SimonC

Members
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Neutral

About SimonC

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,073 profile views
  1. I thought we are talking about 9700K? In any case, I wasn't talking value, but rather high performance. And it's a common thing that the last few ounces of performance usually cost overproportionally more. And since the budget is $3000, ideally about $2000, I think the decision comes down at what you want to pay and is it worth to you. And one another thing: if he doesn't need 64GB of RAM for something else, it's really not necessary to go above 32GB. Save money on that. Or get a mainboard with only features that you need.
  2. 0-2 FPS on how high the FPS? 10, 100, 200? To be precise one would have to talk percentage really. I only wanted to point out that $150 more on the memory means most likely 0, and I really mean zero improvement on anything. While CPU will most likely see (little) improvement, of course only if you manage to max it out. I have a 6700K still, so I have no problems maxing out the CPU, but I can't imagine that you can't max out 9900K.
  3. Well, since we are nitpicking, I'd bet that 100Mhz more on the 9900K will yield more FPS than $150 faster memory.
  4. If I see correctly, the price difference between the two is a little over 100 bucks. If you have enough money to spend on 2080TI and 9700K, I doubt you'll have troubles for another 100 bucks. It's little faster, and has more L3 cache. I see no reason for getting 9700K.
  5. I wish I had your positive thinking. I only think about how we said for like x-th time to delete everything. *sigh*
  6. Maybe first slow down and read better. The point is not up to date, but clean. I would also suggest you go and check all your windows drivers, mainboard etc. Yet, in the end, I am still not sure if there really is a problem.
  7. You really don't need such information. Each and every one of us uses a different components, computer, addon, configuration, settings etc. And I can fairly surely say that you can count people running maxed settings on one hand. And that maybe only for testing. With your configuration you should *not* be running maxed settings. Delete prepar3d.cfg, delete shaders, load the default flight (Raptor) and what FPS do you see? (best set to 60-120, so that it does stay locked, but high)
  8. Erm, sorry. Am I misunderstanding this? You have a 100% CPU load on Core0 when *not* running P3D?
  9. Did you hardware-test your components? Seems weird that your CPU reaches 100% and then suddenly CTDs... Prime95, Cinebench, Mem-Test... I'd first do Prime95 for 3-4 hours and see if it can hold without errors. Monitoring heat would be prudent while doing that.
  10. Loads will never be at 100% on all cores. What you describe is normal.
  11. Are you sure? Please check what I wrote above - see with CPU-Z if your running 3,2 or 4,6 Ghz at load. It will show you whether you have Turbo enabled or not. It also seems very weird that you experience CTD when load rises. What mainboard / RAM (exactly)? I have a strong feeling this is a hardware issue...
  12. So it's a 3,2Ghz CPU, with a Turbo up to 4,6Ghz. First thing I'd check when you load your scenario what CPU speed is running at (CPU-Z), what GPU is doing (GPU-Z, sensor GPU Load). Then I'd make sure I clean install P3D according to LM (cleanup info here: http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6312&t=123246&sid=17815e56e43cb09b1f8122c3847dab92)
  13. SimonC

    PFPX V2

    Now that's a thing to respect.
  14. SimonC

    PFPX V2

    Didn't know - neat. What about ActiveSky weather wx-file? PFPX loads it on the fly. How does that work for fuel planing?