AMD is potentially more bang for buck if you care about that but Intel are more stable with less issues.

Which is why AMD are popular among gamers and regarded as unclean, possessed and plague ridden in Enterprise.  AMD penetration into the enterprise market is very low.

That said -  whilst yes there is a lot of bespoke high end software that still does not work with AMD in the enterprise area, particularly in machine learning and statistics (I spent $50,000 on our most recent server instead of $35000 for an equivalent AMD system for just that reason ) -  if we are talking gaming then AMD these days has a lot less issues than it has had in the past and seems stable, you would be unlucky to have issues in most games.

To be honest though AMD versus Intel is a bit like Ford versus Chevy or Samsung versus iPhone, the differences are exaggerated. Get what is available and suits your budget and ignore the brand hype.

in terms of i9-11900k and i9-10900k the 10900K has more cores but the per core performance of the 11900K on paper is better. that which suggests the 11900K might be the better solution for MSFS.  Look for YouTube reviews someone has probably tested it.

 

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

50 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Well if you want something with less performance, get one of the Intels.. 😄 Slow is not so bad.

 

Slow? Hardly for what I do and thats mostly for gaming. Let's not turn this into an AMD vs Intel thing. I see where you're going with this and I'm not feeding into it.

55 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

AMD is potentially more bang for buck if you care about that but Intel are more stable with less issues.

When it comes to processors, that may have been accurate over a decade ago, but they are incredibly stable, powerful and efficient now (I know of many high perf mission critical systems that run them now). And it's in the Xbox and PS5.

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by DylanM

a small hint, i run AMD 5950x on main sim its better then the 10900k equal to the 11900k i was lucky to have test the 11900 before it released not under NDA now, probaly i change to intel soon after start testing ddr5 but cant say anyting yet.

To be honest start with the GPU , the cpu is not that critical very small dif even to amd 3xxx series or intel from 8700k compared to the newest cpus

if you sit on a 8700k or newer cpu is a waste to uppgrade now very late to the table with ddr4 when much faster things is close to be released and the new standard for MSFS

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by westman

8 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

4790K @ 4.4GHz - she's on her last leg though...get's pretty toasty in the summer hehe.  I also have 32GB of ram which nice cause I'm always running lots of other apps at the same time.

Almost same setup (I7-4770K@4,4) and i was pretty amazed yesterday with latest SU6. Did some early test around Sydney with ORBX installed in the Piper PA28 Turbo and capped @25HZ was very smooth . 

MSFS is all VFR with this old machine but it do shine . 

I fired up the FBW320 at FT EKCH and it still hold the 25HZ but VRAM was at 11GB (ouch) 4K@scale 70%

Graphics mostly Ultra and terrain LOD 200

Amazing

Michael Moe

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by Michael Moe

10 hours ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

Just curious, I’m looking at a new system and I have a couple in mind, but generally speaking, if you had to choose, would you prefer a better GPU with a lesser cpu or a better cpu with a lesser GPU? 
Thanks

Buy a new PC, it's not worth upgrading yours honestly.

3 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

AMD is potentially more bang for buck if you care about that but Intel are more stable with less issues.

Which is why AMD are popular among gamers and regarded as unclean, possessed and plague ridden in Enterprise.  AMD penetration into the enterprise market is very low.

That said -  whilst yes there is a lot of bespoke high end software that still does not work with AMD in the enterprise area, particularly in machine learning and statistics (I spent $50,000 on our most recent server instead of $35000 for an equivalent AMD system for just that reason ) -  if we are talking gaming then AMD these days has a lot less issues than it has had in the past and seems stable, you would be unlucky to have issues in most games.

To be honest though AMD versus Intel is a bit like Ford versus Chevy or Samsung versus iPhone, the differences are exaggerated. Get what is available and suits your budget and ignore the brand hype.

in terms of i9-11900k and i9-10900k the 10900K has more cores but the per core performance of the 11900K on paper is better. that which suggests the 11900K might be the better solution for MSFS.  Look for YouTube reviews someone has probably tested it.

 

10900K vs 11900K in FS 2020 :

https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/22357949/intel-core-i9-11900k-review

13 hours ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

Just curious, I’m looking at a new system and I have a couple in mind, but generally speaking, if you had to choose, would you prefer a better GPU with a lesser cpu or a better cpu with a lesser GPU? 
Thanks

Why do you need a new system?

I'm wondering why nobody is mentioning the upcoming Intel Alder Lake processors. The i9-12000 Series processors should arrive by the end of the year or even earlier. On tech sites they got very good pre-release reviews.

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by Nemo

5 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Why do you need a new system?

I don’t absolutely need one, and not going to rush into getting one, but I’m starting to ponder an upgrade, something with a little more horsepower. 

3 hours ago, Nemo said:

I'm wondering why nobody is mentioning the upcoming Intel Alder Lake processors. The i9-12000 Series processors should arrive by the end of the year or even earlier. On tech sites they got very good pre-release reviews.

For me, it’s a budget constraint, I won’t be able to get the latest and greatest.

8 hours ago, MrFuzzy said:

Buy a new PC, it's not worth upgrading yours honestly.

Thanks, Ya I have no interested in upgrading my current system, If I upgrade it will be a new system altogether dedicated to simming station, I would keep my current one as a “work” computer. 

After returning my pre-built PC (10700Kf, rtx3080) due to various issues, I think I might hold out at this stage for a 12700k and see how they fair. 

The biggest issue is supply and price. 

 

12 hours ago, westman said:

a small hint, i run AMD 5950x on main sim its better then the 10900k equal to the 11900k i was lucky to have test the 11900 before it released not under NDA now, probaly i change to intel soon after start testing ddr5 but cant say anyting yet.

To be honest start with the GPU , the cpu is not that critical very small dif even to amd 3xxx series or intel from 8700k compared to the newest cpus

if you sit on a 8700k or newer cpu is a waste to uppgrade now very late to the table with ddr4 when much faster things is close to be released and the new standard for MSFS

Nice of you to shout-out for the 8700K, I still run mine and it is still just fine for sims.

Even my 1080ti GPU still works well, it can even handle 4K @ 30.  BUT I will say this to all of you -- for MSFS, I think *GPU* first and foremost.  Why?  Because unless you're running a 7-8-9-10 year old CPU, your cpu will be ok.  But the graphics cards -- that is where we've seen the most benefit. 

Think about it, my 1080ti is from the end of 2017, and it "sort of" handles 4K resolution, but it would be a lot better if it were a 2080ti or a 3080ti or even 3090.  The latter cards eat 4K for breakfast.  4K/Ultra.  With the 1080ti it has the 11GB vram which is really nice, but ideally it has to run a render scale of 80 at 4K and make a few other compromises.  Whereas my 8700K would be just fine with a 3080 and I wouldn't have to make those compromises.  Sure, at that point the CPU would bottleneck, but I'd be assured of running 4K /100 render scale with tremendous frames.

8700K @ 5 ghz or even 4.8 ain't no slouch.

22 hours ago, flyinpilot212121 said:

Just curious, I’m looking at a new system and I have a couple in mind, but generally speaking, if you had to choose, would you prefer a better GPU with a lesser cpu or a better cpu with a lesser GPU? 
Thanks

CPU prices are pretty good, GPU prices are through the roof.
A CPU is more cumbersome to upgrade in the future, a GPU swap is super easy. 

On the other hand, we're about to jump to a new generation of CPUs from both AMD and Intel. The new generation will support DDR5 memory and PCIE 5.0. 

I would buy a better CPU right now and wait with the GPU until the prices are more reasonable. 

Edited October 21, 20214 yr by Republic3D