That’s interesting. I wonder what the breakdown is by platform (Xbox vs PC)
On steamdb it appears to be vice versa these days
https://steamdb.info/charts/?compare=1250410,2537590
I do only VR, and so far what I’ve picked up from folks is that 2024 generally looks better (not everyone agrees) but performs slower in VR. So I’m still on 2020 (13700K and 4080). I upgraded from 32 GB to 64 GB RAM recently (DDR4) but it didn’t really make anything smoother that I could tell. I still get load-in stutters sometimes if I move my head around.
For me the 4080 was the sweet spot of cost + power consumption (and heat). 5080 seems to be similar performance to the 4080. 5090 performs better but apparently does so via raw power.
I tried the newer NVIDIA drivers with DLSS4 (57x.xx) but had various issues with that driver set so I rolled back)
AMD’s X3D intrigues me but I’m skittish on compatibility and in VR from what I’ve seen it doesn’t make nearly as much difference from the upper-tier Intels as some of the benchmarks would imply. At high resolution (VR) it seems to be GPU limited, though I guess it depends a lot on the aircraft and the situation. The A320V2 is not really usable to me in VR. I assume that’s CPU limited because of how complicated it is. 747, 787, Cessnas/etc., they work okay enough for me in VR with roughly medium graphics settings. My CPU is thermally limited because I can’t cool it as much as it would like, so in that respect the AMD chips would be better since they’re so much more efficient.
Sorry for the rambly post, I don’t mean to derail the conversation. I’m in a holding pattern I suppose, haven’t heard enough positive about 2024 to invest the time or money over 2020, especially since Career Mode seems to be the most interesting difference yet also the most buggy. To wit: Mission instructions VR invisible. Missions not playable therefore - #22 by Stewartwoody