What CPU for latest P3D 4 and beyond

[threexgreen 3,139]

5 hours ago, samisahusky said:

MSFS is going to be a subscription service ...

if you want to pay a monthly subscription to get nice looking scenery but no addons,

Since the subscription would be to have the scenery on the Azure Public Cloud (Microsoft owned cloud service), and streamed to the user, would you still need a high end computer since the info isn't even being stored on the computer, but instead being injected into it? 3) If a high end computer is still needed, it would take a quantum computer

Yes, the trailers look amazing, but lets face it, you can achieve the same level realism and even more in P3D

Your entire post is based on assumptions which are simply untrue. No offense, but please don't turn your own assumptions into facts.

You're saying it will be a subscription service and that you can assure people they are going to charge X$ for it. That, however, is based entirely on your own speculation and there is nothing to support this at all. Actually, Microsoft dropped a pretty clear hint that it's in fact not a subscription service. They have also confirmed there will be 3rd party support and that they are already reaching out to developers and even implementing code and content so your statement that there will be no addons is also not true.

The whole idea behind streaming games is that the computing of the visuals takes place on the server of the provider and the result is streamed to the consumer's device. There may still be computing required on the consumer's device but the vast amount of work is done by the server/cloud, so if the scenery is indeed streamed it will take away a tremendous amount of processing from your own device. If your machine still did a lot of work the content would be processed twice (cloud and your machine) which makes no sense.

If there is no streaming you will need a high end system to get the most out of the sim, yes. However, FSX and P3D are utilizing your hardware significantly differently from how modern games do. I already explained how these sims do it and that the whole reason for this is because FSX was designed for hardware that never saw the light of day. This is why performance is such a big topic in flight simulation in the first place: inadequate utilization of existing hardware which poses a bottleneck that can only be worked around but not overcome. A flight simulator packed with tons of addons will always require powerful systems, but just imagine how the latest P3D version would perform if it utilized all of the cores of the CPU evenly and offloaded most of the graphics work to the GPU. This is how modern games work and you'd expect MSFS, being a new flight simulator, to do it this way as well, which would result in much better performance.

I also don't know where you get the idea that one can achieve the same and more with P3D. The visuals of MSFS shown and the way they are likely to achieve this is way beyond what any current sim can do.

Edited August 28, 2019 by threegreen
Shortened the quote.

[samisahusky 13]

I’ll say this once an for all ... when the announcement was made the MSFS was going to be a new project at E3 2019, it was announced at the same time that it would likely be a subscription service ... we all know  flyawaysimulation.com and here is the quote from them regarding the announcement - “While the video and artwork scream Xbox, we should also be able to see it released on Windows using the Xbox Game Pass.  Xbox Game Pass games are cross-platform compatible so can be used on both Windows and Xbox with a subscription to the service (which we believe is monthly).”  So yes, at the time of the announcement, MSFS is assumed to be a subscription service and that is verifiable over a number of different sources. https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/4953/

also, I asked what CPU would be good for P3Dv4.5 and beyond, meaning P3Dv5, v6, etc. MSFS even if sold as a single purchase is still some time away where we don’t even know the system requirements, plus time to get bugs fixed plus time to get addons developed for it. By then, I may need to update hardware again if I decide to go that route. I am asking about P3D and was clear about that since the OP. The discussion of MSFS is done on this thread. Fee free to open a new thread about MSFS if you fee the need to discuss it further. 

This thread was was intended to be a topic of    Which of 2 CPUs would be a better and more cost effective purchase. We seem to have gotten way off topic. So again, if you want to discuss what hardware will be best for MSFS, make a new thread and stop hijacking  this one. This is about hardware for P3D at its current state and projected state within the next 2-3 years  

Furthermore, Yes, some of you will have a higher knowledge of technical terms and overall function, and although it is useful to know those differences and informative to me, that does not give anyone the right to speak to another as if they are vastly inferior to themselves. That kind of comment is both rude and extremely insulting and I’m sure that’s not what avsim wants from their users or anyone else aimed at someone who is here to learn. I will provide you with my sources where I came to the info that I have, but to insult me for that source is just flat out wrong and a direct personal attack towards me when it is not my knowledge, but the quotes of numerous different tech websites I am quoting. 

 

I would appreciate it if we can keep this on topic, and clean of any bullying/rude comments/insults going forward.

[Bob Scott 7,720]

4 hours ago, richjb2 said:

This is a great discussion. I'm flagging this one!

I am in the same position as Steven.  I purchased an i7 2600k back in 2011 when PMDG released NGX.  It has served me well for the last 8 years, but is getting long in the tooth. Not to mention that I am having frequent BSD related to the stop code WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE ERROR.  I'm going to guess that a memory module or something on the MB is giving out. 

I'm looking at the 9900K if for no other reason that longevity.  I use P3D primarily, but also getting more into X-Plane.  What these programs don't/can't do today may be able to do tomorrow.  I don't want to build a new computer every 2 to 3 years.  I want some legs.  

Over-building with the future in mind is not a bad thing.

Rich Boll

That BSOD might also mean your overclock is going south...after 8 years it's entirely conceivable that the silicon can't keep up any more.  Dialing it back towards stock settings might provide some interim relief.

Going from a 2600K to a 9900K would be a pretty eye-watering step up.  Double the cores (assuming HT off) and considerably faster single-core throughput with clock speed and IPC increases both taken into account.  I went from a 2600K, to a 4790K, to a 7700K, to an 8086K, and saw improvements at each step up.  Doing it in one quantum leap oughtta be impressive.

As to future-proofing, well, we never really know what waits around the corner.  But if I had waited for every expected new thing to materialize, I'd still be running a 4MHz TRS-80!

Regards

 

[samisahusky 13]

4 minutes ago, w6kd said:

That BSOD might also mean your overclock is going south...after 8 years it's entirely conceivable that the silicon can't keep up any more.  Dialing it back towards stock settings might provide some interim relief.

Going from a 2600K to a 9900K would be a pretty eye-watering step up.  Double the cores (assuming HT off) and considerably faster single-core throughput with clock speed and IPC increases both taken into account.  I went from a 2600K, to a 4790K, to a 7700K, to an 8086K, and saw improvements at each step up.  Doing it in one quantum leap oughtta be impressive.

As to future-proofing, well, we never really know what waits around the corner.  But if I had waited for every expected new thing to materialize, I'd still be running a 4MHz TRS-80!

Regards

 

I'd be going from a i5 3570k @ 3.4GHz. No overclocking or changes to BIOS settings from default for the most part and I see an average of 10FPS at Taxi2Gate LFPG in the PMDG 737 running UTLive, GSX, and REX texture direct/REX Sky Force 3D. All the other addons haven't been used at LFPG yet because I'm still trying to customize the parking positions in GSX to there may be a slight reduction in FPS from that average once all addons are in play.

I would assume that going from the 3570k to either the 9700k or 9900k would be a massive improvement, but what I'm most looking for is FPS improvement with higher settings. I'm tired of single digit FPS with mid settings and the FSL A320 is unflyable with what I get out of it right now. Both would be able to offer me better FPS overall, but the drawback to the 9900k is that I'd have to get a really good cooling system for it on top of the additional $100 in price difference. That's really why I made this thread; I want to be sure if the additional cost of going with the 9900k and a good cooling system would be worth it over going with the 9700k and a standard cooling system. When you take that into account, it's a big price difference but for what? The cheapest liquid cooling system on Newegg.com runs about $85, while the mid-range ones run for about $150, and the high end ones run over $300. Assuming I get the 9700k and a $100 cooling system, that would put the total cost for the 9700k at about $465. The 9900k with a better cooling system would run about $645 ($150 cooling system). So that's a $180 increase in price total. So is the $180 increase really worth it? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yes, I'll get a better CPU, but does the additional benefits of the 9900k compared to the 9700k really make a difference worth $180 in P3D?

[lownslo 592]

40 minutes ago, samisahusky said:

Assuming I get the 9700k and a $100 cooling system, that would put the total cost for the 9700k at about $465. The 9900k with a better cooling system would run about $645 ($150 cooling system). So that's a $180 increase in price total. So is the $180 increase really worth it? That's what I'm trying to figure out. Yes, I'll get a better CPU, but does the additional benefits of the 9900k compared to the 9700k really make a difference worth $180 in P3D?

You're asking others to establish a value conclusion on your purchase... to be made with your money.  How can that be done... after all, it's your money?  Clearly, you are leaning towards the 9700K... so go ahead and buy it.  Put all this bantering and debate aside as largely superfluous.  Either the 9700K or 9900k will be a substantial upgrade from your current i5 3570K. 

I must, though, correct your cost analysis.  Both the 9xxx CPU's will do fine with the same cooling solution.  I believe most folks on this forum with 9900K's run them with HT off, so any excess heat from the 9900K would come from it's better overclocking potential.  The key is, no matter which cooling solution you choose, make sure it is top quality and up to the task of cooling an 8 core gaming CPU.

Good luck with your build, 🍻

Greg

[samisahusky 13]

2 minutes ago, lownslo said:

You're asking others to establish a value conclusion on your purchase... to be made with your money.  How can that be done... after all, it's your money?  Clearly, you are leaning towards the 9700K... so go ahead and buy it.  Put all this bantering and debate aside as largely superfluous.  Either the 9700K or 9900k will be a substantial upgrade from your current i5 3570K.

You're missing the point. Yes, both will do fine, that's obvious. But the point is, is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what? What would the difference be as far as what I would see on the screen. I don't want technical terms that 9xxx has xxx processing power and can be overclocked to xxx with a xxx hyper-threading blah blah blah. I don't care!

What is the difference between them for what I see in the sim? I have neither of them, and I would like to hear from those who have one of them and what their experience is from it .... that is the point. None of that has anything to do with a "value conclusion" on my purchase, nor does it pertain to what I do with my money. Do you have either the 9900k or the 9700k installed? Can you provide me with factual data that will show that in relation to how P3Dv4.5 is currently (don't even have to use addons) that 1 is drastically better than the other?

I am simply asking exactly what I just said - is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D and how it will run? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what?

I am not leaning more in any direction, and the question remains to be answered. Would I get better performance from P3D with the 9900k? Would it offer me more FPS and if so, about how many with the base P3D installed (no addons).

I really don't understand why people on AVSIM feel it is sooooo important to say that someones desire to obtain more knowledge about something in the FS world as a waste of THEIR time ... everyone will have different opinions and that is their God-given right, that does NOT make it "bantering" or "debate" or useless information as others have said. This is a place for other to learn new things, share ideas, obtain good information, and help the community continue to grow and stay alive. The way everyone on here is constantly so stuck-up in their egos and power-trips just makes me want to put a drastic and sudden end to this passion I've had for the past 20+ years, and I feel that way because of how everyone on here treats their companions. It seriously sickening. My mother taught me "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." ... Please, just do that. I don't want to here your opinions about ME, what I spend my money on, my understanding of computer hardware, components, your excitement about a sim that's not even out yet, or anything else other than ........

is there really a justification to spend the extra money to get the 9900k and if so, what is it in relation to P3D? Will it offer an improvement in P3D compared to the 9700k and if so, what?

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

Sorry, but there is no simple answer to your question as asked IMHO.

Whatever makes you happy is likely the best purchase option..

Either processor will do the job.

Edited August 29, 2019 by Bert Pieke

[samisahusky 13]

It really is a simply answer tho. Don't think too much into it, and just read it as face-value.

• If some has the 9700k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders?
• If some has the 9900k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders?

With just that info, I can make an informed decision of which one would be better. I'll have more than enough RAM, a z390 mb, and I have a Nvidia GTX1080 GPU so the only thing I need to know about is which processor has been doing better for people who use them in P3D ... it really is, just that simple.

[Bob Scott 7,720]

3 hours ago, samisahusky said:

It really is a simply answer tho. Don't think too much into it, and just read it as face-value.

• If some has the 9700k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders?
• If some has the 9900k, what are you seeing for FPS on average? What addons are installed if any that you are getting those FPS? Where are your graphics setting sliders?

With just that info, I can make an informed decision of which one would be better. I'll have more than enough RAM, a z390 mb, and I have a Nvidia GTX1080 GPU so the only thing I need to know about is which processor has been doing better for people who use them in P3D ... it really is, just that simple.

FPS is only one measure of performance.  If you're struggling with low frame rates, it's an important one.  But once you "clear the tower" w/r/t frame rates and hit a range of acceptable (for me the ability to lock and hold 30 fps), then other criteria also become more important--smoothness (eg lack of stuttering when scenery/terrain loads), ability to push more autogen at higher LOD distances, ability to push higher traffic levels etc.  What's important to me may not be important to you and vice versa.  And some of those criteria don't have clear objective measures...i can see an improvement, but I can't point to an objective metric to measure it.

There are so many variables--overclock settings, add-on scenery and aircraft, 3rd party mesh, slider settings, day/night, dynamic and aftermarket street lighting, weather, cloud layers and resolutions, GPU type and overclock, display resolution, AA levels etc, it's really only possible to do an apples-to-apples comparison with a strictly-defined test scenario where all of the variables are controlled.  It's not an answer most folks can meaningfully quantify from their hip pockets.

As i said in the last line in my first post in this thread, either CPU is a good choice.  Run at the same clock speeds, the premium 9900K chip with its 16MB of L3 cache, coupled with some fast RAM, won't likely improve frame rates over the 9700K, but the additional cache and fast RAM makes a difference in smoothness in places where memory bandwidth counts, like flying in the western end of ORBX SoCal near FSDT's LAX where the combination of photoscenery, autogen, close proximity of several other busy airports and AI traffic can cause some really unhappy stuttering even when the frame rates seem to hold up OK.  Some 9700K chips came off the die and failed stability testing as a 9900K, so they are hobbled--certified at a lower frequency and with parts of the chip disabled (HT and some of the L3 cache in particular)...if you get one of those it will most likely be a disappointing overclocker.  And some 9700K chips will overclock very well.  The higher-end chips seem to be more consistent.

Like most options at the high-performance end of (take your pick) cars, boats, planes, bicycles, cameras, sound systems, power tools, tennis rackets and computers, the additional performance at the cutting edge is not going to come cheap or give you near as much bang for the buck as more mid-level performance choices.  So whether the premium cost is worth is it is a value proposition only you can answer for yourself, and often with imperfect information.  If it's unacceptable to spend an extra $100 and end up disappointed, you should go for the mid-level option and spare yourself the aggravation.  If it's worth rolling the dice for that last added measure of performance, then go for the high end.  I've certainly been disappointed a number of times, but not lately...the 8086K and the 9900K have both lived up to fairly optimistic expectations for me.

Regards

[Rogen 1,087]

Just goes to show everyone has a sweet spot with regards to their CPU preferences.

I happen to love my 1700 Ryzen which I've OC'd to 4.1 ghz.

So much so I'm going to drop in an 3800 Ryzen in a couple of weeks (need to save a few $$).

For the type of flying I do I find it great and my criteria is the same as w6kd's (i.e. the ability to hold 30 fps in vsync).

The vid linked below shows the Ryzen 1700 in action @ 30 fps using RivaTuner on a 60 Hz screenmode and includes pics of the P3D settings used for the vid.

Riva Tuner Statistics Server vsyncing @ half monitor 60hz for 30 fps @ L35 Big Bear airport

Doesn't aways have to be about Intel.

Cheers

Edited August 29, 2019 by Rogen

[Nyxx 6,993]

You target FPS. 

The simple answer to that is the higher the clock speed the higher the FPS. I cannot see a 9900k giving you more FPS than a 9700K at the same speed. Now it seems pricers for pre-binned versions here in the UK are far different to the US. I am saving £400 that's $500 to you and imo that money is better spent on better cooling and top of the range RAM. IMO that would give you more than a better cache.

RAM

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/g.skill-trident-z-rgb-32gb-2x16gb-ddr4-pc4-25600c14-3200mhz-dual-channel-kit-f4-3200c14d-32gtzr-my-10e-gs.html

Cooler for a 9700@5.1

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/nzxt-kraken-x72-aio-water-cooling-unit-360mm-hs-01h-nx.html

Just so you see where I am coming from

9900K pre binned @5.1 

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i9-9900k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66d-in.html

9700k

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/intel-core-i7-9700k-pre-binned-5.1ghz-coffee-lake-socket-lga1151-processor-oem-cp-66a-in.html

Overclocker here in the UK build it with the overclock and give 3-year labour and return warranty. So like you, I don't have to do the overclock myself and it's fully guaranteed 

I've yet to read or see anything that makes that better cache worth £400 more or in US money $500 more. Let alone P3D using HT. I use an AM to make P3D not use HT and it runs better with no HT.

As for MSFS 2020 who knows!

I've also read a lot in the DCS forums as I am now using that sim far more than P3D and they seem to all agree a 9700k at the highest clock speed is best as that sim does not need or want HT. 

The 9900k is better in benchmark tests but I never see them as real-life tests. The 9900k is a "better" chip but for gaming, I think not.

But don't take my word for it.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876-9.html

"VERDICT

For the enthusiasts among us who have some breathing room in their budgets, Core i7-9700K is a much smarter choice for gaming than the pricey Core i9-9900K. It serves up similar performance at a significantly lower price. It's no slouch in heavier applications either, thanks to eight physical cores."

Edited August 29, 2019 by Nyxx

[MaDDogz 242]

9700k user here.

4.9 on all cores

Corsiar H115i pro cooler. 👍

9900k just runs at a higher temp at the same clock speed. What ever benefit the 9900k gives you for £400 more rubies, you will not see in a simulator rig.

Maybe in other areas, but not in a sim rig. 

£400 just to say you have  a 9900k. That’s about the only benefit you’ll get.

£400is half way towards a new 20 series RTx card.

[Bob Scott 7,720]

3 hours ago, MaDDogz said:

9700k user here.

4.9 on all cores

Corsiar H115i pro cooler. 👍

9900k just runs at a higher temp at the same clock speed. What ever benefit the 9900k gives you for £400 more rubies, you will not see in a simulator rig.

Maybe in other areas, but not in a sim rig. 

£400 just to say you have  a 9900k. That’s about the only benefit you’ll get.

£400is half way towards a new 20 series RTx card.

My 9900K was on sale for $80 more than the 9700K when I bought it...right now at my (semi) local computer store it's about $150 (125 GBP) more ($450 vs $300).

No way I'd pay nearly $500 more for the 9900K, but $80, yes--absolutely worth it to me.

[threexgreen 3,139]

Personally, I upgraded from a 6700k to a 9900k along with a new GPU (1080 ti to 2080 ti). Future was the main aspect in this decision. I'm now good for the next few years, including of whatever may become of MSFS and the future of flight simming (apart from other games).

I have slightly overclocked my 9900k from 4.7 to 5 GHz. In P3D I see a substantial improvement in terms of FPS (25-30-ish at large airports before, now 40-ish). Most of the improvement is due to the CPU upgrade. Like Bob said, though, FPS is just one part of the whole and not even the most important one, imo. I get good FPS but I still encounter stutters and performance which is not as smooth as I'd like it to be, especially flying into big, congested airports. Addons I use on the typical flight are PMDG's NGX, ActiveSky, REX cloud textures, AI traffic (quite an amount of it), ProATC-X and detailed airports. All this together in a tough situation will result in 'inadequate' performance even on a high end system because of the way FSX and P3D work, as I explained.

I agree with what some others have said. If you're so concerned about the extra cost, go for the 9700k. It will be a clear improvement in terms of performance and from what it seems like enough to match your expectations.

---

One other thing I'd like to make clear: What I did in my last reply was to disagree with you and point out your assumptions about MSFS are largely based on untrue information. There is absolutely no bullying, personal attack or "sickening" treatment in that or anywhere in this thread. Please be careful when accusing someone like that.

Edited August 29, 2019 by threegreen
Typo.

[Nyxx 6,993]

7 hours ago, w6kd said:

My 9900K was on sale for $80 more than the 9700K when I bought it...right now at my (semi) local computer store it's about $150 (125 GBP) more ($450 vs $300).

No way I'd pay nearly $500 more for the 9900K, but $80, yes--absolutely worth it to me.

If the price here was like that then 9900k with HT turned off could be worth it. 

Like you say no way am I paying for a 9900k this side of the pond at these prices.