I am about to pull the trigger on a new build and have 2 specific to MSFS questions...

 

1) The i9-10900K says it has a speed of 3.7 GHZ but a turbo speed of 5.2 Ghz.

 

My now ancient PC has a speed of 4.0 turbo to 4.2....will the new one basically run at 5.2 Ghz in CPU limited situations?  I don’t want to spend $2400 on a build that is slower, if that makes sense?

 

2) The card will be a RX 6800 (not an XT) vs the 3080 because after seeing nothing but blurries in XP11 with my 1070 8GB card in True Earth areas aka anything that is Ortho and nice looking I’m very fearful that 10GB won’t be enough.  Does anyone use the plain RX 6800 16GB card with MSFS and how is the performance?

Thanks,

Steve

The actual clock speed the 10900K runs at is based on a number of factors including your motherboard VRM configuration, cooling solution, and BIOS settings. What motherboard and cooler will you be using, and what is the model of your current CPU? It’s important to remember that clock speed is only one factor determining performance. A newer CPU will likely be much faster even if the clock speed is only marginally better because of an increased IPC (instructions per clock). For example, CPU A could run at 3.8GHz and CPU B runs at 4.0 GHz. If CPU A can execute twice the instructions per clock it will be much faster despite lagging behind in clock speed.

A 10GB VRAM capacity will probably be enough for the next few years. If you keep your cards longer then you should consider a card with more VRAM. You may find that you’ll have to reduce texture quality three years from now with a 10 GB card.

1 hour ago, Republic DC9 said:

I am about to pull the trigger on a new build and have 2 specific to MSFS questions...

 

1) The i9-10900K says it has a speed of 3.7 GHZ but a turbo speed of 5.2 Ghz.

 

My now ancient PC has a speed of 4.0 turbo to 4.2....will the new one basically run at 5.2 Ghz in CPU limited situations?  I don’t want to spend $2400 on a build that is slower, if that makes sense?

 

2) The card will be a RX 6800 (not an XT) vs the 3080 because after seeing nothing but blurries in XP11 with my 1070 8GB card in True Earth areas aka anything that is Ortho and nice looking I’m very fearful that 10GB won’t be enough.  Does anyone use the plain RX 6800 16GB card with MSFS and how is the performance?

Thanks,

Steve

The 10900K will typically run at 4900 MHz all core in MSFS. Don't look only at the frequency though, Comet Lake also has a higher IPC than its predecessors.

I am not sure about the cause of the blurries in XP11 but MSFS is different and 10 GB VRAM are more than enough even for 4K resolution. Get a 3080 if you're lucky enough to find one, you will enjoy it also in the future when the sim will support RTX.

Happy new year!

Rocking a ryzen 7 3800x and a rtx 3070... as worried as i was about vram, the 30 series cards absolutely handles vr better than I expected after a test run with a 1660 ti let me down. Good luck getting a 3080 but dont let vram be the sole selling point.

Thanks for the feedback guys - I’ll try to go with the 3080!
 

Steve

37 minutes ago, Republic DC9 said:

Thanks for the feedback guys - I’ll try to go with the 3080!
 

Steve

Steve,

Based on my tests, I'd recommend a card with at least 16gigs of vRAM if you want to run at ultra. I've seen over 10 with a high end setting at cities like London.

17 hours ago, DJJose said:

Steve,

Based on my tests, I'd recommend a card with at least 16gigs of vRAM if you want to run at ultra. I've seen over 10 with a high end setting at cities like London.

This happens with inconsiderate addons taken from Google Maps... or did you see it with the default scenery too? At what resolution? 
Thanks!

17 hours ago, DJJose said:

Steve,

Based on my tests, I'd recommend a card with at least 16gigs of vRAM if you want to run at ultra. I've seen over 10 with a high end setting at cities like London.

Probably true if you fly in the larger cities. I've got a 2060 right now, and I'll probably just go for a 2070, 2080, or maybe a 3070 that is more reasonably priced.

 

Edited January 1, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

3 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

This happens with inconsiderate addons taken from Google Maps... or did you see it with the default scenery too? At what resolution? 
Thanks!

1080P resolution, Default City with ORBX EGLC add-on. I chose London because even with default vRAM is high with a high-end setting. Those running on 4K will need even more vRAM or they should not be surprised by CTDs when running at high settings.

DX12 is also coming to MSFS. vRAM will be even more important.

In the end I ordered the i9-10900K and the RX 6800 as the 6800s FPS scores on higher settings didn’t seem that bad compared to the 3080 etc. and certainly better than my current 1070 8GB and I’m very spooked about having enough VRAM.

I primarily use MSFS but also may want to go back and use the $$$$ I’ve sunk into XP11 and P3D if I can run them properly.

XP11 looks great with silky smooth FPS under Vulkan until it suddenly drops all the textures into a smudgy mess, P3Dv5 is the same until on approach to certain nice airports in my beloved Shorts 360 when suddenly FLASH! and a texture reload and I no longer have enhanced atmospherics due to BRAM starvation.

I use a Samsung 50” TV as my monitor and running MSFS at 4096x2160 BUT (important) render scaled at 60 (2457x1296) works pretty good on my rig about 38 FPS but I still get stutters in MSFS as Seattle loads in when approaching from the South and I’d definitely like to increase some settings and have an overall smoother more fluid experience.

My current rig is an old Dell non-gaming machine that I stuffed a 1070 into and in  reality even P3D would struggle to load textures (black runways) and XP11 gives me nothing but blue triangles in the distance when at any kind of altitude so there is something fundamentally wrong with my machine (at any reasonable settings) that a proper gaming rig will hopefully fix (going for more than my 16GB of memory this time too).

 

 

 

 

 

The RX 6800 is the better choice for MSFS.

For those who are wondering about vRAM & system RAM usage with a 1080P monitor I posted some pics here:

 

Edited January 1, 20215 yr by DJJose

52 minutes ago, DJJose said:

1080P resolution, Default City with ORBX EGLC add-on. I chose London because even with default vRAM is high with a high-end setting. Those running on 4K will need even more vRAM or they should not be surprised by CTDs when running at high settings.

DX12 is also coming to MSFS. vRAM will be even more important.

Mmmh... I am seeing 9.2 GB on 1440p / Ultra in EGLC area. You may be right, I am looking at 3090s now LOL.

11 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

You may be right

LOL

23 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

The 10900K will typically run at 4900 MHz all core in MSFS. Don't look only at the frequency though, Comet Lake also has a higher IPC than its predecessors.

I am not sure about the cause of the blurries in XP11 but MSFS is different and 10 GB VRAM are more than enough even for 4K resolution. Get a 3080 if you're lucky enough to find one, you will enjoy it also in the future when the sim will support RTX.

Happy new year!

10GB is definitely not enough for 4k, you might get away with it today, but once more add ons are used and complex aircraft, !'d say 16GB is the lowest point to future proof Vram requirements. For me the options are 6800 GPU's,3090 or in the near future try getting your hands on a 3080TI or even 3070TI if the Vram is sufficient.

I ran some tests to see what the Vram performance was like in MSFS and I was rather disappointed that 10GB wasn't anywhere near enough Vram for the sim at 4k. Luckily I done these test's before I managed to source a 3080, for once I done my homework before spending my hard earned money that should of had more Vram when launched.

Edited January 1, 20215 yr by eaim

Exact reason I opted for a 3090. Everyone said that it’s only 10% faster. I’ll take an extra 10% AND shed loads more vram thanks.