I need some help here, please.

While I'm acquainted with Intel processors, I must admit that I'm not as familiar with AMD. I'm currently facing a dilemma and could use your guidance to advise my friend on the best choice between the two only for MSFS 2020 x 2024.

 

My current recommendation, which you can find in my signature, might be a bit outdated. I'm hesitant to suggest it without first seeking your advice on the latest options.

 

He's looking at this, but he's not financially limited, and any other suggestions are welcome. 

 

Processor: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D (16-Core) 5.7 GHz Turbo (3D V-Cache)

Motherboard: MSI PRO X670E GAMING PLUS (Wi-Fi) (AMD X670) (Up to 3x PCI-E Devices) (DDR5)

System Memory: 64GB DDR5 6000MHz Kingston FURY Beast RGB CL39

Power Supply: 1500W Corsair HX1500i (Modular) (80 Plus Platinum) 

Storage Set 1: 1x SSD M.2 (2TB Digital Storm M.2 Performance Series)

Graphics Card(s): 1x GeForce RTX 4090 24GB (VR Ready)

Extreme Cooling: H20: Stage 3: Digital Storm Vortex Liquid CPU Cooler (Triple Fan) (Fully Sealed + No Maintenance)

 

VS

 

Processor: Intel Core i9-14900KS (6.2 GHz Turbo) (32-Thread) (24-Core) 3.2 GHz (14th Gen)

ASUS Prime Z790-V D5 (Wi-Fi) (Intel Z790 Chipset) (Up to 3x PCI-E Devices) (No SLI) (DDR5)
System Memory: 128GB DDR5 4800MHz Kingston FURY Beast
Graphics Card(s): 1x GeForce RTX 4090 24GB (VR Ready

Power Supply: 1500W Corsair HX1500i (Modular) (80 Plus Platinum)

Extreme Cooling: H20: Stage 3: Digital Storm Vortex Liquid CPU Cooler (Triple Fan) (Fully Sealed + No Maintenance)

 

Thank you!

LRBS,

Either of those systems will run MSFS (any version) very well. It even smacks of overkill.

I do not understand why the change of RAM though. I would opt for the 128 GB 6000mhz RAM for both systems. Every thing else seems to be consistent apart from the motherboard and processor which would be necessary of course. 

I am not a big fan of Intel and I would prefer the AMD system, however there are some differences ie Ray tracing which is much better handled by Intel/Nvidia. 

VR (if you are a VR user) is also (I think) better with Nvidia.

The choice is his to make as neither is going to suffer in the near or possibly far future of MSFS.

For mine, if funds were not a problem, I would be buying a motion platform, butt kicker and force feed yoke and a really good VR headset as well.  I can only dream.

Good luck mate

Tony

14 minutes ago, himmelhorse said:

I am not a big fan of Intel and I would prefer the AMD system, however there are some differences ie Ray tracing which is much better handled by Intel/Nvidia. 

 

Tony,

 

I would greatly appreciate it if you could elaborate on your preference for AMD. As I currently lack knowledge in this area, your insights would be invaluable to me.

 

Thank you for your time and consideration.

1 hour ago, himmelhorse said:

I am not a big fan of Intel and I would prefer the AMD system, however there are some differences ie Ray tracing which is much better handled by Intel/Nvidia. 

VR (if you are a VR user) is also (I think) better with Nvidia.

What does Intel have to do with ray tracing - unless I'm completely missing something I thought Ray tracing was a GPU exclusive function, in fact I can't find a single ray tracing review that discusses much of anything other than GPU, of which Nvidia is king.

Why would VR be better with Nvidia - again a GPU function in my understanding. According to PC guide: Best CPU for VR - AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D

Somiller,

intel/nvidia (combination) You may be right about the Intel part but in my experience Most people with Nvidia go with Intel motherboards. Again this is a supposition on my part but easily arrived at by just reading forums.

I have the AMD 7800X3D and love it. On another thread read about my trials and tribulations trying to get VR to work on this system. Mostly my fault, however it did not lead to a pleasant experience using AMD. The final outcome after days of frustration uninstalling and reinstalling windows11 is remarkably good and I have no regrets. However, if I had the funds, I would have gone Intel motherboard and accessories with Nvidia GPU.

Just finally, I do not remember how many times I have stated that I am not an expert particularly on this forum. Please also bear in mind that we, (including the OP) are talking about preferences and my preferences may, or may not, be your preferences

Regards

Tony

LRBS,

I think my response to somiller amplifies my response.

Please note that there is little discernable (to my mind) difference in comparable CPUs and GPUs in this day and age. Nvidia is generally more expensive but in latter generations they are the current masters with regard to ray tracing. Again, I do not see any great value in ray tracing but that is just me.

Over all I think the Intel motherboard and Nvidia GPU combination is the better system but, again, in my opinion, is not worth the price difference.

In your mates' case where funds are not an issue he has a choice. If funds were not an issue for me, I would go with the intel/Nvidia combination but only because price is irrelevant.

I hope that clears it up for you and also for somiller.

Regards

Tony

Just went through the same dilemma and in the end ordered an AMD system.

Be aware that the 13th and 14th gen Intel's are suffering quite high failure rates at the moment which is widely reported.

1 hour ago, Tom Wright said:

Just went through the same dilemma and in the end ordered an AMD system.

Be aware that the 13th and 14th gen Intel's are suffering quite high failure rates at the moment which is widely reported.

Thank you for your feedback. While I haven't personally encountered the issue with my 13900, the significant number of reports regarding it is indeed alarming.

If one simply pays attention to Avsim user posts that include system specs, it appears at least 90% or more of these users that have AMD X3D cpu's are running Nvidia GPU's - so no Nvidia GPU's are NOT better suited to Intel CPU's, they seem to work equally well with Intel and AMD CPU's. One's preference doesn't change facts.

If I had to build right now, I'd go with the AMD 7800X3D. 

I've been an Intel guy for a looooong-time, but it's undeniable that Intel has disgracefully shined their butts in the public light with their defective 13th and 14th gen processor line and the secretive, unsatisfactory response to the folks that have been afflicted and yet may be afflicted.  I wouldn't go near a 14900K until I was sure that any residual inventory was completely cleared out following a community-ratified agreement that it's been fixed.

So that leaves AMD.  You said this build is for MSFS 2020/2024-only...if that "only" means this is for a dedicated flight sim box, the 7800X3D is (currently) the better choice, because MSFS benefits a lot from its 96MB of level 3 cache, and the 7800X3D has a faster, more direct connection to it's 3D cache than the 7950, making it a better performer despite its lower core count (and lower price).

Now if the user is also going to be doing heavy muti-threaded tasks (e.g. video mastering), the 7950X3D may be the better choice.

And last...none of us knows for certain how MSFS 2024 will leverage multi-threading, so the calculus could change in favor of a higher core count later...

37 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

If I had to build right now, I'd go with the AMD 7800X3D. 

I've been an Intel guy for a looooong-time, but it's undeniable that Intel has disgracefully shined their butts in the public light with their defective 13th and 14th gen processor line and the secretive, unsatisfactory response to the folks that have been afflicted and yet may be afflicted.  I wouldn't go near a 14900K until I was sure that any residual inventory was completely cleared out following a community-ratified agreement that it's been fixed.

So that leaves AMD.  You said this build is for MSFS 2020/2024-only...if that "only" means this is for a dedicated flight sim box, the 7800X3D is (currently) the better choice, because MSFS benefits a lot from its 96MB of level 3 cache, and the 7800X3D has a faster, more direct connection to it's 3D cache than the 7950, making it a better performer despite its lower core count (and lower price).

Now if the user is also going to be doing heavy muti-threaded tasks (e.g. video mastering), the 7950X3D may be the better choice.

And last...none of us knows for certain how MSFS 2024 will leverage multi-threading, so the calculus could change in favor of a higher core count later...

Bob,

 

I am grateful for your assistance. I intended to reach out to you. After 46 years in the airlines, his sole interest lies in flight simulation, and he is imminently retiring at the end of the year. I find it prudent to mention that, based on recent developments, I cannot recommend Intel. 

 

Once again, I extend my sincere appreciation for your invaluable support.

22 hours ago, LRBS said:

Thank you for your feedback. While I haven't personally encountered the issue with my 13900, the significant number of reports regarding it is indeed alarming.

I bought my system from Chillblast in the UK last September. Everything including the CPU has been fine. I became aware of the problems with some i9 chips recently and contacted Chillblast.

They gave me a link to an updated BIOS which I ran mid-week. So far everything seems fine. They said Intel would extend the warranty period by 2 years for anyone affected by the problem.

So not all i9 13 and 14 chips are affected. But enough for it to be an issue. A BIOS update may resolve things. Only time will tell.

17 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

If I had to build right now, I'd go with the AMD 7800X3D. 

I've been an Intel guy for a looooong-time, but it's undeniable that Intel has disgracefully shined their butts in the public light with their defective 13th and 14th gen processor line and the secretive, unsatisfactory response to the folks that have been afflicted and yet may be afflicted.  I wouldn't go near a 14900K until I was sure that any residual inventory was completely cleared out following a community-ratified agreement that it's been fixed.

So that leaves AMD.  You said this build is for MSFS 2020/2024-only...if that "only" means this is for a dedicated flight sim box, the 7800X3D is (currently) the better choice, because MSFS benefits a lot from its 96MB of level 3 cache, and the 7800X3D has a faster, more direct connection to it's 3D cache than the 7950, making it a better performer despite its lower core count (and lower price).

Now if the user is also going to be doing heavy muti-threaded tasks (e.g. video mastering), the 7950X3D may be the better choice.

And last...none of us knows for certain how MSFS 2024 will leverage multi-threading, so the calculus could change in favor of a higher core count later...

I have encountered a new query that has prompted a pause in this undertaking, and I am presently unable to comprehend it. There are two noteworthy scenarios to consider: one involving the utilization of the Intel Core i9-14900KS and the other involving the AMD 7800X3D, both equipped with RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5 6000MHz. At JFK, PMDG777, a consistent 100 frames per second (fps) is achieved at ultra settings on a 49" 4K monitor. However, when FSTL is implemented at 50%, the frame rate for the 14900KS decreases to 70-75 FPS, while the 7800X3D drops to 65-70 FPS. Is there any insight into the reason for this significant drop? Furthermore, does such a performance variance occur with the 7950X3D? 

 

Of particular interest is the observation that, despite the possibility of being a placebo effect, the AMD system appears to provide smoother performance than the Intel system and notably smoother than my 13900K.

FSTL?  Do you mean FSLTL traffic?  If so, the reason for the framerate drop is pretty straightforward--a large increase in CPU load associated with adding a pile of AI planes into the mix.

MSFS benefits from much lower average memory access latency on the AMD X3D CPUs, due to their monster-sized L3 cache.  If there's an advantage in smoothness on the AMD, I'd imagine it's attributable to that.

9 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

So not all i9 13 and 14 chips are affected.

Just because they haven't failed doesn't mean they are not affected. The over-voltage appears to significantly reduce their lifespan.

Cheers