Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
simtom

MSFS Required Specs

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Noooch said:

@ChaoticBeauty Since you seem to know a lot more than me about hardware, what motherboard  would you recommend? Is the MSI B450 TOMAHAWK MAX a good choice?

Yes, that is actually considered the best B450 choice at the price point. It is very feature-complete for anyone but the absolute enthusiasts, and the VRMs are pretty much top-tier (the Ryzen 5 3600 will not stress them, but it's a good idea to be safe).

If you do decide to wait though, the B550 chipset will launch in 16 June, offering PCIe 4.0 support to mainstream selections. You will not need it unless you go for the top-end GPU of the next generation or an expensive SSD this year, but it would make the system more future-proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ChaoticBeauty that is great because I read somewhere that B450s from MSI may have VRM issues, but maybe if associated with a bigger CPU. Thanks a lot !

Share this post


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

@ChaoticBeauty that is great because I read somewhere that B450s from MSI may have VRM issues, but maybe if associated with a bigger CPU. Thanks a lot !

This might be true regarding the cheaper models, but you can be assured that the Tomahawk, the Gaming Plus and the more expensive MSI options have the best VRMs among B450 boards. With the B450 sadly most manufacturers skimped on the VRM quality, which can create issues with the more expensive CPUs. All B350 boards from MSI were rather subpar, and it remains to be seen which manufacturer will create the best B550 boards. Sadly for the motherboard selection you have to do a lot more research compared to the past, as yesterday's trusted brands can be mediocre choices today and vice versa.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PWJT8D said:

From my quick search, an i7-9800X is not even available to purchase anywhere. So why they would list it as Ideal I don't know. Doesn't seem to ideal to me if I can't buy it. As we have been made aware, it has way more maximum memory bandwidth. The weird thing is if you look at current i9 X series processors they don't list the max memory bandwidth for any of them so it's hard to compare. I play other games as well so I may just say forget about the X series and go with a K.

If Microsoft could provide insight into how the specificificatons were established, it would help resolve the queston of why the X series CPU was chosen.  This might also help a lot of folks who are asking whether a particular configuration is a good choice.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

If Microsoft could provide insight into how the specificificatons were established, it would help resolve the queston of why the X series CPU was chosen.  This might also help a lot of folks who are asking whether a particular configuration is a good choice.

I'm just going to buy everything for the build minus the CPU/GPU and see what happens with the next release of those on the horizon. 


Is it done yet? When will it be released? Will it be freeware or payware? How much will it be? Any updates on the progress? Will it work for FSX? What's the minimum requirements? Can I be a beta tester?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PWJT8D said:

I'm just going to buy everything for the build minus the CPU/GPU and see what happens with the next release of those on the horizon. 

If you buy a SSD, remember that the size of the cache is left at the user’s discretion as observed in the alpha. It could be as big as several TB...


Dominique

Simming since 1981 - Prepar3D v3 on a 4770 @ 4.4 GHz and a 1080 @ 2560*1440 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals -

 

Share this post


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

It is all theoretical, in real life applications may amount to little or no advantage.

There are well known benchmarks that compare the best I9 "K" CPUs against the best I9 "X" CPUs and the "X" only wins in professional applications like encoding, compression, encryption, transcoding, etc.

The "K" wins by larger or smaller margin in all games.

If MSFS2020 would all of a sudden be an exception - that would make huge headlines in the computer world, I don't see it happening but if it does - you bet we will hear about loud and clear.

Thanks.

It would indeed be interesting that the FS20 team gives some insights on the unexpected choice of the 9800X. The sim will have to move fast huge amounts of textures and these will partly come compressed from the MS servers. Few games have the same constraints, I suppose. Would the 9800x and its associated chipset more suitable than the top K line ?

At that point difficult to dismiss the X as an error in the announcement.

 

Edited by Dominique_K
  • Like 2

Dominique

Simming since 1981 - Prepar3D v3 on a 4770 @ 4.4 GHz and a 1080 @ 2560*1440 - Warthog HOTAS - MFG pedals -

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I will hold off on the motherboard, cpu, gpu, ram and ssd while I get the rest of my other parts for my new build then.

Edited by captain420

Aaron Vinci

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

Intel i7 3770k @ 4.5Ghz / Windows 10 Professional 64 bit / 32GB DDR3 1600MHz RAM / EVGA NVIDIA GTX 1080 FTW 8GB RAM / 128MB SSD (OS Drive) / 2x2TB HDD / 750watt PSU

Share this post


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

If you buy a SSD, remember that the size of the cache is left at the user’s discretion as observed in the alpha. It could be as big as several TB...

 

I wonder if an SSD (or even an M.2) gives any benefit at all over an HDD when it comes to the scenery cache (which can be a different drive than the sim itself as far as I understand).

 

I am no expert at all, so anybody with more knowledge would you please clarify:

 

As far as I understand the concept of the scenery rendering in MSFS works like this:

Scenery data is

1. streamed from the internet

2. cached locally (if the defined cache is large enough and/or you keep flying in the same region, no streaming from the internet is needed anymore)

3. processed by the sim engine from the cache using the RAM, CPU and GPU.

 

This probably is very simplistic so please correct me if that's wrong.

 

Now in this chain of workflow it is the slowest element which defines the overall speed.

 

The ideal internet bandwidth which MSFS is optimized for is stated to be 50 Mbps - which still is significantly lower than the data transfer speed of an HDD. So the slowest part is the streaming. So isn't the HDD speed more than enough to to provide the ideal scenery data transfer speed which is 50 Mbps?

So wouldn't it be smarter to get a much larger HDD for the cache for the same price instead of a smaller SSD?

 

 

Edited by RALF9636

Share this post


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

Thanks.

It would indeed be interesting that the FS20 team gives some insights on the unexpected choice of the 9800X. The sim will have to move fast huge amounts of textures and these will partly come compressed from the MS servers. Few games have the same constraints, I suppose. Would the 9800x and its associated chipset more suitable than the top K line ?

At that point difficult to dismiss the X as an error in the announcement.

 

Time will tell if more cores will also help, with AMD's Ryzen 9 3950x having 16 core's it could be a monster if MS utilise all the cores/threads.

  • Like 1

Main PC: AMD Ryzen 3800X, GIGABYTE X570 Auros Ultra, 32GB DDR4 3200 MHz RAM, Samsung 850 EVO 500GB SSD, SAMSUNG QVO (1TB) SSD, 2 * 1 TB M.2 2280 Nvme SSD, Toshiba (4TB) HDD, WD (2TB) HDD, PALIT GTX 1070* 8 GB vRAM, CORSAIR H100i GTX Water cooler, SAITEK X55 JOYSTICK/THROTTLES, SAITEK YOKE, 2 * SAITEK throttles, SAITEK PEDALS

*Money from Grandstand seating from Silverstone F1 due to race being cancelled refunded and transferred to 30xx fund.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, eaim said:

Time will tell if more cores will also help, with AMD's Ryzen 9 3950x having 16 core's it could be a monster if MS utilise all the cores/threads.

I'm starting to lean that way myself. Had Intel CPU's my whole life but now I'm spec'ing out a Ryzen build. This is a tense moment, ranks up there when I made the Mac to PC switch 10 years ago. 

  • Like 1

Is it done yet? When will it be released? Will it be freeware or payware? How much will it be? Any updates on the progress? Will it work for FSX? What's the minimum requirements? Can I be a beta tester?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

The ideal internet bandwidth which MSFS is optimized for is stated to be 50 Mbps - which still is significantly lower than the data transfer speed of an HDD. So the slowest part is the streaming. So isn't the HDD speed more than enough to to provide the ideal scenery data transfer speed which is 50 Mbps?

So wouldn't it be smarter to get a much larger HDD for the cache for the same price instead of a smaller SSD?

Since the scenery data which is streamed is really only data, I would assume that's much less overall than what the sim has to put together on your computer, otherwise the bandwidth requirements would be a lot more if the entire scenery package were streamed. So the hard rendering work is still done locally on your machine, which is why you should still be getting better results with an SSD over an HDD, considering the sim still needs to load the cache content from the drive to depict it in the sim.

  • Like 1

Prepar3Dv5 | ASUS Maximus XI Code Z390 | i9 9900K 5 GHz | Corsair Vengeance RGB Pro 32 GB DDR4 3600 MHz | GeForce RTX 2080 Ti 11 GB GDDR6 MSI Lightning Z Windows 10 Pro 64 bit | Samsung 850 EVO 1 TB | Samsung 43'' 4K curved TV | HP Reverb 2 VR HMD | Agronn 737 Captain's Yoke | FSC 737 Throttle Quadrant | Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

 

 

So wouldn't it be smarter to get a much larger HDD for the cache for the same price instead of a smaller SSD?

 

 

If the SSD is large enough, the problem is solved.  No need for the larger HDD, I would think.


Bert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, RALF9636 said:

So wouldn't it be smarter to get a much larger HDD for the cache for the same price instead of a smaller SSD?

The official requirements don’t say anything about SSD, you can be fine with HDD, SSD is always better if you want to avoid some potential micro stutter when the drive’s head has to be repositioned to read from another part of the disc. And the size may not matter anyway if you go above certain threshold.

Edited by michal
  • Like 2

Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Krakin said:

"X" ain't 'gon give it to ya.

My favourite comment in this thread 😁


Dave

Current System (Running at 1440p): GIGABYTE Aorus GA-Z270X-Gaming 5 (rev. 1.0), i7 7700k @ 4.2Ghz, RTX2080ti, 16GB DDR4 3200 RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
  • Donation Goals

    AVSIM's 2020 Fundraising Goal

    Donate to our annual general fundraising goal. This donation keeps our doors open and providing you service 24 x 7 x 365. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. We reset this goal every new year for the following year's goal.


    22%
    $5,540.00 of $25,000.00 Donate Now
×
×
  • Create New...