21 minutes ago, SMN204 said:

And which memory (DDR4) would be the best choice in my situation?
MSI MPG Z490

I don't think replacing the RAM would give you enough of a performance increase to justify the expense.

41 minutes ago, SMN204 said:

And which memory (DDR4) would be the best choice in my situation?
i5-10600k (5GHz) + MSI MPG Z490

Save your money for a new CPU/motherboard/RAM if you need more performance than you already have.  Do you use DLSS Frame Generation? What is the 'native' frame rate set to (i.e., w/o DLSS FG's doubling the native rate)?

7800x3D is about 35-40% faster at single core performance over your i5-10600k.

Edited September 20, 20241 yr by Noel

21 minutes ago, Noel said:

Do you use DLSS Frame Generation? What is the 'native' frame rate set to (i.e., w/o DLSS FG's doubling the native rate)?

I don't use DLSS. Tried it - didn't like it...

I think that with native fps less than 30, DLSS worsens the picture, blurs everything when moving and leaves noticeable “tails”

Uh, actually. I have an average of 22..25 fps in airports on the ground and 30...35 in flight

Edited September 20, 20241 yr by SMN204

54 minutes ago, SMN204 said:

I don't use DLSS. Tried it - didn't like it...

I think that with native fps less than 30, DLSS worsens the picture, blurs everything when moving and leaves noticeable “tails”

Uh, actually. I have an average of 22..25 fps in airports on the ground and 30...35 in flight

 

What are your main Graphics settings?  And what addons are you using?  FPS are highly subjective.  30 FPS raw from the sim is pretty good if you're in demanding scenarios (payware aircraft/scenery, lots of weather and AI etc)

I have a 12700K with RTX 4080 and sometimes will see fps dip into the teens especially if I run a high TLOD (300-400) in a heavy urban area with lots of payware.

 

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Might change (hope so) with MSFS2024

it has been confirmed to change.

Are you running VSYNC?  It could be waiting for the next refresh, which, I believe, shows up as a mainthread limit.

1 hour ago, SMN204 said:

I don't use DLSS. Tried it - didn't like it...

I think that with native fps less than 30, DLSS worsens the picture, blurs everything when moving and leaves noticeable “tails”

Uh, actually. I have an average of 22..25 fps in airports on the ground and 30...35 in flight

On my 5 GHz 10900K I see frame rates that average around 32 on the ground and in the high 40s to mid 50s inflight.  RTX4090 into a 3840x1600 G-Sync monitor.

There's an external utility called Lossless Scaling and Frame Generation (LSFG) that's a whole $6 on Steam.  It does 2x or 3x frame generation, and also allows you to turn it on/off at will during a flight.  If I'm in a really challenging ground ops scenario (complex big airport, lots of static PSXT traffic parked at the gates) and frames drop to the high 20s, LSFG in 2x mode really helps smooth things out.

There's also AutoFPS.  Have not tried it here myself, but there's a lot written suggesting it does wonders during high-demand phases like ground ops.

2 hours ago, AnkH said:

Forget about this memory discussion please. Fast memory provides you with max. 10% FPS if you are lucky. In the scenario shown here we speak about 2-3 FPS. Besides the fact that 3200MT/s is already above specs for the 10600K IMC...

Yes indeed. Money can be better spent on just about anything except faster memory, if you are looking for performance. This goes for faster hardisk memory specs. If it's Nvme then you have over 90% of good enough. Size matters. Speed not so much in memory specs.

14 hours ago, Bob Scott said:

There's also AutoFPS.  Have not tried it here myself, but there's a lot written suggesting it does wonders during high-demand phases like ground ops.

Yes, I'm using AutoFps. Works for me!
For fps 25 on the ground in complex scenarios, it's OLOD-50 and TLOD-50. In flight, OLOD to 400 and TLOD to 100

18 hours ago, SMN204 said:

Why when “Limited by MainThread” I see in the task manager that CPU cores is not 100% utilized ?

Not entirely sure, but here’s some info from Sebastian Wloch (6th June Q&A twitch):

Quote

Q: Why is the main thread usually the limiting factor

A: Sim is multi-threaded, usually 30-40 threads (and 1000-3000 fibres i.e. lightweight threads at times).. they unload as much as possible to multiple threads, but there is orchestration involved and work to ensure there is no collision between threads and no contention for same data, etc. One thread for offloading to GPU, I/O on another thread, physics are on multiple threads, etc. The main thread is the one that waits for everything to finish before moving on to next frame. Sometimes the main thread is taking longer than the time GPU took so then you're effectively main thread limited.

17 hours ago, SMN204 said:

And a CPU with a higher frequency on one core is preferable to a multi-core CPU with a lower frequency of cores?

Not necessarily. For instance with the AMD asynchronous CPUs (7900X3D and 7950X3D), the cores with the 3D V-cache are preferred to cores that can run at a higher frequency.

2 hours ago, Cpt_Piett said:

Not necessarily. For instance with the AMD asynchronous CPUs (7900X3D and 7950X3D), the cores with the 3D V-cache are preferred to cores that can run at a higher frequency.

What about Intel?
For example:

Is i5-10600K (4.1 GHz)  far behind in MSFS from i9-10900K (3.7 GHz)...?

1 hour ago, SMN204 said:

What about Intel?
For example:

Is i5-10600K (4.1 GHz)  far behind in MSFS from i9-10900K (3.7 GHz)...?

There are benchmarks all over, just check them. Example: https://www.pcgameshardware.de/Microsoft-Flight-Simulator-Spiel-15259/Specials/CPU-Benchmark-Bottleneck-Comparsion-1434617/

The i9 is about 10% faster than a 11600K. But also forget about this base clock, it will anyway run faster...

3 hours ago, SMN204 said:

What about Intel?
For example:

Is i5-10600K (4.1 GHz)  far behind in MSFS from i9-10900K (3.7 GHz)...?

As Chris said, don't key on base clock speed--though the 10600K has a faster base clock, it's max turbo spec is only 4.8GHz, where the 10900K has a max turbo speed of 5.3GHz.  The slower base clock on the 10900K is specified to keep the CPU within its TDP limits, as it is generating a lot more heat running 67% more cores.  Moving from my 8086K to the 10900K made a significant difference in performance, so those four additional cores and 8MB additional L3 cache proved useful.

The challenge with the 10900K is cooling--it runs very reliably overclocked to 5 GHz on all 10 cores (HT off), but that requires aggressive cooling (I use a custom water loop with half-inch ID plumbing and two 240mm radiators in series).

Bob Scott, You have 3 systems and all of them has equal or better graphics card, than i have on my own system. I am just average earner from Finland. I dont have the means to buy 2200 euro 4090. I think you have a nice setup. Hows your 13900ks going, does it suffer from bugs, just asking, not being sarcastic. 

5 hours ago, tmholopa said:

Bob Scott, You have 3 systems and all of them has equal or better graphics card, than i have on my own system. I am just average earner from Finland. I dont have the means to buy 2200 euro 4090. I think you have a nice setup. Hows your 13900ks going, does it suffer from bugs, just asking, not being sarcastic. 

So far, the 13900KS is still going without a hitch.  I did dial back the overclock from 6.0 GHz to 5.8 and dropped the voltages out of an abundance of caution.  I have a very good water cooling system on it (two 360mm radiators in series in a room with 16-18C ambient temps) and I have the cores set to fixed multipliers rather than letting the OS/BIOS overclock it with TVB, so I think I have avoided the voltage overshoots at high temps that was killing these CPUs.  Some of the early production CPUs like mine also had a manufacturing defect that can afflict certain batches with an electron migration issue--exactly which batches Intel won't say, which makes me furious.  I'll just have to cross that bridge if/when I come to it.