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

[Chock 17,769]

1 hour ago, mtr75 said:

How is what he posted objectively wrong? The benchmarks speak for themselves. This isn't a matter of opinion. 

Because it was in relation to a thread with the title 'Intel is still the best choice for MSFS (and other games)', but it fails to include the quantifying element of pricing, which is important because the AMD alternative is still a capable choice for MSFS and other games, and is cheaper, so if you are on a limited budget, then Intel is not the best choice.

Now if the title had been prefaced with 'if money is no object, then...', I would agree it would not be objectively wrong, but since it wasn't, then it is if not complete BS, then certainly BS, since unless you are a crazy billionaire, it isn't the only criteria which matters, and even then it still isn't the only defining factor for the ideal choice, because many people use their PCs for other stuff which is better suited to the AMD stuff's stronger points, for example a lot of NLEs and 3D programs.

Edited September 26, 2020 by Chock

[Huascar 179]

i9 10900k can be overclocked to a whopping 5.5 ghz, which will give you amazing performance with a 3080 GTX 

[ChaoticBeauty 6,692]

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

They also allow you to ramp up to more cores relatively simply BUT there are some performance hits doing that.

Zen 3 will improve on those latencies with faster Infinity Fabric, 8-core CCX and new technology (patented by AMD) that will allow for direct communication between chiplets. Monolithic will still be superior, but any latency reduction will result in better gaming performance (less with other workloads), as the Ryzen 3 3300X proves.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Basically the Intel approach is in theory better but in practice the chiplet based AMD processors at 10 and 7 nm are cheaper and actually catching up with Intel in term of single thread performance.

AMD skipped straight to 7nm and did not utilise any 10nm node, though it is important to note that Intel 10nm is more similar to TSMC 7nm (as the process naming is just marketing nowadays and has been decoupled from the actual size of transistors since FinFET). On paper at least, because they had to relax the density to allow for higher clock speeds in Ice Lake and Tiger Lake. As a result the clocks are quite good now but yields are still trash, so 10nm for desktop will have to wait one more year.

12 minutes ago, Huascar said:

i9 10900k can be overclocked to a whopping 5.5 ghz, which will give you amazing performance with a 3080 GTX 

That will make for a nice furnace.

[RobJC 2,069]

The one thing i like about AMD is they are much better at not forcing you to buy a new motherboard every time a new processor comes out. You can drop the new cpu in without a complete system build many times. Maybe that is just a perception but the AM4 seems like it has a longer life than the Intel boards.

[mtr75 653]

1 hour ago, Chock said:

Because it was in relation to a thread with the title 'Intel is still the best choice for MSFS (and other games)', but it fails to include the quantifying element of pricing, which is important because the AMD alternative is still a capable choice for MSFS and other games, and is cheaper, so if you are on a limited budget, then Intel is not the best choice.

Which is all wonderful if the thread title had been 'Intel May Be Faster, but Including the Qualifying Element of Pricing, Which is Important Because the AMD Alternative is Still a Capable Choice for MSFS and Other Games, and is Cheaper'. But that wasn't the thread title. It was that Intel is the best choice for MSFS, and it's supported by the facts. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by mtr75

[EmaRacing 302]

When I bought my 3600, a 9900k costed exactly double the price, for slightly better performance.
Now the situation is the same, If I had to build another gaming pc right now I'd go AMD again, and spend what I saved for a better GPU
Intel pushed their chips to the extreme in a desperate attempt to look better on paper, obtaining power hungry chips that not only cost more, but produce more heat and will make your electricity bills much heavier.
Competition is good though, it gets us better products and lower prices.

Not being a word not allowed is the way to go, stop caring about brands, they don't care about us!

[desbean 357]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

Because it was in relation to a thread with the title 'Intel is still the best choice for MSFS (and other games)', but it fails to include the quantifying element of pricing, which is important because the AMD alternative is still a capable choice for MSFS and other games, and is cheaper, so if you are on a limited budget, then Intel is not the best choice.......

True and if someone is on a limited budget they probably aren't going to have a 2080ti or even a 3080, so the chart is even less useful for that reason.

[pstrub 998]

2 hours ago, Lotharen said:

Here's my question. Why do you need more than 40 FPS? Can't the human eye only see like 35 FPS? I've let games go hog wild and popped 130+ fps then vsynced to 60 and notice NO difference. So even if it is much high will you really notice? Also, once direct X12 drops you might just see AMD lead the pack.

I agree as far as flightsim is concerned, I'm ok with 30 fps, and more than happy with 40-60, as long as the frametimes are smooth. I'm definitely able to see differences in smoothness up to 60 fps, but I usually don't care much.

However, in fast games there's more to high fps than just the visual perception of smoothness. Latency is key here - many games can have delays between mouse input and screen output of 3 frames or more. At 30fps this translates to 0.1 second of latency, which definitely is too much for a trained player with good reflexes. I don't play games very often, and I'm well beyond my 20s, so my reflexes are far from perfect, and for me personally it doesn't make much of a difference to have framerates above 40 fps. I do understand though why it's important to gamers.

[Bosco19 198]

Many probably think they need top-end machines to even approach usable performance here. Not so! Don't get hung up in the specs battle! I have pretty moderate specs and a 24 mbps connection and it's not hard to maintain 30-40 fps. What I do notice since the last upgrade is that in busy areas I occasionally experience a complete freeze of 2-3 seconds, but I can't really say what the cause is. I achieve very convincing scenic detail that doesn't destroy my sense of immersion. Yes...get down really low and you'll be reminded of earlier MSFS versions, but everyone else is having that experience too. This software is optimized for detail from altitude - and not to impress you while you're taxiing around on the ground.

[desbean 357]

3 hours ago, Lotharen said:

Here's my question. Why do you need more than 40 FPS? Can't the human eye only see like 35 FPS? I've let games go hog wild and popped 130+ fps then vsynced to 60 and notice NO difference. So even if it is much high will you really notice? Also, once direct X12 drops you might just see AMD lead the pack.

Well, you need more than 40fps because many simmers have ultra sensitive eyes that can detect the difference between 70fps and 75fps. This keen eye-site has been acquired by thousands of hours of flying while keeping their eyes locked on the fps counter 😀.

[swiesma 625]

The higher the resolution the less CÜU limited you are. 

In 4k it doesn't matter at all and the AMD CPUs are the better allround CPUs. And Vermeer will finish Intel completely. 

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

16 hours ago, Chock said:

Because it was in relation to a thread with the title 'Intel is still the best choice for MSFS (and other games)', but it fails to include the quantifying element of pricing, which is important because the AMD alternative is still a capable choice for MSFS and other games, and is cheaper, so if you are on a limited budget, then Intel is not the best choice.

Now if the title had been prefaced with 'if money is no object, then...', I would agree it would not be objectively wrong, but since it wasn't, then it is if not complete BS, then certainly BS, since unless you are a crazy billionaire

Being the difference between the two platforms about 100-150 $ including the heatsink, I don't think it takes a "crazy billionaire" to choose Intel. In many stores the 3950X is even more expensive than the 10900K but let's say we take the 3900X and consider it equivalent...

With a framerate difference of 20-30% in MSFS and being 100-150 $ only about 5% of the price of a high end gaming PC, I still believe Intel is the best choice.

Edited September 27, 2020 by MrFuzzy

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

1 hour ago, MrFuzzy said:

In many stores the 3950X is even more expensive than the 10900K

The 3950X has 16 cores vs ten cores on the 10900K.

Also, I don't really buy the 20-30% framerate difference in this benchmark. We've seen endless reports of stuttering and massive framerate drops from people with high-end overclocked Intel rigs with 2080Ti GPUs, yet I'm having pretty much constant 30 FPS on my 3900X with a 1070Ti even when flying airliners in photogrammetry areas, at 1440p. And my CPU isn't even boosting all the way, because I have the power saving features turned on.

I don't think these benchmarks are telling the whole story, and I suspect there's other factors like RAM frequencies in play here.

Edited September 27, 2020 by Der Zeitgeist

[MrFuzzy 2,118]

The numbers say that the average framerates and the bottom 1% framerates are much higher for Intel CPUs. This is perfectly in line with:

• The current CPU usage limitations of MSFS - i.e. the "main thread issue"
• The much higher frequency Intel CPUs are capable of: a single core manages the "main thread" better at 5 GHz than at 4 GHz

I don't understand why you don't believe these numbers, really. They make perfect sense and more than a website reported this. Things may change with DX12, we will see.

The occasional stutters are not detected in these stats, they would probably contribute to the 0.1% lows or even 0.01% and they occur both with AMD and Intel.

Finally, if your CPU is capable of running the sim between 39 and 48 fps and you cap your framerate at 30 fps, you will certainly have constant performance, except for the occasional stutters that everybody sees, regardless of the CPU and GPU they have, and you recognize it defining it "pretty much" constant.

 

[Irontower-x 0]

There is one aspect that maybe is not realy regoniced by benchmarks because the latest Intel cpus are using a throtteling that gets active after ~1 min and can decrease performance for ~16%. Intel knows that their cpus are running at the limit and the most benchmarks didn't run longer than this...

Would be interessting what the cpu are running after one hour.

here some tests from computerbase

https://www.computerbase.de/2020-05/intel-core-i9-10900k-i5-10600k-test/2/#abschnitt_core_i910900kf_mit_deutlichen_verlusten