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

[Sphynnx 91]

Would you guys, recommend, to replace the Intel I7 9700K@5 GHz OC  ?

I tried to OC more, couldn't do it 

Thank you 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Sphynnx

[Ixoye 1,813]

2 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

The game is not spawning enough threads to use 100% of the CPU.  So saying it's not a CPU bottleneck because the CPU use is less than 100% on some 3rd party tool is not correct.

For example on a 10-core CPU if the game spawns 2 threads, it will show 20% CPU use when those 2 cores are being fully used. 

For a 12-core CPU, it would show 16.6%.

It's entirely possible that if those 2 cores were able to run at a higher MHz value, you'd get more FPS, but still only show 20% utilization or 16% utilization since the cores are maxed out.

The correct way to see what the limiting factor is is to run on Dev Mode in MSFS and see if it says 'Limited by Main Thread' or 'Limited by GPU'. 

The game engine takes x ms of CPU time to complete a 'tick' and y ms of GPU time to render a frame, whichever is longer is going to be the bottleneck.  The dev mode display shows the exact ms times for the two operations.

I would not consider any other 3rd party information to be a good way to see where the bottleneck is. 

Well explained, it's just my experience with my I9 10900k, my overall cpu usage is about 20% but four of the 10 cores are in higher load with two of them peaking at 100% in higher density areas.

[Kilo60 660]

9 hours ago, swiesma said:

Will not matter in 4K, you will be still GPU bottlenecked.

Vermeer will also change the game again.

Guess you haven't flown the PMDG NGX in P3D at a big add on airport with a ton of AI traffic!

 

CPU 100% core one and only 70-80 GPU use...

 

PMDG AC alone Hammer the CPU like nothing else and I don't see MSFS being any different...

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by Kilo60

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

10 hours ago, Sphynnx said:

Would you guys, recommend, to replace the Intel I7 9700K@5 GHz OC  ?

I tried to OC more, couldn't do it 

Thank you 

No, keep it. You would not see tangible performance increase. 

You can wait for 12th series with DDR5 (and look at AMD next gen of course, the battle is open!)

[f4f4wildcat 1]

With my brand new Intel I5 10600k (6 cores @4.8Ghz), 32 GB RAM@3600 and my two year old GTX1080ti the results are pretty good in FS2020. Almost always getting 60 FPS (locked) with a mix of high/ultra settings, over big cities/airports high 40s-low 50s. Mainly flying GA aircraft.

[Sphynnx 91]

Thanks, MrFuzzy

I don't understand how it's working 

For example : i fly over a large city

How is doing the hard work? 

CPU or GPU ? 

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

19 minutes ago, Sphynnx said:

Thanks, MrFuzzy

I don't understand how it's working 

For example : i fly over a large city

How is doing the hard work? 

CPU or GPU ? 

If they are well balanced it will flip backwards and forwards with one hitting 100% until it finishes a job that the other is waiting on and then switch, rinse and repeat.

[Colonel X 1,428]

22 minutes ago, Sphynnx said:

Thanks, MrFuzzy

I don't understand how it's working 

For example : i fly over a large city

How is doing the hard work? 

CPU or GPU ? 

Scenery geometry is done by CPU. Test at the lowest resolution, then you'll see how hard you can push the CPU. Then add resolution and other GPU bound features (check link in my signature).

 

12 hours ago, Sphynnx said:

Would you guys, recommend, to replace the Intel I7 9700K@5 GHz OC  ?

God no, you'd add a maximum of 5-10% performance, that's mathematical, you wouldn't notice it.

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

1 hour ago, Sphynnx said:

Thanks, MrFuzzy

I don't understand how it's working 

For example : i fly over a large city

How is doing the hard work? 

CPU or GPU ? 

According to my experience and with a rather well balanced system (7700K, GTX 1080 Ti, 1440p, High settings), I am GPU limited around 60-70 fps on less populated areas, main thread (CPU) limited between 30 and 50 fps on large cities with the occasional stuttering.

The LOD sliders that regulate the distance at which objects and terrain details are rendered affect the CPU heavily. So when you have many objects (buildings, trees, vehicles) the CPU suffers more than the GPU.

AI traffic is entirely on the CPU also, but it's not as heavy as in the past.

[Oldschool61 38]

On 9/23/2020 at 4:11 AM, pstrub said:

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. 

AMD wont change the socket every other year like INtel.

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

31 minutes ago, Oldschool61 said:

AMD wont change the socket every other year like INtel.

True, but this time it seems that Rocket Lake will be compatible with Z490.

Rumors say that Ryzen 5000 is a beast (+17% IPC and higher frequencies than the 3000 series). Very interesting months ahead 🙂

[Oldschool61 38]

20 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

True, but this time it seems that Rocket Lake will be compatible with Z490.

Rumors say that Ryzen 5000 is a beast (+17% IPC and higher frequencies than the 3000 series). Very interesting months ahead 🙂

Rumors are the next gen 5000 will take the crown away from Intel for gaming.

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Leaked benchmarks from the Ryzen 7 5800X are already in existence.

So ~15% faster than the Core i9-10900K with two less cores. We don't know its clocks though (could be either a downclocked engineering sample or an overclocked review unit).

[737_800 434]

5 minutes ago, ChaoticBeauty said:

Leaked benchmarks from the Ryzen 7 5800X are already in existence.

So ~15% faster than the Core i9-10900K with two less cores. We don't know its clocks though (could be either a downclocked engineering sample or an overclocked review unit).

Link is not working! Two less cores than the 10900k or 3900k? So it has 8 cores?

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

Just now, 737_800 said:

Link is not working! Two less cores than the 10900k or 3900k? So it has 8 cores?

Here's an upload from another site, let me know if it works.

The 10900K has 10 cores while the 5800X will have 8 cores. The core counts should be similar to the Ryzen 3000 series for each tier.