CPU question (oh boy)

LouP

LouP

Flight Sim Junkie
So, I purchased a rtx 4080 super when they first came out and has been a great shot in the arm for my aging PC. If all else were to remain constant, I would be OK with leaving everything as is. HOWEVER, (lol) Since the Pimax crystal light was announced, I've had an itch. It addressed almost all my concerns with the Crystal and I couldn't take it any longer and purchased one yesterday. I was planning on seeing if my i7-8700K could struggle with it and if not, then take action. But the more I thought about it, I'm now leaning toward just upgrading the cpu and motherboard (and memory). Shame because I feel like the old 8700 still has some life left in her. Anyway, so I start researching for the best cpu with msfs and oh boy. At first I was going to just get the latest Intel chip and call it a day. But wait someone says, "the amd x3d chips just run msfs so much better". So I say OK, "a 7950x3d coming up". But wait someone else says, "the amd chips run very very very hot. Plus msfs 2024 is going to take advantage of multithreading so you want the extra cores on an Intel chip." Bueller....anyone...Bueller?

Any help would be appreciated,
LouP
 
Bueller has taken the day off. ;).
I don,t know realy. i am just an intel nut so for me the choice would be easy.
 
You will definitely see a significant performance boost in MSFS if you upgrade the i7-8700K, especially in VR. You're 100% CPU-limited with that monster graphics card. Even going from a much-newer 10900K to a 13900K, I saw a dramatic FPS improvement.

As far as AMD vs Intel, it's mostly religious wars. :) An x3 chip will give you a big boost, but so will a 14900K. You won't be unhappy with either. I went Intel because, though AMD systems are really solid, every once in a while you run into chipset issues like the Reverb G2 AMD incompatibility that required HP to update the cable on that headset. But even that kind of problem is rare nowadays, and Intel had its own problems with third parties improperly managing CPU boost. I went Intel because, despite the writing being on the wall about the future of x86 chips, they still remain the baseline industry standard.
 
As someone who spends many hours in video processing, photoshop, as well as flightsim (FS2004, FSX, and now awaiting FS2024), I opted to build my new rig using the R9 7950X3D chip. It was mostly scouring the internet, and tens of flightsim forums which steered me in this direction, not to mention the many hours of YT videos, lol. I, personally love it, and although I have yet to see it run the new sim, I am very impressed by what it brings to the table. Below is one of the many videos which may help you fill in some of the blanks in deciding between AMD and Intel.

 
LouP said:
So, I purchased a rtx 4080 super when they first came out and has been a great shot in the arm for my aging PC. If all else were to remain constant, I would be OK with leaving everything as is. HOWEVER, (lol) Since the Pimax crystal light was announced, I've had an itch. It addressed almost all my concerns with the Crystal and I couldn't take it any longer and purchased one yesterday. I was planning on seeing if my i7-8700K could struggle with it and if not, then take action. But the more I thought about it, I'm now leaning toward just upgrading the cpu and motherboard (and memory). Shame because I feel like the old 8700 still has some life left in her. Anyway, so I start researching for the best cpu with msfs and oh boy. At first I was going to just get the latest Intel chip and call it a day. But wait someone says, "the amd x3d chips just run msfs so much better". So I say OK, "a 7950x3d coming up". But wait someone else says, "the amd chips run very very very hot. Plus msfs 2024 is going to take advantage of multithreading so you want the extra cores on an Intel chip." Bueller....anyone...Bueller?

Any help would be appreciated,
LouP
Click to expand...
I have an i9 13900KF and that thing runs hot even with my cooler.

Temperatures is not an issue, as long as there below 85°C. I would indeed go for AMD. My next build will be AMD.

Cheers,

Priller
 
I've just moved from an 8700k / 3070 to a 14900kf / 4070ti set up. Very happy with the move. Got MSFS back up and running yesterday and have enjoyed cranking settings up and lack of stutters. I pulled the trigger before reading up about the AMD benefits, but happy with my choice, it's hardly a slouch!
 
So after a lot of consideration and talking with the reps at Micro Center, I decided to go with the AMD Ryzen 7800x3d. Hope it was the right choice!
 
LouP said:
So after a lot of consideration and talking with the reps at Micro Center, I decided to go with the AMD Ryzen 7800x3d. Hope it was the right choice!
Click to expand...
A reasonably priced top CPU. I don't think you'll be disappointed! That L3 cache is downright impressive!

Priller
 
A lot of these latest AMD CPU's comprise of two chiplets, one of which has associated cache, the other does not. Like having two processors in one. The chiplet without the associated cache is built for work not requiring speed - such as video processing, picture processing and detail - oriented work which is not speed/time sensitive. The chiplet with the associated cache is built for speed. It has rapid access to most info called upon through its associated cache, and hence there is little need for time consuming searches through drives or RAM. When combined, these two chiplets are like an olympic bi-athlete, able to rapidly x-country ski a course, then lie down and very precisely aim to hit the bulls eye at the target range. Two skills at opposite ends of the spectrum. AMD marketing is comparable to that of a car manufacturer. They often advertise top end fully optioned vehicles before they bring out the more task focused versions. This is the reason the 7800X3D came out some time after the 7950X3D. The 7800X3D is actually built for one purpose - speed. AMD looked at this and probably knowing many gamers want the latest, fastest gear the second it comes out, sought to release the pricier 7950X3D first. A pure gamer will not make much use of the non-cached chipset in this one. For FS2024, which is built on a multi-core platform, your 7800X3D could not be a better fit.

 
OK, very very smooth. But I am running a resolution of around 29 squared on a reverb G2 and getting frames around 38. OXR toolkit says I have 100% headroom on my GPU. It's almost like I have a throttling setting on but I can't find it anywhere. Any ideas?

Thanks,
LouP
 
And also says I have 64% headroom on my CPU. Not sure why my fps isn't higher if I have all this headroom.
 
Hi @LouP maybe it's your PSU? I have a similar problem though. Look at the specs of my rig. My CPU is running very very high temps, and my GPU hardly has any load at all.

So I'm pretty curious about what the hardware gurus have to say about your problem and mine

Priller
 
Hi Priller,

Thanks, I'm going to keep digging, too. I have a 850 watt EVGA Power supply so I don't think it's that. I'm new with AMD so I'm still learning. One strange this I noticed is that when looking at the graphics tab on CPUz it lists "AMD Radeon (TM) Graphics" first in the dropdown and also has "Virtual Display Adapter" and "NVIDIA Geforce RTX 4080 Super". I don't know if any of this is normal or if I need to deactivate all but the nVidia listing. Hoping for some help.

LouP
 
Also, let me know if my expectations are just too high. I just took a flight with fps between 38 and 40 with the resolution on the HP G2 super sampled to a little more than the native resolution on what the Pimax Crystal will be to make sure the new rig can handle it.

LouP
 
Last edited:
what are you getting for fps? I'm trying to make sure everything is set-up ok and I'm not yet familiar with how amd works

LouP
 
fps between 38 and 40 in VR seems more than reasonable. I don't do VR myself, but I have read that fps are lower than when using a monitor.
 
LouP said:
what are you getting for fps? I'm trying to make sure everything is set-up ok and I'm not yet familiar with how amd works

LouP
Click to expand...
With a 4090, 60-70 fps usually with a Quest Pro. It also depends of the scenery and configuration.

Doing bush flying easy it keeps at 70 fps (running at 70 hz if i am not mistaken). I change from time to time to 80hz.
 
Feels like something is amiss. I easily maintain 80 fps in most areas on a Quest 3 with an Intel 13900k.

I would check your CPU temps while running MSFS. If they’re hot enough, you might be thermal throttling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top