5 hours ago, EasternT3 said:

16GB DDR4 2666MHz

Beyond the other comments, I would seriously think about doubling this.  You can run MSFS in 16GB fine, but it doesn't leave you much room for anything else once you start loading in complex scenery.   RAM is cheap now, I can't think of a reason other than a need to keep things to a bare minimum for going with less than 32GB in a new system.

Edited November 30, 20205 yr by kaosfere

-AMD Ryzen 5 5600X / INTEL I7 10700K

-RTX 3070 / RTX 3080 / RX 6800 / RX 6800 XT

-32GB

-SSD WINDOWS

-SSD SIM

-PSU 750

5 hours ago, EasternT3 said:

Hi All,

I am looking at getting a new computer for MSFS 2020, I have found one on Chillblast PCs, it’s called the Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 4 Flight Sim PC. 

The important specs are;

Processor

• Intel Core i7-9700K Coffee Lake Processor (Overclocked by up to 20%)
• 12MB L3 Cache

CPU Cooler

• Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler

Motherboard

• Asus STRIX Z390-F Gaming Motherboard

Memory

• 16GB DDR4 2666MHz
• Configuration 2 x 8GB
• Dual Channel Support on 2 DIMMs
• 4 x DIMM Slot

Graphics

• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super 8GB Graphics Card

Power Supply

• Corsair CX750 750W 80 PLUS PSU

Are these specs good enough to run MSFS on at least medium settings (streaming live data) at KJFK (found this is the most frame intensive area) with good FPS?

Regards

I just built (as in last week) a rig very similar to this. I9-9900kf running on the ASUS ROG Strix z390-F. Overclocked to 5.1Ghz with no problem. I would agree with the comments about your AIO cooler being too small. I have an Arctic Freeze 240 and temps never go over 75C running 5.1Ghz. And, consider 32G of RAM, you will need it later. Hope this helps.

PS I am running an EVGA GTX 1080 Hybrid GPU at 4K on a 43" monitor. I don't fly around NYC but in SOCAL, the FPS rarely go under 35 with high 60s away from LAX. MSFS selected settings "HIGH" when I installed and I have not changed that.

 

Edited November 30, 20205 yr by yurei

Ultimately up to you. Also resolution 1080p? And in the description it says tested running the other sim's, but no mention of MSFS. Having said that my PC and a 1080 monitor, I can run medium to high in bush type country. I very seldom fly at bigger airports, but when I do, Medium settings is fine for a quick A320 trip. Really it depends on what you expect? I am guessing this new rig is way better than your existing one?

Have fun, and enjoy your new purchase! Which ever one you decide on.

7 hours ago, EasternT3 said:

Hi All,

I am looking at getting a new computer for MSFS 2020, I have found one on Chillblast PCs, it’s called the Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 4 Flight Sim PC. 

The important specs are;

Processor

• Intel Core i7-9700K Coffee Lake Processor (Overclocked by up to 20%)
• 12MB L3 Cache

CPU Cooler

• Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler

Motherboard

• Asus STRIX Z390-F Gaming Motherboard

Memory

• 16GB DDR4 2666MHz
• Configuration 2 x 8GB
• Dual Channel Support on 2 DIMMs
• 4 x DIMM Slot

Graphics

• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super 8GB Graphics Card

Power Supply

• Corsair CX750 750W 80 PLUS PSU

Are these specs good enough to run MSFS on at least medium settings (streaming live data) at KJFK (found this is the most frame intensive area) with good FPS?

Regards

 

I have the 2060 non-super, i5 8400 and 32GB ram and it handles ultra on 1440p most places but drops to maybe 10 fps holding short at O'Hare or JFK on ULTRA settings.

Simple answer -- yes on medium settings up to 1440p you will have no issues. At 4K, whilst I literally have no idea as do not have a 4K monitor, I suspect it may also do OK on medium, but definitely not Ultra

 

 

Detailed answer -

Processor

• Intel Core i7-9700K  is fine

CPU Cooler

• Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler

This will work fine though a touch small for an i9  BUT an AIO is not necessary unless it is a super small case with bad airflow even if you mildly overclock - a good HSF will outperform and be more reliable than any AIO if you have a normal sized case. Now a custom loop is another matter but you need to know what you are doing for those.

The only time an AIO is substantially better than a good HSF is if you are trying to cram a mini - ITX gaming rig into a super small case with poor airflow. even then if you are building a small case for travel you cannot take it onto flights as carry on luggage with a liquid cooler mounted.

Just fit a NH-D15 and be done with it

Motherboard

• Asus STRIX Z390-F Gaming Motherboard

I have an Asus motherboard, aside from their RGB software being cr@ptastic if you like lighting up your rig like a xmas tree, they are otherwise good quality 

Memory

• 16GB DDR4 2666MHz

memory is way cheap these days,  go for 32GB, my system uses up to 28Gb of ram at times at 1440p .

With an Intel CPU the speed does not matter (AMD are seriously nerfed by slow ram but basically intel processors do not care about ram speed that much)

Graphics

• NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 Super 8GB Graphics Card

Acceptable card but to be honest I would wait and pay the extra for the RTX 3060 due out this week, You may not get your hands on one one before mid Q1 2021 though, they are likely to sell out.

Power Supply

• Corsair CX750 750W 80 PLUS PSU

This is a quite old design, budget priced bronze supply and not modular but has an OK rep.  I would say good enough for the current specs but if you are going with the 2060 with intentions of upgrade to a 3080 or 3090 later be aware it will probably need replacing if you eventually put in a bigger GPU .

TL&DR

- upgrade to 32GB ram
- consider using an NH15 aircooler instead of water unless you expect airflow issues
- consider waiting and getting a RTX 3060

Edited December 1, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

More info on 3060...the ti version is faster than the 2080 Super

https://www.neowin.net/news/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-faster-than-the-rtx-2080-super-for-399

 

1 hour ago, DylanM said:

More info on 3060...the ti version is faster than the 2080 Super

https://www.neowin.net/news/nvidia-announces-the-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-faster-than-the-rtx-2080-super-for-399

 

But it is Microsoft Flight Simulator that truly represents the most brutal maxed-out performance testing here at the tail end of 2020. Even the 2080 only barely reaches 60fps with “high-end” settings (not quite MaxQ).

Microsoft Flight Simulator
1440 ULTRA (MaxQ)
• RTX 3060 Ti: 32 fps
• RTX 3070: 38 fps
• RTX 3080: 47 fps
1440 HIGH-END
• RTX 3060 Ti: 38 fps
• RTX 3070: 45 fps
• RTX 3080: 60 fps
2160 ULTRA (MaxQ)
• RTX 3060 Ti: 28 fps
• RTX 3070: 34 fps
• RTX 3080: 43 fps
2160 HIGH-END
• RTX 3060 Ti: 35 fps
• RTX 3070: 42 fps
• RTX 3080: 57 fps

Each of the benchmark results shown above represent performance of each graphics card in the same machine with the most updated NVIDIA drivers available.

I think pricing of the new RTX3070 is in the same pricing ballpark as the 2060 series. Right now that seems to be the card offering most bang for buck and long term investment value. 

I'd get 32 GB RAM but rig looks great for 1080P with high settings!

I get about 28 fps Ultra in New York skyscraper district with 3600 Ryzen and Super 2060 1080p monitor using the ultra preset in the sim. I have never seen any need to not use Ultra on everything. f.p.s. is not an issue anywhere in any plane. Zero stutters.

No stutters implies that the f.p.s. is not varying, not that the f.p.s. is necessarily especially fast. Really slide show slow framerates is a constant every present jerkiness that is not the same thing as stutters. You can have stutters with the best vid card and c.p.u. in the world.

If I was to stay with such a low resolution monitory, 1080p, then I would not really covet a better c.p.u. nor g.p.u. I simply don't need them. On the other hand, with a high res monitor, my system would not give a decent showing, barely playable in fact, on ultra settings.

 

26 minutes ago, Fielder said:

 On the other hand, with a high res monitor, my system would not give a decent showing, barely playable in fact, on ultra settings.

 

My 2060 can handle downtown NYC reasonably well on 1440 ultra but struggles at JFK .

Get the most powerful pc you can afford. It still won’t be enough. 

I’ve got a 9700K and a 3090 with 32GB of RAM and play at 4K. I get 40-50fps until photogrammetry or custom scenery starts to load and FPS goes downhill quickly due to being main thread limited. I need more CPU. 

As for RAM, tonight I was in London with some free add-on scenery and my RAM utilization was around 20-26GB. But the CPU was unable to cope with all that data and the GPU was twiddling its thumbs. 

I think a 9700K is going to be ok for 1440p but if you want 4K, you need a hyper threading beast like a 10900K or a Ryzen 5800/5900x. 

I just took of in A320 (setting full ultra) from JFK flew out and back same AP.

Was surprised to see 24 f.p.s. not used to seeing any thing that low (I have always flown on Ultra settings, there are no stutters so why not)?

So yes JFK is cutting performance. Usually 29 is lowest I see.

Still no stutter nor issues.

Every online test shows systems similar to mine have no issues on HD monitors (1080p) anywhere in MSFS, so my result no big surprise.

Some folks just ignore the 1080p online tests and are looking at 4K charts where a system like is mine is sort of a joke. At 1440K I would likely have issues at JFK too, but would not be a joke. I would turn the settings down from Ultra with 1440K.

Hi res sharpness is always better! In every sim and game.