Yes, the X3D is what you want for gaming. All the performances charts that aren't recorded in  gaming apps mean very little. Only comparisons in a game matter, especially if the game is msfs2024. 

7900X with FG ON 73FPS 21:33 in the video

 

 

9800X3D with FG ON 110 FPS ... 101:10 minutes in the video

 

Edited September 24, 2025Sep 24 by Fielder

On 9/23/2025 at 7:27 PM, jfri said:

AI

The AMD Ryzen 9 7900 is significantly faster and a better value for gaming and productivity than the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D

It wouldn't be the first time AI has gotten something wrong. AI answers to questions are basically useless because you have to go out and verify whether or not the answer is correct, at which point you might as well eliminate the middleman and look it up in the first place.

On 9/23/2025 at 10:24 PM, turbomax said:

 

The $480 Ryzen 9 9800X3D is now the fastest gaming chip money can buy

 

While true, and if you're upgrading it makes sense to get the highest horsepower you can afford, if you've already got a fast chip there's a point in computer upgrades beyond which you're just going for raw numbers without any real world benefit. If you're already getting butter-smooth framerates with a lower-grade chip, upgrading would just be to say you were faster. 

I'm applying that lesson right now. I had a Reverb G2 on a 3070Ti with 32g of ram. I got the Crystal Light and quickly discovered that the 3070 just couldn't drive that headset in MSFS without making the graphics settings so low that it looked like an impressionist paintings, and the framerate still sucked. 

So I decided I was gonna get a 5090 when available and then upgrade to 64g ram.  Accomplished the first step and everything's amazing - graphics turned high and smooth as butter, so following through on the second part of my plan would just be so I could be happy about the extra, completely unnecessary, ram under the hood.

 

On 9/27/2025 at 7:04 PM, eslader said:

It wouldn't be the first time AI has gotten something wrong. AI answers to questions are basically useless because you have to go out and verify whether or not the answer is correct, at which point you might as well eliminate the middleman and look it up in the first place.

 

Is it not that AI is actually doing ? Going out on the web to find out answers thus saving us time

On 6/25/2025 at 12:31 PM, Dillon said:

I went from a G2 to the PCL like others here mentioned here.  It was great at first after I got it dialed in but I could never get around the fact that add-on scenery never played well with the headset.  If your away from cities and/or urban areas there's no problem but flying into a city in an area like the Pacific North West with add-on airports and detailed downtown mods, the headset would stutter and/or freeze constantly which is hell on the eyes.🥹  Didn't have this problem with the G2 at least not to this extent.  Add insult to energy the last three Pimax software/firmware updates killed performance.  The headset also would power off in the middle of flight where I had to remove it form my head and then put it back on again to get it to come back on.  I thought I had a hardware problem with it where I needed a replacement.  Not wanting to go through the hassle with support, I all but gave up on VR in favor of waiting on the new small form factor versions that's on the horizon.  It wasn't until this latest update which corrected all the issues (it's only by chance I tried this latest software update as I was done with the headset 🤨).  The latest update (v1.40.1) is so good that unless I have to I won't update the software anymore.  I've resolve to the fact that until I get a 4090 (new computer needed as that card won't fit in my current computer case) I can give up on flying in areas where I have allot of scenery installed (some are worst that others).  Warbirds, Fighters, and Carrier Ops is the best use of this headset for me at this point (2D for one type of flying, VR for another which I was hoping I wouldn't have to do).

Moral of the story is your flying should be smooth as you would see on a 2D monitor in all cases. What you will get is pauses in the headset that can kill your eyes especially when looking around which can disorientate you over demanding areas (it's really jarring).  You should be good with a 4090 but anything lower than that fly over default scenery with maybe one or two light scenery add-ons in the area.  Most of the world is like this in general so you should be good.  Get the latest update and be careful with any future Pimax updates.👍

I think in your case it is because of your CPU. It is listed as minimum requirement which usually is not good.
The GPU is listed as best experience.
Pimax told me that my CPU is recommended. 

Hello everyone! I’m not sure if my PC is suitable for a “Pimax Crystal Super with ULTRAWIDE” module. My PC has the following specifications: Intel i9-900K CPU; 32 GB RAM; MSI RTX 5080. Google’s Geimini suggests that my CPU won’t meet the requirements to fly smoothly in MSFS2024 and enjoy the full resolution. So far, I’ve been running the flight simulator with Quest3 and a Samsung HMD.
What do you think? Will i get happy with Crystal Super Ultrawide on my PC?

 

1 hour ago, Alti said:

Will i get happy with Crystal Super Ultrawide on my PC?

not without a major CPU upgrade.Think of it like: You bought an 8K cinema camera… but your PC can only edit in 1080p

here is what AI had to say, and I would agree (I have a higher spec CPU and lower resolution Pimax than you, getting typically 60-70 fps in VR). you would run out of VR memory at only 16 GB VRAM and 73% higher resolution, meaning you will have to reduce everything which makes the Ultra Wide obsolete.

I would prefer the upcoming Steam Frame VR or high end: Pimax Crystal DreamAir

---------------------------------------------

What resolution you’re actually trying to run

Even though it’s listed as:

• 3840 × 3840 per eye

In practice (VR rendering overhead + distortion correction), your GPU is often pushing something closer to:

👉 ~4500 × 4500 per eye (or more)
👉 That’s ~40–45 million pixels per frame total

For comparison:

• 4K monitor = ~8.3 million pixels
• Your headset = ~5× heavier than 4K

---

⚠️ Reality check for your setup (RTX 5080 + i9-900K)

❌ Native / full resolution

Not happening in MSFS 2024.

• Even an RTX 5090 struggles here
• You will be GPU-limited AND CPU-limited
• Expect unplayable frame rates if you try full res + high settings

---

⚠️ CPU bottleneck (this is big)

Your i9-900K (likely 9900K) will:

• choke in airports
• struggle with glass cockpits
• limit frame generation effectiveness

👉 In VR, CPU limits hurt more because:

• frame pacing matters more than raw FPS
• stutters = very noticeable

---

🎯 What you can realistically expect

✔️ Playable setup (with tuning)

If you optimize properly:

• Resolution scale: 50–70%
• DLSS: Performance / Balanced
• Settings: Medium–High mix
• Frame Generation: ON

👉 You’ll get:

• ~30–50 FPS (with reprojection / smoothing)
• decent clarity, but not “full Pimax potential”

---

❌ What you won’t get

• Native resolution clarity
• Ultra settings everywhere
• Smooth performance in big airports
• “Maxed out sim” experience

---

🧠 The key bottlenecks (ranked)

1. CPU (biggest problem)
2. GPU (still very stressed)
3. VRAM (16GB can get tight in MSFS 2024 VR)

---

🔧 What would unlock the headset

To actually use the Crystal Super Ultra-Wide properly in MSFS:

Minimum “serious VR” target:

• CPU: modern high-end (e.g., X3D Ryzen)
• GPU: RTX 5080 is OK, but 5090-class ideal
• Aggressive DLSS + foveated rendering

---

🧾 Honest verdict

👉 Your system is:

• ✔️ enough to run MSFS 2024 in this headset
• ❌ not enough to take advantage of it

Think of it like:

You bought an 8K cinema camera… but your PC can only edit in 1080p

---

🧠 Practical advice

If you’re sticking with this hardware:

• Lower resolution scale (this matters most)
• Use eye-tracked foveated rendering (if available)
• Reduce:
  • terrain LOD
  • traffic
  • glass cockpit refresh rate

Edited April 25Apr 25 by turbomax

Thanks for that. That’s more or less what I thought. Gemini gave it a similar rating. I’ll carry on using my Quest 3. In the hope that PC components will become more affordable again in the future, I’ll build myself a new top-of-the-range machine that can handle a good VR headset.

1 hour ago, Alti said:

a new top-of-the-range machine that can handle a good VR headset.

good idea, but as you know you'll have to spend some $/€ 3.000 - 5.000

I would think twice before purchasing the bulky Pimax Ultra Wide, and  get the lightweight and newer Pimax DreamAir instead. there are some detailed reviewes by MRTV VR on youtube

48 minutes ago, turbomax said:

good idea, but as you know you'll have to spend some $/€ 3.000 - 5.000

I would think twice before purchasing the bulky Pimax Ultra Wide, and  get the lightweight and newer Pimax DreamAir instead. there are some detailed reviewes by MRTV VR on youtube

I reckon a new, modern CPU, a fast motherboard and 64GB of RAM on top of that won’t cost all that much. My RTX 5080 will last a long time yet; by then, other headsets will have come out. Technology is advancing. I prefer a wide field of view, which is why the Ultra is my choice. 
I also wear glasses, so I’ll never be able to fit my glasses under a ‘DreamAir’. And prescription contact lenses? No, thank you – then my friends wouldn’t be able to wear the headset.
But there’s no rush. I don’t feel pressured to make any hasty decisions right now. Still, thanks for your input.

there are magnetic lens inserts for the Pimax Dream Air, easy to remove and re-insert.

RTX 5080 has only 16 GB VRAM, not much considering:

Standard 4K screen = ~8.3 million pixels
This headset = ~3.5× a 4K display rendered in real time, ca. 30 million pixel
And that’s before distortion correction + super sampling (which can push it even higher internally)

........................

"I reckon a new, modern CPU, a fast motherboard and 64GB of RAM on top of that won’t cost all that much. "

"only" some $ 2.000 + $ 2.000 for a modern VR headset

Edited April 26Apr 26 by turbomax

One thing bothers me about the Dream Air. The cords come out on both sides and join together at the back in a little sort of box that hangs on the back of your neck. Apparently it gets really really hot. If only Pimax had left the two wires apart for another couple of feet or so before joining together in the hot box. From what I understand, its a bad idea to insulate the box because that traps the heat inside. VRFlightsimGuy whines about that hot box on his neck in most every video where he using the Pimax Dream Air.

Edited 8 minutes ago8 min by Fielder