My MSI Z490 Meg Ace BIOS lists 4 options for CPU Core overclocking, and I was wondering which option would get the best performance out of FS2020.
I currently have a i9-10900KF OC’d to 5.0Ghz ALL CORE stable (using Prime95) with 1.300V core and 4.7Ghz Ring. CPU Pkg temps while playing FS run in the mid-60s. I am using a Be Quiet Dark Rock Pro 4 tower air cooler with stock BIOS PWM Fan speed settings.
The MSI BIOS options for core OC are:
-ALL CORE
-TURBO RATIO
-TURBO RATIO OFFSET
-PER CORE
I am currently running a dual monitor setup but may increase to triple monitor if FS supports that in later patches. The second monitor has browser windows, email, graphics programs, etc… open while running FS, so other cores are being used. However, those cores don’t all have to be running at 5.0Ghz.
It is my understanding (and please correct me if I am wrong) that FS is primarily limited–due to DX11–to 4 cores.
Would it make more sense to use a different method of OC to allow higher clock speed of just a few cores for FS like the new Z490 BIOS supposedly supports, and if so, what core OC method would make the most sense?
I’m having trouble finding good descriptions of MSI Z490 BIOS OC options and how to best OC this CPU to optimize it for FS. Thanks!
I know nothing about MSI Z490 Meg Ace BIOS, but nevertheless will share my exp with i9 settings/presets, maybe you will find it somewhat helpful.
I’m using older gen intel flagship 9900k - basically I have created 4 custom oc profiles:
‘ECO’ all cores at 2.8ghz, ht, no turbo (daily work, net browsing etc, keeps cpu ultra cool and ultra silent)
‘POWER’ all cores at 4.1 ghz, ht, no turbo (this is best multicore perf per watt/thermals on my i9)
‘singe thread performance’ 4 cores enabled at 5ghz, no ht, no turbo
‘XTR’ all cores unleashed at 5.0ghz, ht, no turbo (used maybe twice form some rendering)
I use MSFS with ‘POWER’ profile and X-Plane/P3D with ‘single thread performance’ profile. Other things, like daily work (software dev), casual use - I prefer ECO mode. It gets the job easily done in total silence.
Unlocked i9 are beasts, no need to run them all the time at highest perf settings, they will only eat a ton and heat up.
For MSFS you want 8 threads ideally, less then 6 will bring more stutter into play. On 4 threads it is unplayable. If you overclock it is also recommended to diable turbo, it will steady the frames as CPU will run at constant clock when under load.
The best thing about them IMO is the flexibility it gives - like in my oc profiles example.
seriously, you’d be way more suited in the usual overclocking forums or reddit that is directed exactly to the mainboard you are using.
there are so many different setups possible nowaday that i don’t think you’ll find too many people with the exact same setup as yours.
apart from that you’ll probably won’t get that much benefit from overclocking stock hardware anyways. it’s not that you’ll gain like 25% or 30% more performance which would be needed to make you feel a real difference.
it’s all more like putting a cherry on top of the cake.
I know what you mean–going to those forums generally gives tips on getting the best overall performance for benchmark competition, and the reason I asked the question here was to keep it tailored to FS2020 specifically. Thanks!
you need a stable platform in all situations - not just when running this game. so you’re better off finding a setting that works all around with your system and in any situation.
Well, it’s running very stable now at 5Ghz on all cores. The BIOS allows me to save 4 OC profiles, so it’s a simple matter of changing them if it comes to that.
I’m just thinking that since I’ll be upgrading my video card from the RTX-2060 Super that I bought last October as a placeholder until the new 3000 was released, I might want to look at a different OC strategy in case the new video card makes FS look at my i9 as the new bottleneck.
I’ve got the same CPU here waiting for my new build to go ahead (Just waiting for the case)
Speaking in terms of using my 8700K, I was overclocking it to around 4.7GHz (with an All-in-one water-cooler that’s probably too small) - I was seeing Temps around 80-90C which I thought was far too high so I reset it back to the defaults (3.7GHz, Turbo to 4.3GHz)
I didn’t see a noticeable drop in performance at all (I get 15-25FPS at best, but I am trying to push 4K through a GTX1080) - I would recommend trying to play around with it a bit… but my general opinion so far seems to be… Run it at Stock and let the system itself decide on what Turbo Boost to provide you. It seems this Sim is much more GPU reliant from my experience so far.
From my understanding of the 10900K/KF - It will turbo itself up to 5.3GHz if you’re keeping it cool enough.
Right now, I’m using a GTX980 while my RTX-2060 Super got shipped back to EVGA under RMA. So I’m definitely GPU bottlenecked right now. LOL. But still running in the mid-to-high 20s/low-30s on low settings. Just staying away from cities and and hand-crafted airports for a while.
My biggest issue is trying to push FlightSim out at 4K. I’ll be getting a 3090 when they release - I’m not sure at this point if I should put the 1080 into my new build or wait until I have the 3090.
I’ve been replaying Black Mesa through Max settings and it runs mostly flawless on my i7-8700K/GTX1080 at 4K.
Admittedly - Despite this build, MSFS doesn’t offer me much yet. I’m still waiting for the Third Party Study-level payware.
I’m sure Prepar3d will look alright on the new build in the mean time.
I’m guessing you’ve made sure to enable XMP in your Bios? I didn’t do that until very recently as I didn’t know what it did.
Yes, XMP is enabled. I’m running 3600 CL18 RAM. I’m driving a LG Ultragear 3840x1600 ultrawide 175Hz monitor, plus a 1080p 144hz monitor, so that little GTX980 is working overtime. Turned the refresh rates way down, since FS doesn’t need it anyway, so nothing lost there. I’m also looking at the 3090 since I’m replacing the 1080P monitor with an LG 27GN950-G 4k monitor that I’ve had pre-ordered for a couple months and finally shipped this week. I don’t think that 10GB in the 3080 is enough. I would have pulled the trigger on a 3080 if it had been 12 but preferably 16. Maybe a 3080Ti or Super…
Good kit, I’m running a Philips 32" 4K (60Hz, Not really a gaming monitor but it has a USB Hub in it and HDR compatible)
I’m in the same boat with the 30’ series. I’d have bought a 12 or 16GB 3080 (DX12 will make a big difference with how much VRAM you have) but the 3090 should be relatively future-roof for a while at 24GB.
One thing that really messed me up with the GTX980 and dual monitor…The LG UW is connected via DisplayPort, and the ASUS 27" 1080P monitor is connected via HDMI. When I tried to boot into BIOS, I got a black screen on both monitors, and the mobo’s error code read “A1”. I rebooted and kept hitting the del key. same thing each time. Turns out that with two monitors connected to that video card, it wouldn’t output any video to either monitor before POST. I had to disconnect the DisplayPort monitor to allow the HDMI signal only to go to the 1080p monitor in order to see the BIOS screen! The “A1” error code is normal when the mobo is sitting on the BIOS screen, but with a black screen on both monitors, I thought there was a hardware problem. Had me scratching my head for more than a couple minutes.
I still have to see if it will boot into bios with only the DisplayPort monitor connected. I just disconnected the DisplayPort monitor cable first, and that worked. But it’s really strange that the BIOS screen wouldn’t show up on one screen or the other with two monitors connected to the video card upon boot-up.
That’s really odd. It sounds as though something needs a Firmware update somewhere, or there’s a setting somewhere that needs to be adjusted.
I haven’t played around too much with Multi monitors. I know at work the Dell workstations we have (basic, low level Core i5s, Locked out of Admin account) - I was trying to run 3 monitors off one machine using a combination of the Discrete and Intel Onboard Graphics and the system wouldn’t have a bar of it.
Apparently, with this monitor I have and the Motherboard I’ve bought, I can run a DisplayPort Out, from the Graphics card, into the DisplayPort In, on the back panel, and run my monitor over Thunderbolt/USB-C (Although I’m not sure if it’s worth wasting one of my Thunderbolt ports on)
I went with the 10900KF because the mobo it’s eventually going into doesn’t have a power stage for an IGPU anyway, so it would have been wasted. The mobo it’s in right now does, but that mobo is slated for the 11th gen Rocket Lake, whenever that gets released next year. I guess that’s the last generation for LGA1200 motherboards. Same 'ol story with Intel. Mobos change almost as often as CPUs. Except the X299 hung on for a while. I skipped that whole generation. Got 3 X99 systems, but these two LGA1200 systems are the first I’ve built since 2015–other than a couple component upgrades like my RTX 2060 Super.
The issue with “Turbo Boost” is that it is only applied for about 30 seconds, and the rate of boost is contingent on CPU temp at the time. That shouldn’t be a problem for me, since I’ve been able to keep CPU temps below 70C continually (but that’s at 5.0Ghz. If it turbo boosts to 5.3 and goes above 70, I don’t know if it will immediately drop out of “boost”), but only 30 seconds of boost in the SIM is pretty much worthless IMO, for a “game” where you are basically running ‘flat out’ for hours at a time. I have a lot more research to do, that’s for sure!