame rate as I was getting with the 10900K before turning on the frame doubling. With the 4090 set to DLAA with the frame interpolation, I haven’t found anywhere where I can’t get a smooth flight, even with FSLTL settings pretty high.
2 Likes
Has anybody got their i9-13900KF yet? Just wondering from Canada.
Oh Hi everybody,
Cheers
PACO572
1 Like
got mine on saturday but forgot to get a 1700 socket mounting bracket for the cooler 
somehow I thought this would be included with the mainboard
it is in delivery now, hoping it will arrive today lol
upgrading from 9900kf and am around 40 fps mainthread limited of course
Im on 2 monitors in with a 3070 in 1080p so I hope to get some nice improvement
EDIT: dont know what to say. absolutely blown away… next step 2k monitor
1 Like
I just ordered 13900k today. But haven’t decided yet on motherboard and RAM. Any recommendation on a good ones with good prices?
1 Like
Me too, just ordered an i9-13900K half an hour ago. Don’t know which mainboard and RAM to go, either DDR4 to inherit 64GB I am currently having, or completely new DDR5 bloody expensive, but future proof. Hard to decide, going to buy nearly a complete new system and still stay with old tech. DDR4 for next 3 years looks obsoleted to me.
Maximus Hero Z790 or Aorus Master Z790 is on my consideration as they are being available. The cheaper MSI Z790 Carbon Wifi was on my list but sold out everywhere, next batch probably first on Jan 2023.
What is the difference in FPS? Im looking to upgrade to the 13900K or KS from the 9900KS. I have a 4090 but I am quite cpu bounded most of the time. Would love to know how much better it is…thanks!
well as I said Im on 1080p 60 hz so 60 fps is the maximum which I dont get constantly, it depends on the situation and I have a ton of addons installed, over standard nyc i get 60 fps in a pa28 but thats not the most demanding situation, thats why I dont understand why people always use it as a test. In the most demanding cases, at an international airport in the a32nx with live traffic and all that good stuff Im also still cpu limited, especially when setting terrain LOD to more than 100-150. I guess paired with a your 4090 and the benefit of dlss3 you could be really happy lol (not that the 9900ks isnt still a hell of a cpu, it also depends on your personal liking, your willingness to spend money) I started building pc when msfs came out and went from a 7700 to 9900kf to 13900kf, just because I love this sim and want to have maximum fun. omg I am starting to justify spending 700 € on a chip lol. no,no. it was worth it
1 Like
Yeah if I upgraded I would have the buy a new Motherboard, Ram and the CPU so it would be another $2500 probably lol. I’ll see when more tests come out and maybe wait for the 13900KS which will be 6.0ghz
So those of us still rocking 7700’s & DDR2 ram should be pleased? 
I finally got my new rig built with a 13900KF and 4090. I wouldn’t wait for the 13900KS, as the current 13900K can easily be pushed to 6.2 Ghz peak frequency with minimal effort. In my opinion, it’s not worth the roughly $150 premium price tag Intel will impose on the 13900KS edition.
On a side note, the 13900K is definitely a powerful CPU. I though the 5950X was still beastly, but this absolutely blows it away in single-core performance. Not much overclocking room as it’s already pushed to the max, but some fine-tuning can push the peak single-core frequency to 6.2 Ghz and all-core load to 5.7 Ghz.
3 Likes