Before I take the plunge....

[robert young 2,897]

...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 December 25, 2018 by robert young

[mpw8679 428]

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 December 25, 2018 by mpw8679

[robert young 2,897]

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.

[mpw8679 428]

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. 

 

[robert young 2,897]

Ok that makes sense. Thanks again.

[mpw8679 428]

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

Ok that makes sense. Thanks again.

Your welcome. Good luck with your decision.

[lownslo 592]

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 December 25, 2018 by lownslo
wording

[robert young 2,897]

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

Edited December 25, 2018 by robert young

[mpw8679 428]

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.

[robert young 2,897]

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?

 

 

[lownslo 592]

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

[lownslo 592]

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

[mpw8679 428]

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?

[robert young 2,897]

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 December 25, 2018 by robert young

[mpw8679 428]

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