Could it make sense to go for a low cost CPU MOBO RAM upgrad

[jfri 42]

I now have a Haswell 4770K @4.5 Ghz with 16 Gb 2200 MHz RAM and with a 2070 Super which I use with a HP Reverb G2 VR headset.
I have descent performance in MSFS with average fps a little bit above 30 fps but lowest fps always drops below 30 fps. MSFS states that I am almost always GPU limited.
Which I find strange. I would expect to be CPU limited with such an old CPU.

When I consider upgrading this system for flightsims (MSFS DCS XP P3D) I first came to the conclusion that a 12600K would be the best choice considering cost.
But I have start to think about a 12400F since that would reduce the cost with more than $200. And it seem that the 12600K does not make a big difference.

For example see this
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-12600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-12400F/4120vs4121
only 15% average score better

I have read that 5800X3D is the best CPU for MSFS. But how do we explain this then
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-12600K-vs-Intel-Core-i5-12400F/4120vs4121
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i5-12400F-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X3D/4121vsm1817839
although flighsims are a bit different than ordinary games I still find this surprising. Small difference compared to a 12400F

Does anyone have any experience with these CPU or have upgraded to them ?

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

9 hours ago, jfri said:

MSFS states that I am almost always GPU limited.

My system is pretty much always GPU limited in MSFS VR too. Of note is that when my system starts, I have turbo boost disabled (so 3.6GHz max instead of 4.8GHz) to keep it running cool and silent for windows desktop operations. When I run MSFS, I usually turn turbo boost back on, but sometimes I forget and for the most part it makes barely any difference in VR performance, like maybe 1 FPS at most. The only time it does make a difference is where the CPU is being taxed, so PMDG 737 at complex airport with lots of multiplayer, and that's when I notice if I haven't enabled turbo boost.

As such, I would take heed of what MSFS is telling you. If you don't do the airliner at complex airports thing and otherwise putter around in GA, then a CPU upgrade is likely not going to benefit you much.

 

[jfri 42]

13 hours ago, Reset XPDR said:

My system is pretty much always GPU limited in MSFS VR too. Of note is that when my system starts, I have turbo boost disabled (so 3.6GHz max instead of 4.8GHz) to keep it running cool and silent for windows desktop operations. When I run MSFS, I usually turn turbo boost back on, but sometimes I forget and for the most part it makes barely any difference in VR performance, like maybe 1 FPS at most. The only time it does make a difference is where the CPU is being taxed, so PMDG 737 at complex airport with lots of multiplayer, and that's when I notice if I haven't enabled turbo boost.

As such, I would take heed of what MSFS is telling you. If you don't do the airliner at complex airports thing and otherwise putter around in GA, then a CPU upgrade is likely not going to benefit you much.

 

It seem contradictory information is given to this question. Other have reported a significant improvement in performance when going from 470K+2070 Super to 5600X+2070 Super. I might also point out that in MSFS I set render scale to 50%.

Then of course we could ask if the same apply to the other flight sims like DCS P3D XP ?

[rka 916]

Generally speaking, DCS and XP will profit very much from a core clock increase or CPU upgrade because of their single threadedness. Not if you are GPU limited all the time though, which can also be "achieved" through graphics settings (high resolution plus everything on ultra).

Edited August 28, 2022 by rka

[Reset XPDR 1,271]

1 hour ago, jfri said:

It seem contradictory information is given to this question. Other have reported a significant improvement in performance when going from 470K+2070 Super to 5600X+2070 Super.

In VR? In any case, MSFS gives us the luxury of telling you what is bottle-necking your current system, which in your case is the GPU, and by how much too. If you are significantly GPU limited and choose to upgrade the CPU, don't be surprised if performance is only marginally better, if not the same, because the GPU will still be the bottleneck.

 

22 minutes ago, rka said:

Generally speaking, DCS and XP will profit very much from a core clock increase or CPU upgrade because of their single threadedness.

This would be a much better use case to benefit from upgrading your CPU.

[jfri 42]

20 minutes ago, Reset XPDR said:

In VR? In any case, MSFS gives us the luxury of telling you what is bottle-necking your current system, which in your case is the GPU, and by how much too. If you are significantly GPU limited and choose to upgrade the CPU, don't be surprised if performance is only marginally better, if not the same, because the GPU will still be the bottleneck.

 

This would be a much better use case to benefit from upgrading your CPU.

Don't remember if it was VR. But I am also GPU limited in 2D 2560*1440