Help in choosing the new pc specs for msfs

User Support Hub Hardware & Peripherals
61

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.

62

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.

63

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.

64

@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?

65

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:

66

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

67

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.

68

7800x3D or 5800x3D which one?

5800x3D should be enough for u with 4070ti.

69

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.

70

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.

71

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:

72

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.

73

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

74

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

75

Any change can result in a hassle. But the context here is people running MSFS, and most people won’t spend extra to switch out motherboards just to get a CPU that doesn’t provide an actual, measurable performance boost in real life.

And in terms of raw non-gaming performance, the i9-13900 still beats out AMDs latest offering.

But dealing with the concerns you mentioned (the “hassles”) is one aspect of what I got paid to deal with as a system software dev “in my previous life”. Because it’s quicker to do it yourself than have someone who doesn’t know exactly what you’re working on do it. (Probably why I became the go-to person for hardware hassles with servers and workstations. I’m in the same office, working on the same projects, and can usually spot a PEBKAC or ID-10-T error and offer the user coffee and cookies while I educate them - and sometimes that user who needed education was the owner - and sometimes it wasn’t coffee and cookies, but a well-deserved tongue lashing over their supreme stupidity that could have put them out of business).

For people who only want to run MSFS, it’s stupid at this point to build your own box - just buy an XBox X and a 50" - 75" big screen 4k smart tv for less money. So that crowd (approximately 80% of MSFS user base) isn’t going to bite.

The people complaining about the seeming arrogance of PC simmers over console users have a valid point - and I say this as a PC simmer, because hey, 2 x 770 LE arcs, 128 gb of 3600 mhz ram, a 100" 8k video wall and 2 65" 4k side screens - you can’t do that with an XBox. But I actually developed this system for a completely different use, and all that display capacity was needed for that use, not gaming. Being an awesome gaming setup was just a side effect.

And when I need to upgrade my motherboard, I’ll deal with any hassles, same as I’ve always had to. Because the last thing I ever want to do is call in tech support. Never done it in the past, doubt I’m going to start now except for stupid “buy this video card and download this free software” gifts - that don’t motivate people to buy any particular video card/motherboard/whatever, and are more hassle than they’re worth, and hardware that’s defective and needs to be RMA’d.

Even that, life is too short. One of the controllers died on my 8-port SATA card. The other port stil works, so I have 4 drives + the 4 motherboard drives still available, and this gave me the opportunity to rethink sticking FreeBSD on drive 9 or 10 - I have a thunderbolt port, so I’m just going to use it instead, and order another card. And keep the other card for use in a backup machine that needs up to 8 drives. Life is too short to bother hassling.

76

I am using 5900X and i say no :smiley: 5800x3D is way better in gaming. No clue what is the performance difference at 4k, but 2k and FullHD 5800x3D is better.

It is your choice if you want to wait for 7800x3D, or want to buy 7950x3D (stay away from 7900x3D).

77

The rule of thumb is regardless of resolution, if you are significantly gpu limited now then the 5800X3D is not going to add much before usage shifts towards mainthread limited e.g at large airports, this is when the X3D will come into it’s own. For those like me with an rtx3060 (or less) flying gliders out of fields then a 5600X or 5800X (or intel equiv) is IMO dollarwise the way to go unless actually planning for a better gpu. And the X3D certainly not worth it if you don’t already possess an AM4 mobo.

78

I upgraded to a 5800X3D from a 10850K, which necessitated a motherboard change too, and it was still well worth it for me.

79

Sure but the debate is whether upgrading to a 5800X might have been just as good or better. It certainly would have been cheaper.

I’ll post some rudimentary benchmark videos on here later today over stock scenery in a stock 152 using the ultra preset and default NVCP etc. on an unclocked system at different resolutions, I guess then we’ll need to find an X3D owner with an rtx3060(12GB) to compare.

Update: I’m sorry but this has to wait. Yesterday I was hoping to connect up to my 4k TV but never got the chance as my wife returned from her office much earlier than planned … my next opportunity will be tuesday.

80

Ok thank you so much