Hello Gentlemen,

I have been dragging along with "mediocre" PCs for many years and want to put an end to that now that I can afford it. Would really appreciate your input on this build as, although I don't mind spending this much money, I don't want to needlessly waste it either. Or maybe there are better alternatives for the same price with some of the components I picked.

The idea is having a PC for flight simulation, primarily X-Plane but maybe also FS2020 etc., that will last at least 5 years with no or maybe only minor upgrades (RAM etc.).

I want this build to be good for three 1080p displays or one 4k display. 

Thank you kindly in advance,

 

It looks a good spec. Just three points...

1) Swap Crucial 2666Mhz memory for GSkill 3200Mhz. Faster and better quality.

2) Hang fire if you're not desperate because the Nvidia 3000 cards will be out in the next few months and will be cheaper & faster than the 2000 series.

3) I notice you didn't include an OS. Windows 10 Pro is recommended.

You need to decide on 3 monitors at FullHD or one for UHD. I've had UHD for 18 months now and love the crispness it brings. Personal choice of course. Have you thought about whether a 43" TV would be a good alternative to multiple displays as performance is always better with one display.

11 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

It looks a good spec. Just three points...

1) Swap Crucial 2666Mhz memory for GSkill 3200Mhz. Faster and better quality.

2) Hang fire if you're not desperate because the Nvidia 3000 cards will be out in the next few months and will be cheaper & faster than the 2000 series.

3) I notice you didn't include an OS. Windows 10 Pro is recommended.

You need to decide on 3 monitors at FullHD or one for UHD. I've had UHD for 18 months now and love the crispness it brings. Personal choice of course. Have you thought about whether a 43" TV would be a good alternative to multiple displays as performance is always better with one display.

Thanks for the fast reply Ray!

1) Dully noted on the RAM, thanks!

2) How is it that they will be cheaper? I tried to find a 1080TI as it has 11GB of VRAM, over a 2070 Super. Do you reckon I should buy this build with no GPU and try and get the GPU elsewhere (Amazon etc.) Don't even know if PCSpecialist will sell me the tower without a GPU.

2a) I am quite desperate to be honest as with the lockdown I am spending a lot of time at home, flying in the sim while I wait to get my real CPL done, and it's extremely frustrating to fly on my current i7 860/GTX770 with 25-30 FPS dropping to below 20 FPS on medium-low settings when a new cloud layer is drawn...

3) Yes, I will install Windows 10 Pro, I do have a licence already on my old PC so no point buying a new one.

Regarding monitors, haven't thought too much on that -all I have had for the last 10 years is a single 1080p 22" LG monitor which really needs an upgrade. I want to have the capability to triple-display if I wanted to in the future. But I believe for practical reasons (moving flat etc.), I would go for a single UHD initially. Size I was thinking is 27", IPS, 4k. 

Thanks again, regards from Oxfordshire!

Edited May 5, 20206 yr by Alpha Floor

Hi Jaime,

You won't find a 1080Ti new as the 2000 series replaced it. Around that time BitCoin 'miners' were buying the 1080Ti in ridiculous numbers pushing up the price and making them very scarce. Don't buy one second-hand unless you know its history. i.e., used by a flight simmer or gamer and not a 'miner'.

These companies will give you a better deal with a graphics card included. Whilst the 2070 Super is a decent card if you want a system to last you 5 years the choice of graphics card will be crucial especially for MFS and for multiple displays if you go down that route.

Here's a comparison between the 2070 Super and the 1080Ti. Not a vast difference but the 11Gb of the 1080Ti will always be preferred to the 8Gb of the 2070 Super. https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-RTX-2070S-Super-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1080-Ti/4048vs3918

The 3000 series should be cheaper because the cost of the 2000Ti especially was ridiculous. Expect more memory (16Gb+) for probably less money but not sure how much. But if you can't wait then the 2070 Super is probably your best choice because the 2080 Super is not much faster for another £250.

Just one point about your 10 licence. If it's an OEM then technically it's locked to your old PC but Microsoft will generally unlock it for a new motherboard. Likely but not guaranteed. If you have a full version then that doesn't apply of course.

Have you looked at Chillblast? I bought mine from them and they allow full customisation for each component.

Thanks again Ray!

I would like the 1080Ti but I think I can settle on the 2070 Super for now and then upgrade to a better card in 3 to 5 years if necessary.

I worry more about the CPU being the best I can get for flight simulation at the moment.In this regard I believe fewer but faster cores is better.

Regarding M.2 drives, do you reckon they are worth it for simulation or are loading times barely noticeable compared to "normal" SSDs? If overkill I may just have one 250 GB M.2 for the OS and an SSD 2TB for the simulators.

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have you looked at Chillblast? I bought mine from them and they allow full customisation for each component.

Looking now. They don't seem to offer the i9 10900 as a CPU. They also appear to be more expensive.

Regards,

Jaime

 

Hi Jaime,

I can't find the i9-10900X on this comparison site but the i9-10980HK must be quite similar and the performance difference with a i7-9700K is small. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700K-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10980HK/4030vsm1065893

This Chillblast gives you a 2080Ti and i7-9700K overclocked to 4.9 but only 16Gb RAM when 32Gb is better long-term. I suppose when you're paying that much a couple of hundred either way isn't significant. Just decide if the slightly faster CPU is preferable to a faster GPU. Personally I'd go with the faster GPU. 32Gb RAM will be important for MFS.

https://www.chillblast.com/chillblast-fusion-nimbus-5-flight-sim-pc-designed-by-matt-davies.html?category_id=672

M2 drives are faster but I cope with just one for the OS and a standard Samsung EVO SSD 1Gb for P3D. Don't think that would be a problem for you.

The extra you're paying for the i9-10900X could pay for the 2080Ti but it's your choice. Personally, I think the extra 3Gb memory on the card will be better for P3Dv5 and MFS than the fastest CPU available. Others with more knowledge may care to advise. Bear in mind too the Chillblast runs at 4.9, slightly faster than 4.7 on yours.

Have you decided on your monitors yet? The choice of GPU will be important there.

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

The extra you're paying for the i9-10900X could pay for the 2080Ti but it's your choice.

My rationale being that I'd rather upgrade the GPU 3-5 years down the line rather than having to change the CPU and hence the entire system. CPU drives motherboard, motherboard drives case etc. In my very limited PC knowledge, if you change the CPU you might as well buy a new PC...

So I'd rather have the best CPU I can so it's not a factor in the next 5 years, maybe longer. I've had my i7 860 for 10 years...

The question now is whether I should break the 2.5k mark and go towards 3k and a 2080Ti. I believe the right thing here is buy the "cheap" card, 2070 Super, and then upgrade to a 3000 Series with 11GB of VRAM a while from now, once they are available and "affordable".

7 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Have you decided on your monitors yet? The choice of GPU will be important there.

Indeed. Would like the capability for single monitor 4k. IPS, size 27". Ideally a second 1080p monitor just for auxiliary tasks while the simulator runs in full screen on the main monitor. If this is too much to ask, I wouldn't mind settling in on a dual 1080p system (one for flying, the other for everything else).

For flight sims the better CPU choice would be the i9-9900k, I think. It gives you slightly more single- and multi-core performance and costs even a bit less. 10900x would be the better workstation CPU, I believe.

25 minutes ago, Alpha Floor said:

My rationale being that I'd rather upgrade the GPU 3-5 years down the line rather than having to change the CPU and hence the entire system. CPU drives motherboard, motherboard drives case etc. In my very limited PC knowledge, if you change the CPU you might as well buy a new PC...

So I'd rather have the best CPU I can so it's not a factor in the next 5 years, maybe longer. I've had my i7 860 for 10 years...

The question now is whether I should break the 2.5k mark and go towards 3k and a 2080Ti. I believe the right thing here is buy the "cheap" card, 2070 Super, and then upgrade to a 3000 Series with 11GB of VRAM a while from now, once they are available and "affordable".

Indeed. Would like the capability for single monitor 4k. IPS, size 27". Ideally a second 1080p monitor just for auxiliary tasks while the simulator runs in full screen on the main monitor. If this is too much to ask, I wouldn't mind settling in on a dual 1080p system (one for flying, the other for everything else).

I can’t argue with your logic on the CPU but see the post from MagentaChild below. I paid £3K for my system 18 months ago and feel it still has years of life left in it. More processing is being moved from CPU to the GPU with P3D and MFS. Any of the i7 or i9 should be fine.

The only proviso about future graphics cards is the relevant power connectors are available for them.

Don't consider a UHD monitor below 32”. You just won’t see the benefit.

One other thing to consider is to keep your existing computer and buy WideFS. That will allow you to run moving map software and ATC programs like Radar Contact with separate displays and not using CPU power for the simulator. Networking PCs is very easy.

 

1 hour ago, MagentaChild said:

For flight sims the better CPU choice would be the i9-9900k, I think. It gives you slightly more single- and multi-core performance and costs even a bit less. 10900x would be the better workstation CPU, I believe.

Thanks! As with the 1080Ti, I would go for the 9900k if it was available.

By the way, what about AMD? Are they out of the question for flight simulators still?

The same system as on the first post but with an AMD Ryzen 3900X would cost about 200 GBP less. It's 12 cores as opposed to 10 with the i9, and the frequencies are slightly higher too. Opinions?

Here is a video analysis of AMD for X-Plane and comparison with Intel:

 

I don't have X-Plane so can't comment on what CPUs are best for it. But just looking at that chart the Intels are going to give you better fps. I haven't watched the video as I'm currently in the air. Sim of course.

The only advice I would give is which sim of XP or MFS is going to be your primary one? Set your hardware for that but in all honesty with the kind of kit you're planning fps will be excellent in both.

Ryzen is a very good CPU, but not on par in terms of single-core performance with Intel yet. I expect flight sims in the future (XP beyond 11.50 and MSFS) to leverage more cores better than they do now, so Ryzen 3900x might be the better choice in the long-term. Short-term Intel still wins by a small margin.

Geez, I am now doubting whether I should go for the AMD 3900x rather than the i9 10900x, as the Intel seems to be getting so much bad press as a "disappointing" chip compared to both the 9900k and the 3900x... And I would put in a 2080S with the money saved.

I guess if I go AMD I would be betting that flight simulator will make better use of multi-core CPUs in the coming few months/years. If I go Intel I am expecting single-core performacing to remain king. Tough calls...

Jaime, if you look at the recommended specs for both X-Plane and MFS you’ll see that providing you have 32Gb RAM your proposed system will be fine in both.

https://www.x-plane.com/kb/x-plane-11-system-requirements/

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/microsoft-flight-simulator-system-requirements/