Intel is still the best choice for MSFS (and other games)

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

For those who are thinking of upgrading, please see this review: https://www.techspot.com/article/2103-amd-vs-intel-rtx-3080/

 

[ThrottleUp 618]

Quote

A really bad case for Ryzen can be seen with Microsoft’s Flight Simulator 2020. Bizarrely this brand new next-gen simulator uses DirectX 11 and for the most part heavily relies on single threaded performance. The game is expected to receive DX12 support in the near future and if true that could turn things around for CPU performance, but for now the CPU is the primary bottleneck at 1440p and below.

I found this bit very interesting. I dont own MSFS yet and plan to upgrade my ancient 12yr old PC (see my sig) over the next 4 months. I will wait to see what the Ryzen 4000 series perform like and then make the call. As of now Intel has taken the top spot on my list. 

[Paladin2005 440]

Its exactly like in the "old" FSX and P3D times:

CPU is decisive for the FPS. The GPU only for some eye candy (Antialiasing, texture quality).

[SierraHotel 982]

Complete BS

[jaydor 233]

12 minutes ago, SierraHotel said:

Complete BS

Agree

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

27 minutes ago, jaydor said:

Agree

Others reported the same with the 2080 Ti (and even the 5700XT) at launch.

They are just numbers guys, Intel CPUs are more expensive anyway. No need to get upset.

https://www.tomshardware.com/features/microsoft-flight-simulator-benchmarks-performance-system-requirements

Edited September 23, 2020 by MrFuzzy

[Ricardo41 5,954]

Intel vs. AMD, AMD vs. Nvidia. Here we go again. Threads like this one usually don't end well.

[GSalden 4,665]

9 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Intel vs. AMD, AMD vs. Nvidia. Here we go again. Threads like this one usually don't end well.

We just have to accept it and move on ... 🤓

[Colonel X 1,430]

It's been the same for a long time. Intel leads the race for a premium price. Sometime later, AMD will come up with a comparable performing CPU for a smaller price. Since MSFS doesn't need more than 6-8 cores, AMD's big advantage of many cores for good value doesn't really work here. 

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

6 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

It's been the same for a long time. Intel leads the race for a premium price. Sometime later, AMD will come up with a comparable performing CPU for a smaller price. Since MSFS doesn't need more than 6-8 cores, AMD's big advantage of many cores for good value doesn't really work here. 

This assumes that people use their PCs exclusively for Flight Simulator.

Overall, a high core-count AMD Zen 2 (and even more so with Zen 3, probably) is pretty much a no-brainer for people building a new gaming PC in 2020.

I myself couldn't be happier with how my 3900X performs with MSFS.

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

38 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Intel vs. AMD, AMD vs. Nvidia. Here we go again. Threads like this one usually don't end well.

Yep it is a bit like bringing up Celtic versus Rangers in a pub full of Scotsmen and expecting a civil conversation. Or GM versus Ford at a swap meet for that matter.

[Nedo68 533]

no difference at 4k.

[Colonel X 1,430]

25 minutes ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

This assumes that people use their PCs exclusively for Flight Simulator.

True, however one would be hard pressed to find an application that makes use of 8+ cores. I use a Mac for work (6 core i7), and the single application that makes these 12 threads work is Cinema 4D.

[pstrub 998]

On average less than 10% difference at 1080p, less at higher resolutions. MSFS is an outlier with its ~20% difference. I'm happy with MSFS running on my Ryzen 3900X, but if I were to buy a system specifically for flight simulation, Intel still seems a better choice. This may change in early October though when AMD introduces their Zen 3 line-up, but we'll see.

It's good to see a stronger competition in the CPU market. Before Ryzen, AMD went through some dire years, but closing in on Intel to within 10-20% for single-threaded workloads and overtaking them in multi-threading was the best thing to happen to the customers. 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

12 minutes ago, Colonel X said:

True, however one would be hard pressed to find an application that makes use of 8+ cores. I use a Mac for work (6 core i7), and the single application that makes these 12 threads work is Cinema 4D.

Maybe not in home use or gaming. I am in the process of ordering a new system for work with two Xeon Gold 6248R (24C/48T for 96 threads total) and 1.5 TB of Ram with the capability to add up to 4 A100 tesla and it is going to need every bit of it. We also looked at AMD (the software will not work with them), Xeon Platinums (way too pricey) and the 28 core 6258R (base speed to low) . The main concern is it will still be too slow, the clients want same day genetic analysis and given the size of the data sets it is borderline as to whether this system can achieve that.

However it is horses for courses, For flight simulation an i7 or Ryzen 3900 may well be faster than this $40,000 server I am ordering.