I was reading a thread concerning performance of an RTX4090 and it brought up a question. At present I have an i7-8700K on an ASUS Z370 motherboard running Win10/64 on 32Gb of RAM. With 3 SSDs one for the OS, one solely for MSFS and the third for bulk storage. I built this several years ago and it is still more than adequate for my needs. I recently upgraded to a 34" 3440x1440 165 Hz monitor. My next step will be to replace my antiquated GTX 1060 6Gb with a 3000 series nVidia GPU and a 1000 watt PSU. I was thinking 3090(for futureproofing too) but that may be too much being bottlenecked by the i7. All settings in MSFS are very low atm but it still looks good to me, so anything I go to will be a huge improvement. The question: how much is too much? Will I be so overloaded GPU-wise that such a card can't attain optimum performance? I could search to see what newer CPU my motherboard will support but the 8700K should be good according to requirements stated by Microsoft. I did get the K model but overclocking it is over my head. FYI I have a Hyper 212 CPU cooler- which barely turns over under any load I have given it. I appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

I would upgrade to a modern motherboard, CPU and memory first, and then look for a used 3080 (Ti) later when they drop in price, 3080 is more than enough for 3440x1440.

Edited October 18, 20223 yr by Ixoye

it all boils down to your budget, airplanes you fly (complex airliners or simpler default and general aviation) and your expectations re. scenery and graphics. there are plenty benchmarks here and on youtube.

according to various sites, you should be able overclock via the BIOS settings  easily by another 1 GHz. nothing you need to change inside the pc.

"This configuration didn't have any issues dealing with our overclocking processor at 5.1 GHz during a 30-minute OCCT run "

re. new 1.000 watt power supply, I would recommend to check it is PCIE 5.0 compatible (not required but more future proof)

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13136/the-asus-z370f-gaming-motherboard-review-/8

an i7-8700K @ 3.7 GHz is about a low as it gets. you could check with your motherboard manual what better/faster CPUs it supports:

https://www.asus.com/support/CPU/1/50/11/10/ktMThDIXNT6U7qo8/

the Nvidia 3000 series is highly recommend now they have fallen in price to half their original MSRP and offer fantastic performance thanks to the latest game-ready driver 522.25.

I fly @ 4K or with VR headset (requires highest performance), i9-9900K @ 4.7 GHz, Nvidia RTX 3090, offers very smooth experience as long as you don't use extensive air traffic add-ons or fly into the most demanding airports like iniBuilds KLAX.

 

Thanks but I intend to stay with what I have for a couple more years. It appears to me the newer CPUs offer more cores but little improvement in clock speed. I have little use for more cores. At this point I just wish to improve my video capabilities.

3 hours ago, LCAir said:

At this point I just wish to improve my video capabilities.

fair enough. that's why I still recommended some easy, free of any charge non-aggressive overclocking. otherwise you'd run into being CPU-bottle necked.  the slow CPU can't feed the powerful RTX 3000 fast enough and therefore not perform to its full capability.

Edited October 19, 20223 yr by turbomax

57 minutes ago, LCAir said:

Thanks but I intend to stay with what I have for a couple more years. It appears to me the newer CPUs offer more cores but little improvement in clock speed. I have little use for more cores. At this point I just wish to improve my video capabilities.

I think you are not properly looking at what newer cpus are offering aside from clock speed. May i introduce you clockspeed's siblings  called  I.P.C. and CPU core design architecture.

The correct answer was the very first reply.  There is no point throwing money at a 3090 unless you are intending to do 4k in this sim. Additionally please note the fact that your CPU and platform is 4 generations old ... 

After you have upgraded your cpu/mb/mem then buying a 3080/6800xt would have rounded out the platform nicely to match your display resolution.

We cant tell you what to do with your money .. but you cant say no one gave you decent advice.

Edited October 18, 20223 yr by Maxis

I think the 4080 16GB will have better sales than the 4090 Less power draw 850W PSU will do the trick, still CPU limited but not as bad.

2 hours ago, Maxis said:

I think you are not properly looking at what newer cpus are offering aside from clock speed. May i introduce you clockspeed's siblings  called  I.P.C. and CPU core design architecture.

The correct answer was the very first reply.  There is no point throwing money at a 3090 unless you are intending to do 4k in this sim. Additionally please note the fact that your CPU and platform is 4 generations old ... 

After you have upgraded your cpu/mb/mem then buying a 3080/6800xt would have rounded out the platform nicely to match your display resolution.

We cant tell you what to do with your money .. but you cant say no one gave you decent advice.

I appreciate your advice. But I am 69 years old and have been satisfied with 1080p. How much additional power can I make use of? When I chose this monitor I settled for 1440p and the continued use of the i7-8700K processor. Nothing I do challenges that cpu other than MSFS and I'm not driven to maximise my hardware solely for that. The low settings I have been using have been satisfactory to me and a jump to 1440p on a widescreen will be a quantum leap beyond that. So the question is which gpu will match my existing hardware with perhaps a little futureproofing too. You are talking to a guy who started out on a Commodore 64 on a TV back in the day lol.

13 minutes ago, LCAir said:

You are talking to a guy who started out on a Commodore 64 on a TV back in the day lol.

and this guy started on an APPLE II in b&w, or green on black, line graphics. Commodore 64 was much improved, had sound & color.

Edited October 19, 20223 yr by turbomax

5 minutes ago, LCAir said:

I appreciate your advice. But I am 69 years old and have been satisfied with 1080p. How much additional power can I make use of? When I chose this monitor I settled for 1440p and the continued use of the i7-8700K processor. Nothing I do challenges that cpu other than MSFS and I'm not driven to maximise my hardware solely for that. The low settings I have been using have been satisfactory to me and a jump to 1440p on a widescreen will be a quantum leap beyond that. So the question is which gpu will match my existing hardware with perhaps a little futureproofing too. You are talking to a guy who started out on a Commodore 64 on a TV back in the day lol.

Thank you for your insightful response.

Now considering you aren't driven to maximize your cpu for this sim and you are happy with the hardware you have presently (without the gpu) for 1440p ultra wide i would start at a 3070ti and top out at an RTX 3080 for the headroom that you asked for.. The AMD equivalent ... a 6800 or 6800xt again for the headroom ..Minimum power required 750watts (see my sig) . (what most people on this forum recommend .. 850watts).

A word of caution .. again because i don't want you to be dissappointed!

If you are planning to use the sim with high terrain level of detail / detailed systems Airliners flying to major airports with lots of AI traffic this "upgrade" may make your image look pretty but wont solve the fact that this sim is mostly cpu bound and will result in your GPU waiting for your cpu to finish the math ... = stutters.

 

Good luck and happy flying

You definitely need to upgrade your CPU and other stuff first, but after doing that, consider...

The Radeon 6900xt was better than my 3080 12GB, as far as smoothness goes, it's the best bang for buck if your willing to risk it. The difference was in large airports or cities, it had better performance on the FPS-LOW (like quite a bit better). That said, I had to return the 6900xt due to a bug where it kept resetting my refresh rate in VR to 30hz and this sometimes would trigger a CTD. I also had one other issue with the 6900xt, in dev mode I was getting occasional hard locks when loading up airports with a silly amount of objects, which have never occurred on the NVIDIA. The NVIDIA soft locks in the same situation and I can at least end task on the MSFS process, but on the AMD I literally had to reboot at times or wait 10 minutes for it to become unstuck. If you are just playing games and not developing, the AMD might be worth it.

 

Edited October 19, 20223 yr by Alpine Scenery

The problem is people chase not only fps, but also visual quality. That's why they want the latest and greatest hardware.

I just turn down gfx until I can reach the fps I want in the most demanding situation I want to fly in and leave it at that.

I mostly run medium settings with a few things at high or ultra. And imo, it still looks really good. It's easy to get caught in the trap of wanting more and more rather than just letting it go and simply enjoying the sim.

That said, I understand there are situations, like VR or 4k where you really do need that juice to even get playable framerates at moderate settings.

With CPUs - there is more to it than cores and clock speed.

My 9th Gen i9 9900K is substantially slower, both overall and in terms of single core overclocked, than even an i5 12th gen never lone a 12th gen i7 or i9, both of which blow my 9900K out of the water .

Even though the i9 overclocks faster than a new i5,  it just cannot keep up.

Edited October 19, 20223 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

I just go by the per-core passmark, it's not perfect, but it's probably more accurate than FPS benchmarks anyhow.
For now, I'm sticking to the 5800x, will probably upgrade to the 7800x3D when it comes out.

FSX has probably sold more hardware than any other game. 

sp