I have a 13th Gen Intel(R) Core™ i5-13600KF 3.50 GHz with 16 GB RAM. Will 2024 run on it?
RAM is cheap. Upgrade to 2x16GB or 2x32GB.
ETA: 2x24GB can be another option if your motherboard supports it.
Make sure whatever you buy is compatible with your motherboard and CPU.
Common wisdom says to pick a RAM vendor and check their compatibility list.
I’ve always used the motherboard manufacturer’s QVL (Qualified Vendor List) but have heard that the RAM manufacturer’s list can include more accurate tests.
I like G.Skill
But Corsair and Kingston tend to be well-regarded as well.
Stay away from the cheapest RAM you can find.
I’d rather spend more money on quality 32GB than on the cheapest 64GB I could find.
3 Likes
Yes, if 16GB of RAM isn’t enough, you can always buy more later.
I’m running a i5 13600KF, 32 GB of DDR5 6000 ram and RTX4060ti. This CPU powers way above its specs, which is why I chose it during my last upgrade. It’s not stressed with 2020 but will have to work a bit harder with 2024. The 13600KF does run hot so decent water cooling is required.
My experience in the past has always been that a better GPU will give you more improvement, than a better CPU. As long as your CPU is a reasonable performer like the 13600KF. So I would spend money on a GPU upgrade before considering a CPU upgrade.
The best performers always have the biggest price tags (and depreciation), so I also prefer leading edge rather than bleeding edge products, to keep costs manageable. The sole exception is memory, as I always buy the best I can afford, and aim for the maximum speed my motherboard supports.
I would suggest an upgrade to at least 32GB as even MSFS 2020 is a memory hog. MSFS 2020 often hits 24GB in detailed areas, and 2024 is unlikely to be any easier on RAM.
Every setting in MSFS2020 is currently maxed out and 100+ FPS is the norm for me in regional areas. Even flights out of London City see 60+ FPS with my current system even with FSTL traffic clogging up the skies. So there should be enough headroom to run 2024. There is not a huge difference between the visuals on High vs Ultra at 1440p, so dialing back 1 or 2 settings might be enough to make my current system usable with the new MSFS.
But I won’t spend any money until I have had plenty of opportunity to tune MSFS 2024 for my existing rig. Only then will I consider dusting off my wallet, and I am guessing I will be looking at shiney new video cards first.
1 Like
I have exactly recommended spec right now. Running 2020 with all addons needed for simulating 737 Ryanair flight with stable 30frames is massive challenge. I’m really looking forward how this will improve in 2024.
Hi, I have a i7-9700 with an RTX 4060 and 32GB of DDR4 RAM.
I am struggling with stutters I busy airspace.
Considering an i7-14700, but, as it is cheaper would you recommend the i7-12700?
I hope to buy a Motherboard Bundle
Unless you have money to burn the 12700K is fine, and well above their recommended specs. Their idea spec is an “overkill” spec to give your system additional headroom that may not be used by the sim. Both of those CPU’s have 8 performance cores and between 4 and 12 efficiency cores, which is more than enough.
So after running the 2024 Alpha for a couple of days I have a better idea of where I might spend my upgrade dollars.
Firstly don’t bother upgrading your CPU. While 2024 used the cores more effectively on my i5 13600KF, it didn’t come close to placing much load on them. The 13600kf runs hot so I have very effective but noisy active cooling in place, and while the 2024’s extra CPU load saw some small noise increase it was barely noticeable. The cores all stayed mostly below 50%.
With identical graphic settings on both 2020 and 2024 I found I lost about 20 FPS. But on an RTX 4060 ti with frame generation enabled, that was only a drop from 100 to 80 in regional areas, and still 40 to 50 in dense areas like London City or New York. Scaling back some of the settings from Ultra to High might just be enough to pick up the difference, without little noticeable loss in quality. This may be enough to even forego a video card upgrade, as many of the differences between ultra and high are barely noticeable.
We only got to test the 172, XCub and FA18, so something like the 737 max may require more performance from your system.
So I will wait until I can get my hands on the release version before spending any money, but my gut feeling is that a jump from my 4060 ti to a 4070 ti or a 4070 ti super will be sufficient to keep my 2020 performance levels in 2024. The 4070 ti supposedly gives a 65% boost over the 4060 ti, while the 4070 ti super is about a 72% boost. The 4070 ti super is a $300 AUD more than the 4070 ti, so the 4070 ti is the most likely candidate for my upgrade funds, as there is not a huge difference between the 2.
I have 32GB or DDR5 ram and found that 2024 was not much different to 2020 in ram usage, so I won’t need an upgrade it myself. But both 2020 and 2024 regularly use above 16GB in dense areas, so doubling your ram to 32GB might be a good investment.
Don’t forget that this was testing done with the cut down Alpha version of 2024. But I think enough of the 2024 core functionality was there to allow a reasonable idea on where to spend any upgrade dollars.
1 Like
This is really useful, thanks.
I was a little concerned about how many upgrades I’d need to do with a Ryzen 7 3700X and a 2060 super.
Looks like just a 4070 Ti will do and maybe more ram.
User Benchmark is far from a reliable source. Their biases may not be so noticable comparing like for like brands, but they have basically zero trust with the enthusiast community. It’s especially prevalent with their treatment of AMD CPUs.
3 Likes
It is always a good idea to look at multiple sources before making a decision. But I have always found user benchmark a good starting point, to narrow down my search for further investigation. The user benchmarks results were usually supported by my further investigation using other sources. Using this method I have always been very happy with my system upgrade decisions. I am at least one enthusiast that doesn’t support your “zero trust” assessment.
Whatever works for you, but you may want to check this coincidentally very recent video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YzNR2B7vA1k
Edit: typo
Id better treat it as the last source to check and rely on, or completely ignore it.
I think they created the ideal spec to have headroom for potential future features they keep talking about.
All I can say is that I haven’t made a bad upgrade decision using user benchmarks as a starting point. But it is never my sole source of information. I don’t discount user benchmarks because of heresay. Nor do I blindly believe everything I read there either.
1 Like
I was going to mention that one as well, but this one is probably my favorite. It’s not just some rando rambling, but also using the site’s own words against them.
And I’ve also noticed even Google is starting to call them out in the search result options, which is a feat in and of itself.
And of course the big tell is their attitude that they are the only real source of good info and everyone else is the problem or a paid shill.
Props for using more than one source, but using UBM’s own words to show their biases is not hearsay.
I’m looking for anyone getting FS24 day one with a similar system to mine:
AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super (8GB)
16GB RAM
I am very curious how FS24 would perform on it.
Open to all thoughts.
I have a 3700x and 2060s too - and 32GB of Ram - have you made any upgrades yet? I was thinking about going all the way to 128gb ram and keeping the rest. Maybe go to a 12GB video card..
I suspect it’ll run fine with the appropriately dialed in settings. I can run 2020 on a laptop with a 10750h and a 2060 max-q pretty well, and 2024 is likely to scale roughly the same. Wouldn’t be too worried for 1080p play