Editer
November 1, 2022, 10:58pm
79
Yep! Alas, the 4090 discussions are spread all over the place. I’ve done that specific upgrade, and tested the 4090 with the 10900K during the week while I was waiting on the 13900K to ship…
Got my 13900K up and running. Loaded the NYC scenario I’d saved from my previous rig, that had given me 40-42 fps on my 3080 and the 4090 without the frame doubling activated on the 10900K CPU. Same scenery gave me about 70-75 fps with the frame doubling active.
So I was disappointed to see that I was only getting 65-67 fps on the 13900K in the same scenario. What the heck had I done wrong in settings that I was getting a slightly slower frame rate on the system with the new CPU?
Then I went i…
(Plus some elaboration in replies to that post.)
It depends on the where you’re flying, but even in a really dense scenario (LAX with pretty high FSLTL setttings, below), I went from a base frame rate of 92 fps with no traffic to 63-65 with FSLTL set to these aggressive settings:
[image]
This is on a 5,120x1440 49-inch ultrawidescreen, so pushing a similar number of pixels as 4K.
[Microsoft Flight Simulator 10_24_2022 5_10_32 PM]
That’s with DLSS set to DLAA (so no upscaling), Terrain LOD at 250, object detail at 200. Everything on Ultra…
And even posts in this very topic you posted in.
@JayGeeTech , 13900K is definitely worth the upgrade from the 10900K with regard to MSFS. Annoyingly, most of the reviews compare it to the 12900K, where it’s only a bit faster, but going back three generations to the 10900K it’s a solid boost. I’d estimate I’m getting about 150% of the FPS on CPU-limited areas (without factoring in the 4090 doubling) on the 13900K vs. the 10900K. Which is the difference between 35-40 fps and 50-60 fps in the most demanding areas. It’s less of a factor if you get…
2 Likes
