Recommended Posts

Hi Guys

I have two options for a new PC as I am looking to move from FSX, can you take a look and let me know which one best meets the requirements for a decent performance. Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks

  • Operating System: Windows 10 Home (64-bit Edition)
  • CPU (Processor): Intel® Core™ i5-9400F - 6-Core 2.90GHz, 4.10GHz Turbo - 9MB Cache (No On-board Graphics)
  • CPU Overclocking: No Overclocking
  • CPU Cooling: INTEL Standard CPU Cooler
  • Motherboard: Asus Prime Z370-P II: ATX w/ USB 3.1, SATA3, 2x M.2
  • Memory (RAM): 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4/2400mhz Dual Channel Memory (Corsair Vengeance LPX w/Heat Spreader)
  • Graphics Card (GPU): ASUS GeForce® GTX 1060 6GB - DX12®, VR Ready, HDMI, DVI, DP - 3 Monitor Support (Single Card)
  • Solid State Drive (SSD): 240GB WD Green 2.5" SSD - 540MB/s Read / 465MB/s Write (1 Drive)
  • Hard Drive (HDD & SSHD): 2TB Seagate BarraCuda SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 7200RPM Hard Drive (1 Drive)

 

  • Operating System: Windows 10 Home (64-bit Edition) 
  • CPU (Processor): Intel® Core™ i5-9400F - 6-Core 2.90GHz, 4.10GHz Turbo - 9MB Cache (No On-board Graphics)
  • CPU Overclocking: No Overclocking
  • Motherboard: Cyberpower B360M Xtreme AC: M-ATX w/ 4 RAM Slots, AC Wi-Fi, USB 3.1, SATA3, 2x M.2
  • Memory (RAM): 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4/2400mhz Dual Channel Memory (Corsair Vengeance LPX w/Heat Spreader)
  • Graphics Card (GPU): ASUS GeForce® GTX 1060 6GB - DX12®, VR Ready, HDMI, DVI, DP - 3 Monitor Support (Single Card) 
  • Solid State Drive (SSD): 240GB WD Green 2.5" SSD - 540MB/s Read / 465MB/s Write (1 Drive)
  • Hard Drive (HDD & SSHD): 2TB Seagate BarraCuda SATA-III 6.0Gb/s 7200RPM Hard Drive (1 Drive)
  • Wireless Networking: Addon AWP1750E PCI-E Wireless 11AC 1750Mbps Network Interface Card

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I would highly recommend you go with a quality motherboard like the ASUS. They tend to be better made, better supported, and longer supported over the years.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would remove SSD and replace it with M.2 1tb for gaming and m.2 512g for windows, HDD or SSD for (Storage only) this is my setup.

M.2 Performance Max Sequential Read Up to 3500 MBps Max Sequential Write Up to 3300 MBps This along will speed things up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not go for such a niche market CPU but rather spend some bucks more and directly go with a 9600K on a Z390 board. This would allow you to go anywhere near 4.8 - 5.0GHz when using a decent cooling solution. Besides that, I agree with the other comment: aim for bigger SSD. You want to run P3D off a SSD, not off a HDD.

Besides that, without telling us what you are willing to spend and what the cost of above two rigs is, help will be possible only in a very limited way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4.1 GHz is slow for advanced users, fine for casual users.

5 GHz is a minimum speed today for a new PC used for P3D with an advanced add-on suite. 

IMO, flight simmers cannot honestly recommend anything less than the best PC for P3D, and $5-9000.00 is not too much unless one builds it themselves. The reason is because P3D has some advanced features that make for a much more realistic experience and these features require top speed and power. VR is the biggest reason, but dynamic reflections/lighting, and advanced shadows all require power and speed.

If one is satisfied with default P3D settings and cheap add-ons, then a cheap PC will work. But then they may as well stick with FSX or FS9 even.

My next PC will likely be $10,000🤑 for P3D v5 unless my current workhorse continues to perform as good as it still does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is complete exaggeration, sorry to say. With an 9700K overclocked to 5.0GHz and a RTX 2070/2080 you can run P3D perfectly fine with almost max. graphics and all currently available addons. Of course, if you want VR with reasonable settings, you might consider SLI. But even with SLI, a rig with a 9700K and 2x2080Ti is still far away from 5000$, yet 10'000$. Example:

http://jetlinesystems.com/product/gravity-gt2/

Add another RTX 2080 to this and you hardly scratch the 4000$ limit.

But hey, go ahead and spend 10'000$ for your next rig. Just don't be disappointed if then someone with a rig for 4'000$ has the same or even better results...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The inevitable caveat: How fast do you want to go and how much money do you want to spend?

I build my own, my present WIP centers around an Intel Core i9-9980XE and a pair of Nvidia RTX2080 Ti (FE) cards.

Still, I need to shop around for the right MoBo and I'll probably use a couple of Samsung 970 Evo Plus 2TB SSD drives for a start.

You get a lot of satisfaction from building your own unit and save a certain amount of $$$ which can be used to seriously go toward high-end components.

😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can afford such components and you have fun in building up rigs on your own, you can go down this route. But we have to be honest here: this 9980XE will not provide more performance in P3D than an 9700K. Or, if it is a little tad faster, for sure not those 500% it costs more.

In other words: for P3D such a rig as Wombat is putting together is more than a total overkill for P3D. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id get a CPU with at least the OC ability for 5ghz or youre going to regret it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pracines said:

4.1 GHz is slow for advanced users, fine for casual users.

5 GHz is a minimum speed today for a new PC used for P3D with an advanced add-on suite. 

IMO, flight simmers cannot honestly recommend anything less than the best PC for P3D, and $5-9000.00 is not too much unless one builds it themselves. The reason is because P3D has some advanced features that make for a much more realistic experience and these features require top speed and power. VR is the biggest reason, but dynamic reflections/lighting, and advanced shadows all require power and speed.

If one is satisfied with default P3D settings and cheap add-ons, then a cheap PC will work. But then they may as well stick with FSX or FS9 even.

My next PC will likely be $10,000🤑 for P3D v5 unless my current workhorse continues to perform as good as it still does.

5 GHZ is minimum?? Really??

That the maximum speed that the best CPUs can get nowadays, with overclocking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, AnkH said:

That is complete exaggeration, sorry to say. With an 9700K overclocked to 5.0GHz and a RTX 2070/2080 you can run P3D perfectly fine with almost max. graphics and all currently available addons. Of course, if you want VR with reasonable settings, you might consider SLI. But even with SLI, a rig with a 9700K and 2x2080Ti is still far away from 5000$, yet 10'000$. Example:

http://jetlinesystems.com/product/gravity-gt2/

Add another RTX 2080 to this and you hardly scratch the 4000$ limit.

But hey, go ahead and spend 10'000$ for your next rig. Just don't be disappointed if then someone with a rig for 4'000$ has the same or even better results...

Exaggeration?

You look at a Jetline GT2 I look at the Jetline GTX. You are thinking small compared to me. 

9700K is ancient to me - I'm looking beyond 9900K with 5+ maybe 6+ GHz on ALL cores - you are behind the times. 

I'm looking beyond RTX 2080 - ever heard of Titan RTX?  Once again you're backward thinking is far behind mine.

64 GB 4000+ will be the start

largest and multiple M.2 or faster when available

largest fastest backup drives for XP with ortho

$10,000 is about right for ME - not for you because you are in the past.

No matter what you say, if I spend more money at Jetline than you, I will have a faster PC than you. Stop deceiving yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go trolling elsewhere as your post more than obviously just tells everybody reading it that you have absolutely not a single clue what you are talking about...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pracines said:

Exaggeration?

You look at a Jetline GT2 I look at the Jetline GTX. You are thinking small compared to me. 

9700K is ancient to me - I'm looking beyond 9900K with 5+ maybe 6+ GHz on ALL cores - you are behind the times. 

I'm looking beyond RTX 2080 - ever heard of Titan RTX?  Once again you're backward thinking is far behind mine.

64 GB 4000+ will be the start

largest and multiple M.2 or faster when available

largest fastest backup drives for XP with ortho

$10,000 is about right for ME - not for you because you are in the past.

No matter what you say, if I spend more money at Jetline than you, I will have a faster PC than you. Stop deceiving yourself.

This is so rediculous I can’t even respond.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pracines said:

4.1 GHz is slow for advanced users, fine for casual users.

5 GHz is a minimum speed today for a new PC used for P3D with an advanced add-on suite. 

IMO, flight simmers cannot honestly recommend anything less than the best PC for P3D, and $5-9000.00 is not too much unless one builds it themselves. The reason is because P3D has some advanced features that make for a much more realistic experience and these features require top speed and power. VR is the biggest reason, but dynamic reflections/lighting, and advanced shadows all require power and speed.

If one is satisfied with default P3D settings and cheap add-ons, then a cheap PC will work. But then they may as well stick with FSX or FS9 even.

My next PC will likely be $10,000🤑 for P3D v5 unless my current workhorse continues to perform as good as it still does.

 

Original poster - The above as hopefully you are seeing is absolutely non-sense. You will find much more reasonable advice elsewhere on this forum. I am running an 8086K at 5.5Ghz with good memory, M.2 drives and a 1080ti, and I have no issues running P3D with PMDG or FS-Labs add-ons. My whole build was about 2.5K

Good luck, and feel free to post any further questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, busdriver said:

I am running an 8086K at 5.5Ghz with good memory, M.2 drives and a 1080ti, and I have no issues running P3D with PMDG or FS-Labs add-ons. My whole build was about 2.5K

So if you spent $5000 your PC would be slower? Really? Talking about NON-sense.  Here is a direct quote from you on July 13, 2018:

"I think the better expectation is that developers work to optimize the code for today's processors, as the direction seems to be more towards additional cores, not faster clock speeds.... My system is brand new (spec's below) and I still can't send the sliders all the way to the right, without things turning into a PowerPoint presentation." 

Same specs as now, so don't tell anybody that you don't have issues 🤥 - you have "2.5K" issues - slider reduction syndrome LOL. A top quality $10,000 PC will easily handle all sliders to the right with all the add-ons you have, your "2.5K" system cannot. You should have spent at least $5000 to help eliminate the slide show 😛 

5 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

This is so rediculous I can’t even respond. 

You did respond, but you did not spell check. AnkH should have told you that you are trolling, because you are. You need to learn how to contribute to conversation productively. 

6 hours ago, AnkH said:

Go trolling elsewhere as your post more than obviously just tells everybody reading it that you have absolutely not a single clue what you are talking about...

Since you know so much - tell me how a 9700K at 4GHz (LESS EXPENSIVE) is faster than a 9900K at 5GHz (MORE EXPENSIVE) - I'm only trolling 'to you' because you know you made a foolish argument and you cannot find the logic to overcome your original foolishness. Debate your point with courage and respect if you can.😂

-----------------------------

I can't for the life of me understand how anybody with a brain can think that less PC is more. Pure stupidity. PC Bargain hunters will always have a less superior PC -bus proves this to us all plainly.

To listen to them you would conclude that 4 GHz is faster than 5 GHz, or 100 Knots is slower than 40 Knots. 🐒

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

Sorry, not feeding a troll any further. Your advice was neither helpful nor realistic. 

I'm about to start a 3 day trip, lets let this rest.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The problem, Paul, is not that you are absolutely right about pure numbers, but that you are simply overestimating them, that is why I initially said "exaggerated". Take your example 9700K vs. 9900K. The all core turbo of the 9900K is just 100Mhz more (4.7 vs. 4.6GHz). If you think that this makes the difference from all sliders to the right to compromises as I have to accept, you are just fooled by Intel marketing. Or to use your words: I can't for the life of me understand how anybody with a brain can think that more PC is relevant more performance. Again, you obviously have no idea how P3D performs on current rigs and what improvement of which hardware component plays really a role... Otherwise your sentence about how well your current rig performs makes even less sense. No matter if you can accept it or not, a 10'000$ rig will never outperform a 3000$ rig to the extent you are dreaming of. I suggest to have a chat with Rob Ainscough, he has such a monster rig and guess what? All sliders right is not even for him possible.

Edited by AnkH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of out here w/o brains but in quest of friendly knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thank you Chris,

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

Take your example 9700K vs. 9900K. The all core turbo of the 9900K is just 100Mhz more (4.7 vs. 4.6GHz).

You know that where you get your CPU makes a difference, how its overclocked makes a difference, what MOBO is used makes a difference, the bios and on and on. The make, kind, and speed of the memory makes a difference. I originally spoke of a complete system FOR ME which would include multi-monitor (& how its connected - yes the cables do make a difference) and speakers/headsets which all make a difference. Cheap components will not help, top quality components all working in harmony (no bottle necks) make a difference and it is not cheap. Less than $5000 to attain max sliders at 60 PFS is not likely possible but spend 5,000 more and its not a problem at all. When you think about it $10,000 gets to be a low figure depending on monitor size; $15,000 may be more like it.😁

I did not get into "specific" prices (i.e. $498.97 for a MOBO) because many of us have dealers that we often use and we know the owners or managers and we get a discount for being a long term good customer. But for example, though ones system is valued (retail) at $10,000 they will actually pay say $7,000. Just general price ranges, because I know $2500-$3500 is NOT a good PC sys price for P3D 4+, busdrivers own comments proves this. 

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

No matter if you can accept it or not, a 10'000$ rig will never outperform a 3000$ rig to the extent you are dreaming of

What was the extent that I was dreaming of? You could not have any idea, because I did not describe any extent. I said that one should be in the $5-9,000 range to have best results for an advanced user in P3D, this is the solid truth.

I never said this was required by everybody and I never insinuated that this price range is available to everybody. The market sets the prices, and that is the reality. A few responses have kind of made it "my fault" that a TITAN RTX retails at $2499  (the price of busdrivers whole system).

3 hours ago, AnkH said:

I suggest to have a chat with Rob Ainscough, he has such a monster rig and guess what? All sliders right is not even for him possible.

I have chatted with him and he said full right is what he sets. I doubted this at first, but when I asked him to specify settings he made it crystal clear every thing full right - 60FPS. You are the one who needs to chat with him.:smile:

--------

The morale of the story is more is more. And I know for sure if everybody here could afford a $10,000 w/o problem, they would all get a $10,000 system. I think envy is at play here more than anything. Again I'm not saying that every simmer "wants or has to have" (based on their budget) full right at 60FPS, but I know for sure if they could have it they would.

Also keep in mind that the OP is new to Avsim and to make them think that a cheaper system is fine for P3D is not being truthful to them. But even so I tried to make it clear enough that you get what you pay for. This way they have no "cause" to come here with countless inquires about terrible performance/appearance - we have way too much of that already!:smile: 

Edited by pracines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, pracines said:

Less than $5000 to attain max sliders at 60 PFS is not likely possible but spend 5,000 more and its not a problem at all.

I assume you're speaking from personal experience here rather than someone else's opinion? Also, as AnkH said earlier, once you get past about $3,000 (something like this: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pZWkMZ) you're up against the law of diminishing returns as far as flight sims go. For most of us, the extra, small incremental gains you'd achieve wouldn't justify the massively increased cost of something like a $10,000 system. Even if money's not a problem, spending $10,000 on an exclusively flight sim system is money wasted in my opinion. It's the difference between (possibly) having ALL the sliders to the right or MOST of the sliders to the right - you probably wouldn't even notice the difference except to your wallet.

Edited by vortex681

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

I assume you're speaking from personal experience here rather than someone else's opinion? Also, as AnkH said earlier, once you get past about $3,000 (something like this: https://pcpartpicker.com/list/pZWkMZ) you're up against the law of diminishing returns as far as flight sims go. For most of us, the extra, small incremental gains you'd achieve wouldn't justify the massively increased cost of something like a $10,000 system. Even if money's not a problem, spending $10,000 on an exclusively flight sim system is money wasted in my opinion. It's the difference between (possibly) having ALL the sliders to the right or MOST of the sliders to the right - you probably wouldn't even notice the difference except to your wallet.

The diminishing of returns law would only apply if there were no such thing as add-ons for P3D. The P3D add-on eco-system is very dynamic and getting more complex as the days pass. 

Surely with the knowledge you must have, you realize that P3D is what we make it. Add-ons are the difference. And also you surely would know that many add-ons have their sliders/settings as well, and they do make a difference too. Just thinking about a couple specifics; ASP4/ASCA and how dense the clouds can get with heavy rain IFR and how far away we can set the clouds are drawn. AIG OCI AI traffic during rush hour at KATL; with a "$10,000 system", them dynamics (even a combo of the two) will not cause a performance concern, with a "$5000 system" there will be a concern (lowering of sliders), and so the difference is known before hand --- it's called paying for peace of mind and we would notice a difference. Plus we are "more" ready for the next rendition of P3D.

I have seen countless posts about --- "I just bought a new state of the art system for $4000 (or under 5), why is P3Dv4 running so slow" - this forum has plenty of these kind of posts. The reason is, $4000 is kind of a cheap system for P3Dv4, certainly not "state of the art". For FS9 yes, but not P3Dv4 or FSX even, unless one has no add-ons and does not intend to get any add-ons, but that is very unlikely. W/O any add-ons at all P3D will run great on a $2500 PC.

Again general terms, because I'm not trying to be a professor of economics here.😂 

*****keep in mind I'm not talking the price if one builds the PC themselves -- one can save a lot of $, and that is a separate topic, I have not built my own PC in over 15 years*****

Share this post


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

The diminishing of returns law would only apply if there were no such thing as add-ons for P3D. The P3D add-on eco-system is very dynamic and getting more complex as the days pass.

The bottom line is that no developer (including LM, in the case of P3D) is going to make an add-on which requires a supercomputer to run well within the flight sim. The potential customer base would be so tiny it wouldn't justify the development costs.

2 minutes ago, pracines said:

I have seen countless posts about --- "I just bought a new state of the art system for $4000 (or under 5), why is P3Dv4 running so slow" - this forum has plenty of these kind of posts. The reason is, $4000 is kind of a cheap system for P3Dv4, certainly not "state of the art". For FS9 yes, but not P3Dv4 or FSX even, unless one has no add-ons and does not intend to get any add-ons, but that is very unlikely. W/O any add-ons at all P3D will run great on a $2500 PC.

You're obviously looking at different forums to me then. I'm not saying there aren't any, but I certainly haven't seen any posts complaining about performance issues with computers which cost that much. There are plenty of posts complaining about performance but they are usually down to old, sub-par systems, failing hardware or poor setups. I'm sure that the vast majority of users wouldn't consider a $4000 system "kind of cheap" for P3D. I'd hazard a guess that most wouldn't dream of spending that much on a system (just the PC box, not including peripherals). I don't agree at all with your assertion that P3D or FSX wouldn't run well on a system costing less than $2500. Plenty of us here manage it (and with quality payware add-ons) - my PC is a good example. I may not get a steady 60 FPS but flight sims don't need that sort of framerate to run well - many 4k users cap their FPS at 30 anyway!

16 minutes ago, pracines said:

*****keep in mind I'm not talking the price if one builds the PC themselves -- one can save a lot of $, and that is a separate topic, I have not built my own PC in over 15 years*****

Things have changed a lot since you last built a system. You can certainly save money building yourself but not nearly as much as you once could. More of a factor over the cost is the ability to select your own components and the satisfaction you get from having built it. There are plenty of pre-built systems around with good quality components which don't cost too much more than self-builds - bulk buying allows manufacturers to order components much cheaper than you or I could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

The bottom line is that no developer (including LM, in the case of P3D) is going to make an add-on which requires a supercomputer to run well within the flight sim. The potential customer base would be so tiny it wouldn't justify the development costs.

You already forgot about True Earth - Orbx lost some "customer faith" over the single season topic. I/we realize that multiple seasons with such detail requires huge HD space, but surely its soon to be possible/easy. There are already 16 TB SSD's but they cost about $6,000 from $10,000 just 3 or 4 years ago. 5G is around the corner. I think Orbx understand like I understand that HD space/speed will increase dramatically along with 5G speeds, making True Earth detail possible on a more global scale. With these HD and DL speed increases, surely CPU speeds will increase too, or does anybody think Intel/AMD will simply agree that 5GHz is just some imaginary limit that cannot be exceeded for homebased computing? 

If we think like you, we will never have "True Earth" on a global scale. But how many simmers in the FS8/FS9 days would have even dreamed of the Orbx Global Suite we have today as an even common/second nature add-on!   

The bottom line is MSFS always required a "super-computer" for each version in its time, it is a delusion to think otherwise. You don't remember when the newest version of MSFS came out that even the best PC was not fast enough? We had to wait for hardware to catch up but sales of MSFS always increased. That got reversed because of MS going backward after FSX. Well P3D is beginning to "catch up" with hardware & with newer technologies once again - they essentially had to slow down ( this is where you likely misunderstand the situation ) because from around 2008-2016 Intel chips speeds stagnated and then actually got slower, but that slowdown is over since 2016.

Now that P3D is 64 bit, we have only begun to scratch the surface.   

My memory is long term and big picture. We need to be ahead of the hardware curve like we used to be. I intend to be ready like I was in the past. Small thinking people will not be ready, they will just settle for less, complain about performance, and fight against the likes of me who push even further forward...I'm never satisfied, because we should never be satisfied.:smile: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pracines said:

this is where you likely misunderstand the situation

Thanks for pointing that out! I'm clearly no match for you when it comes to understanding things...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Thanks for pointing that out! I'm clearly no match for you when it comes to understanding things...

 

I think the expression I'm looking for is... LOL! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now