Jump to content

robert young

Before I take the plunge....

Recommended Posts

...For six years I've had, by current standards, a low spec i7 2700 cpu and recently "upgraded" (don't laugh) to  a GTX 1050ti. I feel the time is right to upgrade again, but before I ask for advice I want to say just how brilliantly my modest system has performed.in FSX and now P3d v4. I am very careful not to install clearly frame rate obliteratng addon software, and most of that consists of the avoidance of obviously unoptimised addon aircraft.

But generally my system is surprisingly good, as long as I don't push things too far. To me, a dense P3d V4 scenery looks just as good as an extremely dense scenery loading (especially with weather viz down to 20 or 30 miles), and the same goes for autogen draw distance. On my system I can run the well optimised PMDG NG in FSX with perfectly usable frame rates. I don''t have the P3d version but I imagine it performs pretty well there too.

Now on to the main subject:

I can probably afford EITHER an i9 9900 cpu with a less than top-of-the-range Nvidia card, or I can afford, say, an i5 or  i7 7700 or 8700 with an apparently stella GPU like a 1080 ti or even an RX 2080. My dilemma is which direction to go. Looking at reports, I see that even a quite low spec i5 can be overclocked to approaching 5 ghz. Which is better - to have a high spec cpu at say 4.00+ ghz or or a lower spec i5/i7 overclocked to say 4.7? Do these tweaks REALLY translate to a reportable and demonstrable frame rate improvement. Does an I9 9900 at say 3.8 ghz deliver a better experience than an i5 overclocked to the hilt? The price difference between the two is large.

Coming to Nvidia cards - I see the feckless gambling brigade of the bitcoin variety have ruined the prices of decent Nvidia cards. Am I going to see a discernable difference between say a GTX 1070 or 1070ti or a GTX 1080 and an RX2080? In my region an RX2080 is often lower in price than a GTX 1080, probably because of supply (and bitcoin) reasons. Is there really that much difference between a 1070/ti/1080/ti/2080 in REAL performance?

I do realise P3d is more cpu-bound than Gpu-bound. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how my modest system delivers quite decent smooth motion. I never have blurries, and I can run highly tweaked and modified default aircraft at between 80 and 200 fps, and decently optimised addon aircraft at a reasonable 35-50 fps. I see an enormous difference in frame rates between dense scenery/autogen/draw distance and extremely dense. I'm also interested in tesselation settings which I cannot quite fathom (I see almost no difference at any settings).

Please note I am not a beginner at the tweaking game although I am not really a technical person. Way back I exchanged hundreds of emails with Ray Proudfoot and Pete Dowson trying to get to the bottom of stutters in FS98, FS2002 and FS2004 before tweaking became a global pastime (I actually believe we invented the word "stutters" but I cannot prove it).

I see many people on Avsim bitterly disappointed after buying hugely expensive systems and observing that their frame rates have hardly improved. I wonder what they are doing to nuke their performance so easily despite spending thousands on an apparently stella system. Could it be they are just piling on too much detail or expecting miracles? BTW I don't particularly need VR or 4k. For me the most important thing is smoothness of motion.

Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to cover all ground as well as giving an insight into my own experience.

Edited by robert young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, robert young said:

...For six years I've had, by current standards, a low spec i7 2700 cpu and recently "upgraded" (don't laugh) to  a GTX 1050ti. I feel the time is right to upgrade again, but before I ask for advice I want to say just how brilliantly my modest system has performed.in FSX and now P3d v4. I am very careful not to install clearly frame rate obliteratng addon software, and most of that consists of the avoidance of obviously unoptimised addon aircraft.

But generally my system is surprisingly good, as long as I don't push things too far. To me, a dense P3d V4 scenery looks just as good as an extremely dense scenery loading (especially with weather viz down to 20 or 30 miles), and the same goes for autogen draw distance. On my system I can run the well optimised PMDG NG in FSX with perfectly usable frame rates. I don''t have the P3d version but I imagine it performs pretty well there too.

Now on to the main subject:

I can probably afford EITHER an i9 9900 cpu with a less than top-of-the-range Nvidia card, or I can affort, say, an i5 or  i7 7700 or 8700 with an apparently stella GPU like a 1080 ti or even an RX 2080. My dilemma is which direction to go. Looking at reports, I see that even a quite low spec i5 can be overclocked to approaching 5 ghz. Which is better - to have a high spec cpu at say 4.00+ ghz or or a lower spec i5/i7 overclocked to say 4.7? Do these tweaks REALLY translate to a reportable and demonstrable frame rate improvement. Does an I9 9900 at say 3.8 ghz deliver a better experience than an i5 overclocked to the hilt? The price difference between the two is large.

Coming to Nvidia cards - I see the feckless gambling brigade of the bitcoin variety have ruined the prices of decent Nvidia cards. Am I going to see a discernable difference between say a GTX 1070 or 1070ti or a GTX 1080 and an RX2080? In my region an RX2080 is often lower in price than a GTX 1080, probably because of supply (and bitcoin) reasons. Is there really that much difference between a 1070/ti/1080/ti in REAL performance?

I do realise P3d is more cpu-bound than Gpu-bound. Nevertheless, I am amazed at how my modest system delivers quite decent smooth motion. I never have blurries, and I can run highly tweaked and modified default aircraft at between 80 and 200 fps, and decently optimised addon aircraft at a reasonable 35-50 fps. I see an enormous difference in frame rates between dense scenery/autogen/draw distance and extremely dense. I'm also interested in tesselation settings which I cannot quite fathom (I see almost no difference at any settings).

Please note I am not a beginner at the tweaking game although I am not really a technical person. Way back I exchanged hundreds of emails with Ray Proudfoot and Pete Dowson trying to get to the bottom of stutters in FS98, FS2002 and FS2004 before tweaking became a global pastime (I actually believe we invented the word "stutters" but I cannot prove it).

I see many people on Avsim bitterly disappointed after buying hugely expensive systems and observing that their frame rates have hardly improved. I wonder what they are doing to nuke their performance so easily despite spending thousands on an apparently stella system. Could it be they are just piling on too much detail or expecting miracles? BTW I don't particularly need VR or 4k. For me the most important thing is smoothness of motion.

Apologies for the long post, but I wanted to cover all ground as well as giving an insight into my own experience.

Robert if u have a budget to stick to I would avoid the 9900K.  That is unless u can use hyper threading to its fullest ability in other apps.  Best way to look at it is the higher the GHZ  the faster the frame rate.  More cores equals faster texture loading and more room for other apps.

IMO the best bang for the buck would be a 9600K with a 2080 GPU.  If u are going to be running a lot of background tasks or very complex scenery move up to a 9700K.  Either one of these will run P3D very well.  HUGE step up from your current system.

Edited by mpw8679
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

Robert if u have a budget to stick to I would avoid the 9900K.  That is unless u can use hyper threading to its fullest ability in other apps.  

IMO the best bang for the buck would be a 9600K with a 2080 GPU.  If u are going to be running a lot of background tasks or very complex scenery move up to a 9700K.  Either one of these will run P3D very well.  HUGE step up from your current system.

Thanks for that. So you are implying a 9600k is the sweet spot and the extra cash for a 9900 is no particularly advantage. I never run any background tasks while flying (except for those needed to run the system). That's why I asked whether an i5 overclocked (and much cheaper) approaches the performance of a higher spec cpu not overclocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robert young said:

Thanks for that. So you are implying a 9600k is the sweet spot and the extra cash for a 9900 is no particularly advantage. I never run any background tasks while flying (except for those needed to run the system). That's why I asked whether an i5 overclocked (and much cheaper) approaches the performance of a higher spec cpu not overclocked.

In your case u probably wouldn’t even notice a difference between the two.  Now having said that the 9900K being a higher binned chip has the possibility of overclocking a bit higher. 100-200mhz but then u would have to also disable HT so u don’t run into heat and stability issues.  U just have to ask yourself is it worth the extra $300 for MAYBE 0-3 FPS.  The 9600K will do 4.8-5.1 ghz depending if u get a good binned chip or not.  The 9600K will peg the scenery rendering cores in extremely complex scenery.  That’s where the extra two cores of the 9700K will help. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robert young said:

Ok that makes sense. Thanks again.

Your welcome. Good luck with your decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 9900K would not necessarily be wasted on P3Dv4... the extra cache could be useful even if you choose not to use Hyper-Threading.  It's just stupid expensive right now.  Having said that, another strong and value oriented combo would be the 9700K with a 2070.  Paired with a strong Z390 motherboard, NVMe drive, and fast memory the 9700K/2070 would be a powerful tool... especially with the way you say you manage your OS/Flightsim.

The priority should be a strong CPU (overclocked) and a GPU to balance the CPU's capabilities all running on a strong motherboard and fast memory.

Good luck,

Greg

Edited by lownslo
wording

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lownslo said:

A 9900K would not necessarily be wasted on P3Dv4... the extra cache could be useful even if you choose not to use Hyper-Threading.  It's just stupid expensive right now.  Having said that, another strong and value oriented combo would be the 9700K with a 2070.  Paired with a strong Z390 motherboard, NVMe drive, and fast memory the 9700K/1070 would be a powerful tool... especially with the way you say you manage your OS/Flightsim.

The priority should be a strong CPU (high single thread speed) and a GPU to balance the CPU's capabilities all running on a strong motherboard and fast memory.

Good luck,

Greg

Good point about the memory.  Robert I would go with at least 3000mhz with a CL 14-16.  Also HIGHLY recommend a AIO CPU water cooler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm looking at this system by UK Cyberpower who have a good reputation in the UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/CyberpowerPC-Ultra-Luxe-1080Ti-Gaming/dp/B077VV5WK4/ref=sr_1_5?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1545757286&sr=1-5&keywords=cyberpowerpc+i9+gaming+computer

They either do i7 8700 or apparently i9 9900. The i7 8700 is only a little bit cheaper. Nothing in between. But this is most definitely UK's lowest price for an i9 plus RXT 2080 card, by far. Comments?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, robert young said:

Ok Thanks Greg. Edit you said 2070 and then 1070. Did you mean 2070 second time?

Sorry Robert, I do mean the 2070 (have edited my earlier post).

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm looking at this system by UK Cyberpower who have a good reputation in the UK: https://www.amazon.co.uk/CyberpowerPC-Ultra-Luxe-1080Ti-Gaming/dp/B077VV5WK4/ref=sr_1_5?s=computers&ie=UTF8&qid=1545757286&sr=1-5&keywords=cyberpowerpc+i9+gaming+computer

They either do i7 8700 or apparently i9 9900. The i7 8700 is only a little bit cheaper. Nothing in between. But this is most definitely UK's lowest price for an i9 plus RXT 2080 card, by far. Comments?

Nice system at a pretty good price.  I'd be concerned about the PSU though... 650W is a bit low for a 9900K/2080.  That CPU can fell entire forests, jump tall buildings, and make even the best and most powerful PSU's whimper.  For that combo I'd like to see a quality 800W or more PSU.  And of course, they don't give the speed of the RAM (never do 😕).

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lownslo said:

Nice system at a pretty good price.  I'd be concerned about the PSU though... 650W is a bit low for a 9900K/2080.  That CPU can fell entire forests, jump tall buildings, and make even the best and most powerful PSU's whimper.  For that combo I'd like to see a quality 800W or more PSU.  And of course, they don't give the speed of the RAM (never do 😕).

Greg

+1 on all the above.  I also don't see any motherboard specs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha Ha, nice description. yes I was a bit concerned about that too. Even my lowly system has a 750W Psu.

 

MPW: If you look at the small print it says it has an Intel z390 motherboard.

Edited by robert young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robert young said:

Ha Ha, nice description. yes I was a bit concerned about that too. Even my lowly system has a 750W Psu.

 

MPW: If you look at the small print it says it has an Intel z370 motherboard.

Your link is showing a z390 which is what u want.  I was curious about brand and model.  Could make a difference regarding overclocking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

Your link is showing a z390 which is what u want.  I was curious about brand and model.  Could make a difference regarding overclocking

Corrected to z390. Apologies. I think there is a USA Cyberpower computer company but I do not know if it is related to the UK equivalent name. What I do know is that this company started with a very sceptical customer base who couldn't quite believe their prices could actually deliver a viable machine, but hundreds of stellar reviews later (bar a few complaints) this outfit has taken the Uk by storm. It consistently offers comparable specs at way below other Uk suppliers like overclockers, Dell (Alienware), Scan etc etc. I've trawled through all of them these last days and none of them come close to the price for the same spec.

Edited by robert young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robert young said:

Corrected to z390. Apologies.

Can u spec a PC on there website and have it shipped to your area by chance??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mpw8679 said:

Can u spec a PC on there website and have it shipped to your area by chance??

Yes you can but their Amazon UK ready-made systems appear to be a good deal cheaper. I don't think you can alter specs via Amazon UK but I could always phone their uk office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, robert young said:

Corrected to z390. Apologies. I think there is a USA Cyberpower computer company but I do not know if it is related to the UK equivalent name. What I do know is that this company started with a very sceptical customer base who couldn't quite believe their prices could actually deliver a viable machine, but hundreds of stellar reviews later (bar a few complaints) this outfit has taken the Uk by storm. It consistently offers comparable specs at way below other Uk suppliers like overclockers, Dell (Alienware), Scan etc etc. I've trawled through all of them these last days and none of them come close to the price for the same spec.

My last computer before I started building my own was a Cyberpower.  Was an excellent PC never had issues with it.  It had a Q6600 CPU and a GTX8800GT!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

My last computer before I started building my own was a Cyberpower.  Was an excellent PC never had issues with it.  It had a Q6600 CPU and a GTX8800GT!

That's good to hear. It rings true as there are many reviews from current self-builders who said that they could barely beat the price at Cyberpower even if they bought the same parts and did the labour themselves.

Edited by robert young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robert young said:

That's good to hear. It rings true as there are many reviews from current self-builders who said that they could barely beat the price at Cyberpower even if they bought the parts and did the labour themselves.

Very true.  I transfer a lot of hardware from old build to new build.  But if I were to start from scratch I would buy a Cyberpower with out hesitation. 

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mpw8679 said:

Very true.  I transfer a lot of hardware from old build to new build.  But if I were to start from scratch I would buy a Cyberpower with out hesitation. 

Excellent news! Thanks for the generous time you've spent on this thread. I'm off now to enjoy the rest of the evening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually bought a scratch'n'dent Dell system. Best bang for my buck. One thing I did learn that would be relevant here: get 32GB memory if you can swing it. 16GB might be a bit shy for the future of our flight simming. Happy holidays to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/25/2018 at 5:36 PM, lownslo said:

Nice system at a pretty good price.  I'd be concerned about the PSU though... 650W is a bit low for a 9900K/2080.  That CPU can fell entire forests, jump tall buildings, and make even the best and most powerful PSU's whimper.  For that combo I'd like to see a quality 800W or more PSU.  And of course, they don't give the speed of the RAM (never do 😕).

Greg

 

Here's the thing about PSU's...

If you run the specs of the proposed build through a PSU calculator, you will be surprised just how low the wattage can be and still be adequate. According to the be quite PSU calculator 650 Watts to 850 Watts is adequate for the 9900K and 2080. 

https://www.bequiet.com/en/psucalculator

However... it's not just about total wattage required, there are other factors  to consider too.

1) What does the efficiency curve look like for your chosen PSU? In other words, where in the curve is it the most efficient. Modern PSU's do tend to have more flexibility in this respect and retain reasonable efficiency in the higher output range, often still above 90%, but it's still worth choosing a PSU that enables your rig to function, most of the time, close to the PSU's most efficient  range. The primary reason for doing this is PSU fan curves. Modern PSU's drop into zero fan mode when not over stressed, thus your PSU will be silent or at least very quiet most of the time. Most efficient range is usually about 50% of max output but this does vary with models. 

Slightly less PSU degradation and a running cost saving will also be realised but the savings are small. Small, because modern high efficiency PSU's, as mentioned, are still above 90% efficiency at quite high output. 

2) Capacitor degradation should be considered. PSU capabilities degrade over time. So if you intend to keep the PSU for a protracted period of time, additional wattage is advised to allow for degradation. 

For example... if I run my rig through the EVGA PSU calculator, and even add on a few extra drives and any hardware I might upgrade to, the total wattage required is 650 Watt's minimum to 750 watts. That's for a GTX 980 Ti overclocked, an 8700K overclocked and three hard drives. I have a 750 Watt EVGA P2. 

The bottom line is that minimum PSU wattage is ill advised but by the same token, very few of us require greater than 800 Watts as modern hardware has become much more efficient.

For the  9900K/2080 750 watts is adequate in my opinion. If future upgrades in mind, or the additional cost minimal, perhaps 850 Watts max. 

  

 

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In case you're still looking Rob, I'd suggest the PC Specialist website is worth a try.  I've used them 3 times now and the menu system allows a lot of options, including the supply of overclocked PC's.  The dropdown menus are great for playing around with the config to see what the difference is between the cost of parts.  For example, your Amazon linked PC above can be built to order for a very similar price, but pre-overclocked to 4.9.  Swap the 2nd HDD for a 2GB SSD for an extra £200 odd etc.

Worth a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...