Help in choosing the new pc specs for msfs

Why would anyone spend x amount of extra dollars for a cpu that doesn’t improve performance at the resolution they play at? Forget 1080p benchmarks, what we really need is side by side video of 2 or 4k gameplay to make proper comparisons.

1 Like

Agreed 100%, the proper way to do a head to head CPU benchmark is to go low on resolution, and 1080p is the baseline nowadays.
Of course it does not tell the whole story. For instance people would like to see 1% perf. comparisons for their preferred games, resolution and settings, ideally with as many setups as possible.
As you pointed out in a separate thread, it would be nice if MSFS had a built-in benchmarking functionality, to facilitate the exercise. Maybe with the ability to automatically upload the resulting data anonymously in a centralized repository, accessible by everyone.

1 Like

Too bad that article is already outdated. The question was AMD’s latest CPUs. They obviously didn’t test them. Will those CPUs outperform Intel’s i9-13900 is the question people who are buying in the near future want to know, and we really need to wait for real-world feedback from real-world users in real-world use cases. Because, as I keep reminding people, in theory, theory and practice should be the same, but in practice they almost never are. Any experienced hardware/software systems dev will tell you that.

1 Like

The review embargo for the X3D processors was already lifted. You can find numerous independent reviews for the 7950X3D, including a thread on this forum dedicated to the 7950X3D and MSFS.

1 Like

The article was written less than a month ago and was about principles and methodology of testing, so far from outdated. Also, the question wasn’t about any specific CPU at the time, but whether or not CPU gaming benchmarks at 4k are meaningful (and everything points to no here).

2 Likes

Not at 4k it’s not. And that’s where the present is for many making a buying decision. And of course, once the Arc gets XeSS support, the CPU will matter less than it does now. And I’d hate to see the specs at 8k, which is where I’m at (and everyone will be within a decade). So, to sum up, AMDs latest is not the greatest for the desktop, and it’s a wash for gaming at best. And that’s according to your graphic.

Because seriously, if you’re doing a new build, you’re not running at 1080, and if your budget won’t allow you to build a decent gaming rig at 4k, you’re better off getting the XBox X, which CAN do 4k.

And that’s the title of the thread - Help in choosing a new pc specs for msfs. Most pf the people asking this question aren’t dual-use - they want a rig to play MSFS, end of story. And they will save a bundle buying an XBox X instead. The XBox X takes up to 8 peripherals, so they can knock themselves out with all sorts of hardware add-ons. And WASM is going to be kind of a big thing on both XBox and PC, allowing many add-ins to work pretty much the same on both. If I didn’t need a PC for working on my current and future projects, and was actually into games, I would have probably gotten an XBox X instead. And it’s probably the best option for those who just want t build a gaming rig that can do 4k.

1 Like

That’s because they are both limited at 4k in that test by the GPU. When the next generation of GPU’s come out, the 7950/7800x3d will have extra headroom for more performance gains with them, as shown in the 1080p chart. And being GPU limited means you can add other things like extra traffic for greater realism without sacrificing much (if any) performance.

So a 13900k could be the best in your specific situation. Nothing wrong with that, but that doesn’t mean it’s the best for the sim. It’s a false equivalency.

1 Like

A lot of people have noticed that 1440 is not indicative of 4k performance. It’s pretty ■■■■ erratic. Some systems are actually better at 4k than 1440- go figure. Until we have real-world experience, it’s all wait and see - or buy an XBox X for greater certainty and less money.

And as I pointed out, the tests that aren’t gpu-intensive, it’s an underperformer. So AMD has a miss here if you’re doing computation-intensive stuff. It will be irrelevant to me in a few years - my next build will probably be a dual-core xeon with between a half and 1 tb of ram. I have a future use for that machine beyond MSFS, where just the e;ectricity difference between running for a year to generate and analyze up to a petabyte of data, and 5 years, pays for the machine. There’s a problem that I’ve wanted to solve since I was a kid, before I first laid eyes on computers, and we’re probably on the threshold if it being able to be solved in a deterministic absolute answer, rather than an “AI probably close enough” approximation. Because “probably close enough” leaves the possiblity that “close enough” can also be way off the mark.

1 Like

And as we have pointed out many times, this is how it should be. When testing a component, be it pc or something else, you want to reduce the load on everything else possible to allow the component being tested to perform at its absolute maximum. Placing constraints that reduce the possible performance of the tested component leads to misleading results.

And this is the last I’ll say on this topic in this thread. We have pointed to multiple references showing concrete evidence of why testing a CPU in 4k games is useless. I don’t think you pointed to any sources to back up your claims. I don’t even recall you explaining your reasoning on how the CPU overcomes a GPU bottleneck at 4k, and it’s clear to me that we aren’t going to change your mind.

About the only thing I’ll agree with you on is more testing from regular users is always good. Based on reviews of the 7950x3d when ran effectively as a 7800x3d, and the history of the 5800x3d’s domination in the sim, I wager the user feedback will largely verify the benchmark results we’ve seen from the tech review sites.

I’ll still be watching the thread and will respond to questions/posts related to the original topic of which components to consider. I still think I’ll be getting the 7800x3d, even if it’s not the absolute best for the sim simply due to the higher costs of other CPU’s for what would be marginal improvements at best. But don’t expect further comments from me on the tangent of testing methodologies that give misleading results.

6 Likes

@Sir5W30 a friend of mine told me that he had to change the Ryzen 75800X3d because it wasn’t enough fast for the 40xx GPU series.
Should I change it and if yes with what?

Ok i can neither agree or disagree.

Which 40xx? if resolution is 4k and 4090 or 4080 no. if it is 1080p you can wait for 7800x3D. But again, compare the cost of good Mobo + 7800x3d ddr5 ram with 5800x3D setup. Will you able to buy it?

So it comes to which GPU you are gonna get. You are planning 4070ti with 5800x3D you will be alright. :smile:

1 Like

Yes I’m thinking of a 75800X3D and the monitor is 1440p

You’re contradicting yourself there.

Which means that tests that don’t use a GPU are the most valid in testing a CPU. In other words, things like Handbrake. And here AMD is a laggard.

There’s a problem here. Just who is the “natural buyer” of this CPU? If you want maximum throughput, you keep your lga1700 motherboard and throw in an i9-13900. If you just want to run MSFS at 4k, it’s far cheaper to just buy an XBox X and a 4k big screen
TV and be done with it. If you’re just an ordinary desktop user, you won’t bother looking at this CPU, or any other high-end performer.

It’s going to be a tough sell with only benchmarks to go by. But let’s run the analysis:

Behind door number 1:

  1. Buy AMD’s latest offering
  2. Buy new motherboard
  3. Buy new DDR5 ram

Behind door number 2 - for those on lga1700:

  1. Buy i9-13900

Behind door number 3 - for those who just want to run games:

  1. Buy XBox X

Behind door number 4: ordinary user:

  • do nothing.

The whole “We’re committed to supporting the the socket AM5 for years to come” is irrelevant. Seriously, who cares? If they come up with something that is seriously a leap ahead AND gamers want it, they will spend the money at the time for a new motherboard - and probably a better, more feature-filled motherboard than they can buy today. Buying something in anticipation of “future-proofing” doesn’t make sense, because when the future gets here, the motherboard you bought today will be seen as outdated.

So, people running heavy-duty applications will either use an i9-13900 or a Xeon.
People who just want to game will be best served by an XBox X.
People who are “regular users” will just use whatever they’re using now.
People wanting the extra OOMPH now will spend a lot less money on just an i9 and see what happens in the future, rather than buying AMD.

So who’s the “natural market” for this cpu? Unless AMD makes a serious price cut, fuggeddaboutit.

1 Like

7800x3D or 5800x3D which one?

5800x3D should be enough for u with 4070ti.

1 Like

I tried reading this several times. After several times reading it, I understand less of the argument you’re trying to make here. It’s pretty clear: the 7950X3D is superior to the 13900K for MSFS. Typing 5 paragraphs and twisting yourself trying to explain your argument of why the 13900K is still better only shows how flawed your logic is.

3 Likes

Nope, until real users come up with real data nothing is clear. At this point all benchmarks are PR. But hey, you go first - buy the latest AMD cpu, a new motherboard, and new ram and tell us how it went. THAT is the only test that counts.

1 Like

I have been an Intel customer for a very long time, the longevity of AM5 and the fact that AMD closed the iGPU gap, are the reasons I am switching to the red team.
It’s not just about spending money for HW.
When you’re running Windows with a couple of games, it may not be that big a deal to switch MBs.
For people with more complex setups, involving bare metal virtualization, dual booting, hardware passthrough, some specific apps etc… a new MB can translate into days of hassle, during which productivity is impacted.
When I saw fellow simmers switch to 5800X3D by merely inserting a new chip in their system, made me kind of jealous tbh. :slight_smile:

1 Like

In the last 5 days, I’ve added a second Arc 770LE (Friday), and Tuesday 2 VESA carts, 2 65" 4k Smart TVs, and 2 more dp2hdmi 4k adapters (not the ■■■■■■ ones that don’t support 4), to add to my 100" video wall. When it comes to actual hardware performance, such as the Arc 770s, I do the tests and show my work. We saw the original poo-pooing of the Arcs by people just looking at benchmarks - and then the real-world experiences said the exact opposite. And it’s the same with AMDs latest CPUs. They’re not going to be the best for 8k and beyond. And 8k is coming. Same as 15 years ago nobody was buying 4k Smart TVs, and now it’s standard.

So are the Arcs any good? I did the work and showed my results. And until real users do the work and show their results with AMDs newest CPU, discussions of benchmarks are what one of my teachers half a century would have called “mental masturbation.” Or like the guys on big bang theory arguing about who’s the most powerful comic book character.

2 Arc 770LEs displaying 8k x 2k and 12k x 2k

Once you’ve seen 8k and beyond, you don’t want to go back.

Which is why for people who just want to run MSFS, just get an XBox X and hold on to the extra money you would have spent on a home build pc to buy a 65" or 75" Smart TV. Again, because once you go 65"-100", you don’t want to go back.

And if you want raw compute power, the benchmarks you quoted show that the i9-13900 is still top dog unless you want to go to Xeon. And “future-proofing” is absolutely silly when it comes to motherboards - the “future-proofed motherboard” you buy today will be a joke 5 years from now. Same as the motherboard I bought less than a year ago only has 4 SATA ports and 3 M.2 spots, and the newest ones have 6 SATA ports and 4 M.2 spots. Ain’t real-world competition grand :slight_smile:

Will I upgrade to an i9? Still “probably”, but not in a hurry at all. I can wait for the price cuts when the next generation of CPUs come out to buy a couple.

1 Like

I’ll take you up on that: Let’s see some performance metrics here. All I see are screenshots of the resolution.

1 Like

I meant the 7 5800X3D.
Should I change it to the 9 5900X?