You need the following … - z590 mobo / i9-11900k / 1000 psu … - youll never see a stutter again.
I seriously doubt that…
But regardless, buying a 11900K now is not a great idea unless you need an upgrade now. Alder Lake (12000 series) looks to be very performant in both single-threaded and especially multi-threaded workloads compared to the 11000 series. Not surprising considering it’s made up of two new architectures, made on a smaller process, and has twice the core count. 8 faster than the 11000 serise, and 8 low-power that are slower per-core, but still contribute a lot. All-in-all it looks like the Ryzen 5950X will fall behind.
Stuttering can be caused by many things, and can happen on even high-end systems. Saying an 11900k will solve all your issues is extremely misleading.
I actually think that my settings are fine. I don’t really think of an upgrade.
Will check it today, that’s what I did. Replaced my old one with the 3080.
Thanks! Normally during the flight with 4K, I’m satisfied, but switching back to 1920*1080 doesn’t change the FPS. But many people here claim that it’s CPU bottleneck, then I guess there isn’t a solution for that.
I’ll try when I have time 
2 Likes
I’m assuming that the CPU is where the bottleneck is. Although its getting better MSFS is often limited by its main thread. At that point a better GPU is not going to give you any better frame rates. It’s only going to allow you to render as fast at the CPU can but at a higher combination of resolution, render scaling, and/or graphics settings.
After SU5/WU6 my RTX 2060 Super 8GB can get me 30+ FPS in just about any situation at 1920x1080. But it can be close to maxing out and if I bump up the render scaling much I will start to be limited by the GPU.
This is with a Ryzen 5 3600x and 32GB or ram. I want to move up to a 3440x1440 UWQHD but I suspect to hit those resolutions at the current framerates I’m getting from my CPU I will need a new graphics card.
1 Like
I can get around 36-38 FPS. It seems like the game is performing quite well, can’t really say that I had experienced any micro lags. Of course this is just subjective. The test was performed over Munich with FBW A32NX.
1 Like
This is over Munich, with render scale 4K, my monitor is not 4K though, in case this is the problem 
But this is the outcome.
1 Like
Thank you for taking the test!
I’ll tell you honestly I find the frame rate low. I currently have a 1080ti video card. In Munich (Photorealistic Cities) I reach a stable 30 FPS with 1080 ti video cards. An RTX 3080 video card at 15 FPS knows more? Not much, depressing …
Did you do the test flight during the day? Can you repeat the test by day, with ultra settings, render scale 140? Perform the test in cockpit view. It is important to perform the test flight at low altitudes.
I have attached a video of what height I am thinking of:
What’s the point in rendering at 4K if your monitor is only 1080P, or am I missing the point?
High render value is important. The visual world is blurred at low render values.
There are many items at play.
CPU, GPU, ULTRA SETTINGS, RENDER SETTINGS, OBJECT DETAIL, TERRAIN LEVEL DETAIL and RESOLUTION.
Some claim running at a higher RENDERING resolution above your screen resolution will provide a better picture quality? If you are rendering a higher resolution than your monitor can support it now has to downscale back to your monitor resolution the effect is minimal or a placebo effect.
Here is my hardware and settings on a 2550X1440 or 2K Display
CPU i9-9900K
GPU RTX-2070 Mem 8GB
RAM 32GB
M2 SSD 2TB
Monitor Asus 2550X1440 TFT 144Hz
Setting
All ULTRA
RENDER SCALE 100%
GRAPHICS TERRAIN FACTOR @ 5 in Flight Simulator config File
GRAPHICS OBJECT LoD FACTOR @ 5 in Flight Simulator config File
OBJECT DETAIL @ 200
TERRAIN LEVEL DETAIL @ 200
Now this gives me a smooth 30-33fps @ 2550X1440 or 2K.
IF I try to go to 4K it is not possible without changing my GPU or downgrade my settings.
If I want to increase my frame rate I need to upgrade my GPU which is the limiting factor. Which you can check in Developers Mode.
Hopefully this let’s you compare Hardware and Settings for max frame rate.
GPU and CPU interaction has been covered in previous posts.
Im not sure I get the theory, if you have a 1080P monitor then rendering in 4K will still only yield a 1080P output to that monitor regardless of any render settings because the monitors capability will downgrade the output to 1080P ???
You are correct. All you are doing is making your GPU work harder first it has to render the higher resolution and then downscale it back to your monitor resolution a wast of GPU usage.
But some claim it gives a cleaner image? I find setting your config file to a higher Terrain Factor and Graphics Object LoD Factor has a much better result.
I don’t buy into that theory as it has NO basis in fact, I am a wildlife photographer/videographer of some 37 years and 1080P is 1080P and 4K is 4K, shoot in 4k and watch at 1080P and you get 1080P it really is that simple, regardless of any render settings or whatever else you had set in 4K when you recorded it.
Anybody who thinks the image is cleaner is simply living in cloud Cuckoo land!!
Well I agree with you.
But others claim the following:
When you downscale from 4K to full HD, you’re essentially oversampling the image to have 4x the data for every pixel. Therefore, when you have 4K footage and downscale it to 1080p (Full HD), the image is going to look better than it would at native 1080p. You’ll find the picture is a lot sharper, the colors more vivid, and (depending on the properties of the image) you’ll also see less noise.
I find setting your config file to a higher Terrain Factor and Graphics Object LoD Factor has a much better result.
Downsampling (Super Sample Anti-Aliasing) is a well known 3D graphics technique. It’s the most accurate, but also the most costly form of anti-aliasing.
This is achieved by rendering the image at a much higher resolution than the one being displayed, then shrinking it to the desired size, using the extra pixels for calculation. The result is a downsampled image with smoother transitions from one line of pixels to another along the edges of objects.
This is also exactly what Nvidia’s Dynamic Super Resolution and AMD’s Virtual Super Resolution provide when a game does not support render scaling/supersamping options.
So no, it is not Cuckoo or a theory.
You are absolutely right! I don’t understand why they don’t see the difference between 100 and 150 render values … It’s ridiculous to me …
It is like religion people see different things.
There’s some perceived image sharpening that will help where AA doesn’t help. Usually at 4K, AA isn’t much needed due to the already sharp image at 4K. The jagged edges seen at 1080p are less of an issue at 4K.
But you’re right on your point - the output image will still be at 1080p resolution. Youe GPU will render as many pixels as 4K (8.3 million pixels), but only display 1080p (2 million pixels). The analogy I could think would be like taking a giant computer image, shrinking it down to a smaller size, and making it appear like it’s a very sharp and high resolution image.
Never see any difference personally and have watched many thousands of videos, its whats known in my trade as pixel peeking. We also assume that the human eye is capable of detecting these image enhancements when in reality everybody has different kinds of vision. The vast majority of people, if not all when showed 2 videos, one after the other would simply say that they saw the same video twice. Thanks for the explanation though !!