Custom-built PC advice needed!

[dominikv95 0]

Hi everyone!

I used to be a flight sim maniac for years, but life got in the way and I left it all behind about 6 years ago. A lot has changed in the technology-side-of-things, and luckily also in the money-side-of things for me, which means that I have a healthy budget to get back into the flight sim world. i used to only use FSX, but I've done enough research already to know that Prepar3d is the platform I will be going with now.

This is the custom PC that I want to have built for me (here, in the UK), that fits in my budget and I would like to ask for some opinions and advice on it. if it matters - maybe, for the GPU advice - I will be using an Ultra-Wide Curved 49'' Samsung monitor or a regular 40''+ TV; unlikely to be using a 3 monitor set up, as the monitors' bezels annoy me when flying. I also want to get a head-tracker (not VR goggles). Also, all of my questions are in bold italics:

Processor (CPU)
Intel® Core™ i9 Eight Core Processor i9-9900K (3.6GHz) 16MB Cache

Is it worth upgrading to the i9-9920X? It would take me slightly above my budget to be honest, but is it even worth considering?

Motherboard
ASUS® ROG STRIX Z390-F GAMING: ATX, LGA1151, USB 3.1, SATA 6GBs - RGB Ready

Is this a good motherboard? (I have no idea what a motherboard actually is/does)

Memory (RAM)
32GB Corsair VENGEANCE DDR4 3200MHz (4 x 8GB)

How much does the MHz matter? I've seen them as low as 2600MHz or as high as 3600MHz.

Graphics Card
8GB NVIDIA GEFORCE RTX 2080 SUPER - HDMI, 3x DP GeForce - RTX VR Ready!

Is it true that Prepar3d is not very GPU hungry? The shop who would build this PC recommended I go for 2070 instead, but because the price difference is only around £150 ($200) I think I'm going to stick with the 2080 SUPER. I could also get the 2080 Ti 11GB, but is there a point?

1st Storage Drive
2TB Samsung 860 QVO 2.5" SSD, SATA 6Gb/s (upto 550MB/sR | 520MB/sW)

1st M.2 SSD Drive
500GB SAMSUNG 970 EVO PLUS M.2, PCIe NVMe (up to 3500MB/R, 3200MB/W)

Power Supply
CORSAIR 650W TXm SERIES™ SEMI-MODULAR 80 PLUS® GOLD, ULTRA QUIET

I am worried that 650W is not enough! Do I need a more powerful one?

Processor Cooling
Corsair H100x Hydro Cooler w/ PCS Ultra Quiet Fans

Thermal Paste
STANDARD THERMAL PASTE FOR SUFFICIENT COOLING

Sound Card
ONBOARD 6 CHANNEL (5.1) HIGH DEF AUDIO (AS STANDARD)

Wireless/Wired Networking
WIRELESS 802.11 AC1900 1,300Mbps/5GHz, 600Mbps/2.4GHz PCI-E CARD

USB/Thunderbolt Options
MIN. 2 x USB 3.0 & 2 x USB 2.0 PORTS @ BACK PANEL + MIN. 2 FRONT PORTS

Operating System
Genuine Windows 10 Home 64 Bit - inc. Single Licence [KUK-00001]

Warranty
3 Year Standard Warranty (1 Month Collect & Return, 1 Year Parts, 3 Year Labour)

I do know that this is a very powerful PC, however I just want to make sure that I am not missing something or getting something that isn't worth it, only because it fits within my budget. I have very very limited I.T. knowledge and the only way for me to try and figure out the best set up is by picking the most expensive components and putting them together. I will be doing VATSIM flying only, therefore PMDGs, FlightSimLabs and airport sceneries etc. will all be installed too and I want to get the best performance possible.

Any opinions and advice is highly appreciated.

Thank you

Dominik

[overspeed3 410]

Probably should go with at least an 800 - 850 watt power supply...

[MaDDogz 242]

47 minutes ago, dominikv95 said:

Dominik

Are you considering over clocking the machine?

 

[dominikv95 0]

36 minutes ago, MaDDogz said:

Are you considering over clocking the machine?

 

Honestly, I don't know. Should I do that? What would be the benefit on the i9-9900K? If so, it would need to be done by the company who builds it, because I would only have it done professionally and so that the warranty is not void. 

[dominikv95 0]

1 hour ago, overspeed3 said:

Probably should go with at least an 800 - 850 watt power supply...

Thanks. I mean to be honest, I'd like to believe that they wouldn't build it with a power supply unit too small to handle whatever components I choose in the end - they're the biggest pc building company in the UK. So my choice of 650W (it was just a default setting) would probably be scrapped by them anyway. 

[MaDDogz 242]

1 hour ago, dominikv95 said:

Honestly, I don't know. Should I do that? What would be the benefit on the i9-9900K? If so, it would need to be done by the company who builds it, because I would only have it done professionally and so that the warranty is not void. 

Considering what you want to do with it, i would myself, as you want max performance per core for p3d

..if you did go down that road, i would get the H115 pro. Then consider the case your going to buy, for airflow. I Bought the H500 mesh as i liked the 2x 140mm fans blasting air through the case, and 1x120mm fan on the rear drawing air out.

The motherboard: its the main component that everything else connects too, if you like. Whatever you get, you want the z390 chipset (as you have selected)

Personally i got the asus maximus xi hero, but the one you have selected is also very good.

If overclocking, i think 2x16gb would be better than 4x8. 3200Mhz is memory speed, 3200 is good enough..

Graphics card:..cant say really, i'm running a 1080 Ti 11GB, get on fine with it, maybe others can better advise.

Storage looks good, 500gb for operating system, sim on the other.

Get the better paste if overclocking

The power supply..always better to have more...or so the other half says anyway...than needed  🙂

I'd suggest the better warranty...these things ain't cheap! and the better warranty Vs price i found good value.

As you say you have limited I.T knowledge, so another plus point for the better warranty.

 

 

I bought my system from the same company in May.

I got the i9700k 3.6Ghz 12mb cach, had them overclock it to 4.9 on all cores, and its running perfect. (about +£100,..worth it so i could plug in and go)

Obviously on days like today in the UK (30+°c), its running a little warmer than normal...  😀

I think the i9900k runs hotter, is more expensive for little gain.. based on using it for a sim machine...but i have no real experience with one.

 

Also, i was unable to beat the pricing with them...oh i tried..but i couldn't, and that was with the overclock on top...so yeah, good company to buy from.

Edited July 25, 2019 by MaDDogz

[Alexandre6463 28]

I would get faster memory. For memory the CAS Latency is also very important ( Lower is better) I got 32gb (4x8) DDR4 4000Mhz and CAS Latency 17 for my new built. If you also gonna use this computer for other games higher memory speed is better and there is a lot of benchmark on youtube to support it. The best spot is 3600Mhz of ram speed.

Ram speed calculation (Latency X 2000) ÷ memory Mhz ex ( 17*2000 = 34000)  ÷ 4000 = memory speed of 8.5ns. My 4000Mhz CAS 17 will be faster then a 3200Mhz CAS 14. (8.75 Ns).

 

 

[TurboKen 221]

For the power supply, change to 850watt. that way its not working to hard. longer life out of it.

For the monitor, I would recommend the Dell 38". About the same price, much better resolution and the 49 will stretch the image to much in VC.

[vortex681 806]

12 hours ago, turboken said:

For the monitor, I would recommend the Dell 38". About the same price, much better resolution and the 49 will stretch the image to much in VC.

It shouldn't stretch it at all. If the monitor's native resolution is selectable in the sim, it should scale correctly.

 

Edited July 26, 2019 by vortex681

[vortex681 806]

13 hours ago, Alexandre6463 said:

I would get faster memory. For memory the CAS Latency is also very important ( Lower is better) I got 32gb (4x8) DDR4 4000Mhz and CAS Latency 17 for my new built. If you also gonna use this computer for other games higher memory speed is better and there is a lot of benchmark on youtube to support it. The best spot is 3600Mhz of ram speed.

Ram speed calculation (Latency X 2000) ÷ memory Mhz ex ( 17*2000 = 34000)  ÷ 4000 = memory speed of 8.5ns. My 4000Mhz CAS 17 will be faster then a 3200Mhz CAS 14. (8.75 Ns).

Would anyone actually notice a speed difference of 0.25 Ns? Also, is the small gain you'd get in performance (very small, in some cases) actually worth up to twice the difference in price between 3200Mhz and 4000Mhz? If you really want those last few extra FPS and money is no object, then go for the fastest RAM possible. For the rest of us, 3200Mhz should be good enough. Faster RAM tends to be much more significant with AMD processors than with Intel.

With regards to overclocking, the stock 9900k (the processor I'd go for) should be plenty fast enough. The amount you'd be able to safely overclock it to would likely give you less than 10% extra FPS at best. That said, if possible, I'd still opt for a 280mm cooler like the Corsair 115i - your CPU will be cooler under load and the larger fans are quieter. 

[Bob Scott 7,712]

2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

Would anyone actually notice a speed difference of 0.25 Ns? Also, is the small gain you'd get in performance (very small, in some cases) actually worth up to twice the difference in price between 3200Mhz and 4000Mhz? If you really want those last few extra FPS and money is no object, then go for the fastest RAM possible. For the rest of us, 3200Mhz should be good enough. Faster RAM tends to be much more significant with AMD processors than with Intel.

With regards to overclocking, the stock 9900k (the processor I'd go for) should be plenty fast enough. The amount you'd be able to safely overclock it to would likely give you less than 10% extra FPS at best. That said, if possible, I'd still opt for a 280mm cooler like the Corsair 115i - your CPU will be cooler under load and the larger fans are quieter. 

The delta between Corsair Vengeance RAM and good fast RAM isn't going to be 0.25ns...I'd guess that 3200 MHz Vengeance RAM used in the build is everyday consumer-grade RAM (CAS 16 or 17), which is 10+ ns latency, and the 8.5ns stuff that was mentioned is more like 15% faster than basic average 10ns sticks.  That does make a difference in some memory-intensive scenarios (e.g. heavy autogen), but not a huge difference in general, especially on a CPU sporting a 16MB level-3 cache..

w/r/t overclocking a 9900K, no the difference is more like 25-30%, not 10%.  The i9-9900K can be overclocked to ~5 GHz on all cores with good cooling...its base frequency is 3.6GHz with an 8-core turbo boost of 4.7 GHz.  The problem with that 4.7GHz number is that it is still constrained by the TDP limits in a completely stock system, so even though the stock intel boost is advertised as 4.7GHz with an 8-core load, the multiplier/speed will be further reduced as needed to keep the power below that 95W TDP.  Loading up all eight cores with a nontrivial load can easily reach power levels more than double that 95W TDP design factor.  So overclocking, which entails raising the power limits as well as the multipliers, yields considerably more than 10% gain over a stock 9900K with no overclocking intervention.

Regards

[vortex681 806]

2 hours ago, w6kd said:

w/r/t overclocking a 9900K, no the difference is more like 25-30%, not 10%.

Please help me out here. I don't have a 9900k (and perhaps that makes a difference) but my understanding of P3D is that, although it's better than FSX at using more cores, it's still primarily a single core-dependant application. I'm struggling to understand how, just by raising all of the cores from 4.7GHz to 5.0GHz, you can get 25-30% better performance. Performance in most apps which are primarily single core tends to scale reasonably linearly with the processor speed (that was certainly the case with FSX) so what makes P3D different in this respect?

Edited July 26, 2019 by vortex681

[Bob Scott 7,712]

35 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Please help me out here. I don't have a 9900k (and perhaps that makes a difference) but my understanding of P3D is that, although it's better than FSX at using more cores, it's still primarily a single core-dependant application. I'm struggling to understand how, just by raising all of the cores from 4.7GHz to 5.0GHz, you can get 25-30% better performance. Performance in most apps which are primarily single core tends to scale reasonably linearly with the processor speed (that was certainly the case with FSX) so what makes P3D different in this respect?

P3D depends on fast single-core performance because the main thread, which drives the train for all the others, runs on a single core, and the faster that core runs, the better your sim performance.  When a stock-configured CPU downclocks due to turbo boost scheduling or power constraints, it downclocks *all* of the cores together.  P3D makes use of all the available cores, which in a stock 9900K system will drive all of the cores down to the lowest (4.7GHz) 7/8-core turbo boost multiplier, including that all-important one on which the main thread runs.  And when the other cores are busy doing real (and AVX-enabled) work processing/loading textures and terrain, all of the CPU cores will downclock even further to keep the power levels within TDP limits.  So the difference between running stock and overclocked to 5 GHz isn't just a 300MHz bump from 4.7 to 5.0, it's from something significantly below 4.7 up to 5...from as low as the base clock of 3.6 GHz, in fact (which would be a 39% increase).

P3D isn't "primarily single core" at all...a great deal of work is being done on the other cores, but the taskmaster running on that first core sets the pace for the rest.  That said, P3D performance on a six or eight-core CPU really is a step up from a dual or quad-core processor, although the gains from parallelism aren't linear.  Four cores is a massive improvement over two cores.  Six is a lot better than four...and eight is a little better than six (at the same clock speeds and IPC).

Regards

[dominikv95 0]

22 hours ago, MaDDogz said:

Considering what you want to do with it, i would myself, as you want max performance per core for p3d

..if you did go down that road, i would get the H115 pro. Then consider the case your going to buy, for airflow. I Bought the H500 mesh as i liked the 2x 140mm fans blasting air through the case, and 1x120mm fan on the rear drawing air out.

The motherboard: its the main component that everything else connects too, if you like. Whatever you get, you want the z390 chipset (as you have selected)

Personally i got the asus maximus xi hero, but the one you have selected is also very good.

If overclocking, i think 2x16gb would be better than 4x8. 3200Mhz is memory speed, 3200 is good enough..

Graphics card:..cant say really, i'm running a 1080 Ti 11GB, get on fine with it, maybe others can better advise.

Storage looks good, 500gb for operating system, sim on the other.

Get the better paste if overclocking

The power supply..always better to have more...or so the other half says anyway...than needed  🙂

I'd suggest the better warranty...these things ain't cheap! and the better warranty Vs price i found good value.

As you say you have limited I.T knowledge, so another plus point for the better warranty.

 

 

I bought my system from the same company in May.

I got the i9700k 3.6Ghz 12mb cach, had them overclock it to 4.9 on all cores, and its running perfect. (about +£100,..worth it so i could plug in and go)

Obviously on days like today in the UK (30+°c), its running a little warmer than normal...  😀

I think the i9900k runs hotter, is more expensive for little gain.. based on using it for a sim machine...but i have no real experience with one.

 

Also, i was unable to beat the pricing with them...oh i tried..but i couldn't, and that was with the overclock on top...so yeah, good company to buy from.

Based on your and the other opinions in this thread, I will certainly be overclocking it with the company who builds it - it's only about £150 more expensive to have them overclock it. 

As for the H115 pro, are you referring to the cooling system? Is cooling really important for the CPU? What does it actually help with: performance, longer life or some other factors?

You're yet another person (I use other forums too) to advise on having 2x16GB vs 4x8GB RAM - why's that?

Oh and what do you mean, you'd suggest 'the better warranty'? Do they offer different ones?

EDIT: and finally, how do you know what company I am talking about? I don't think I mentioned a company name on here, have I? 😄 I didn't want to break the rules by advertising etc. Just curious to see how you got to that, and also whether it's actually the same company haha 😄 

Thank you for you help!

 

19 hours ago, turboken said:

For the power supply, change to 850watt. that way its not working to hard. longer life out of it.

For the monitor, I would recommend the Dell 38". About the same price, much better resolution and the 49 will stretch the image to much in VC.

Thanks, yeah I've already scrapped the idea of that 650W haha I will look at the monitor too, thanks!

 

35 minutes ago, w6kd said:

P3D depends on fast single-core performance because the main thread, which drives the train for all the others, runs on a single core, and the faster that core runs, the better your sim performance.  When a stock-configured CPU downclocks due to turbo boost scheduling or power constraints, it downclocks *all* of the cores together.  P3D makes use of all the available cores, which in a stock 9900K system will drive all of the cores down to the lowest (4.7GHz) 7/8-core turbo boost multiplier, including that all-important one on which the main thread runs.  And when the other cores are busy doing real (and AVX-enabled) work processing/loading textures and terrain, all of the CPU cores will downclock even further to keep the power levels within TDP limits.  So the difference between running stock and overclocked to 5 GHz isn't just a 300MHz bump from 4.7 to 5.0, it's from something significantly below 4.7 up to 5...from as low as the base clock of 3.6 GHz, in fact (which would be a 39% increase).

P3D isn't "primarily single core" at all...a great deal of work is being done on the other cores, but the taskmaster running on that first core sets the pace for the rest.  That said, P3D performance on a six or eight-core CPU really is a step up from a dual or quad-core processor, although the gains from parallelism aren't linear.  Four cores is a massive improvement over two cores.  Six is a lot better than four...and eight is a little better than six (at the same clock speeds and IPC).

Regards

Wow, yours and vortex681's exchange gave ma headache with all those I.T. terms hahah But I am not completely clueless, so once I've read it a few times, it makes sense what you're saying. I am definitely overclocking to around 4.9/5GHz. One question to you: is it worth getting an i9 over i7 for P3D then, considering the price difference between the two?

Thanks for your help!

Edited July 26, 2019 by dominikv95

[Bob Scott 7,712]

22 minutes ago, dominikv95 said:

Wow, yours and vortex681's exchange gave ma headache with all those I.T. terms hahah But I am not completely clueless, so once I've read it a few times, it makes sense what you're saying. I am definitely overclocking to around 4.9/5GHz. One question to you: is it worth getting an i9 over i7 for P3D then, considering the price difference between the two?

The most significant difference between the 9700K and the 9900K with HT off is 33% more level-3 cache on the i9...16MB vs 12MB.  I am in the camp that believes memory performance is generally and too-casually overlooked when trying to max the program.

The price delta between the 9700K and the 9900K on the day I picked up my 9900K (for my portable rig) was $60...for me, that extra cache was something I really wanted to have paired up with my 8.33 ns RAM.  It's "nice to have" for most folks, I think...probably not worth $100 more for the average bear.

Regards