New System Build

MZee1960

MZee1960

SOH-CM-2023
Hello everyone,

I need some expert advice from the people who use MSFS on a regular basis. Been on FSX since 2007 and unable to go to MSFS due to outdated system. Now supply chain issues have mostly subsided here and I am finally near the end in terms of picking system components (building a system is now like trying to hit a moving target as new stuff comes out almost daily, stuff you picked is not compatible, or available anymore, etc. etc. .... lol).

I have two choices :

1)
case - Lian Li 011D XL
processor - Ryzen 9 7950x3D
ssd's - Samsung 990 PRO PCIe 4.0 NVMe 1x1TB (OS), 1x1TB (storage), 2x1TB (both devoted to MSFS)
video card - GeForce RTX 4090 Aero OC
power supply - MSI AR 1300P 1300W
OS - W11 Home
cooling - NZXT Kraken Z73 RGB
mobo - Asus ROG Strix X-670 E-A Gaming Wifi DDR5 with 4 x M.2 slots
RAM - 2x32 GB Corsair vengeance RGB DDR5 8000 MHz

2)
everything as in 1) above, except :
processor - i9 13900k
mobo - MSI MPG Z790 Edge Wifi DDR5 with 5 x M.2 slots

Biggest question I have is regarding the processor. Ryzen is (still) a 2 month wait for me, Intel is in stock.

All the 'buzz' around the new Ryzen 7950x3D is now subsiding. The two seem equal to me ATM. What do you think is the better build .... 1 or 2 ? and why ?

Thank-you, in advance for your feedback.

MZ....
 
I don't have any experience with the latest Ryzen, but I can tell you that with the 13900K and 4090 combo is wonderful for MSFS. I run a 5,120x1,440 display for 2D MSFS, and a Reverb G2 for VR, and both are silky smooth. 2D is Ultra-everything and 200 LOD and a Tobii Eye Tracker; VR I have a couple of things turned down to High that don't look visually different and details at 150.

And I have an MSI Z790 board in my SFF secondary system and it's rock-solid.

So if you don't want to wait, I can't promise that the AMD chip won't gain you a few FPS here and there, but i can tell you that the 13900K/4090 combo will deliver plenty to make you happy!

Also, on the Intel build, at least, you don't need 1300W. If that's all that's available, it's fine, but I'm running 1000W and it's got plenty of headroom; I ran the 4090 on 850W while waiting on my last parts.
 
As I stated in another thread - build it for tomorrow. Do not just build it to run the Sim today. Plan on a few years of higher power before you have to add to it or clock it. If you have to clock it when new, you bought the wrong one. Good luck, and remember - build tomorrow's computer today.

Don BP;)
 
I specced a new build in November last year, and as you point out, things do move on.
The PSU you describe will require an airconditioner in summer, I have 1000W and it's already a standalone heater.
The other bits you quote will do nicely for most MSFS applications, but do put in 2TB of SSD as primary storage.
And some more for secondary, I just have a rotating one; TB are today what MB were yesterday.
EDIT: I just looked at the prices for an RTX 4090... unless mining Bitcoin, the RTX 3070 Tom describes below is fine. I stretched for a 3080 (1/3 the price of a 4090) and it eats MSFS.
 
Last edited:
Except for your 4090, your specs will be very similar to mine (below). With DX12 and DLSS, I can sometimes get 90+ FPS when there's not much on the screen. Note that I only have 32 GB RAM, and that amount isn't even maxed in flight. The only time that RAM is really helpful is when working with large files, such as when editing video or working with a large database - although I will admit that it's better to have and not need as opposed to the other way 'round.
 
Thank-you, everyone for your very valuable input and suggestions.

Going into a new sim on a new system is like a double-edged sword. You want to ensure the sim is 'comfortable' with the system, and vice versa. I'd hate to start doing upgrades right after installing the sim because something was amiss. Better to 'overshoot' the mark, than 'undershoot', and build it for the future. I will revisit my PSU, maybe 1300W is overkill for even the Ryzen CPU. I have allocated two 2TB SSD's just for the sim as one 4TB SSD is very, very hard to get ATM.

As MSFS seems to have little in common with FSX, I think I may need to take some courses to manage the learning curve. Judging by all the wonderful eye candy I see in the screenshots forum, it will certainly all be worth it.

MZ..
 
Unless you plan on going addon-crazy, 2TB is plenty. I have a single 2TB SSD and it's only about 25% full at the moment. But then, I'm picky about my downloads. With a pair of them, you can put the stock files in their default location*, then use the second drive as addon storage and use the Addon Linker app to bring in what you need for each session to keep load times down.

*As for the location of your core files, there is a debate as to whether it's better to install to the default location or somewhere more accessible. Different people have different opinions, but mine works just fine using the default path.
 
There are so many amazing add-ons for MSFS, though, that if you like to populate the worlds, 4TB is the way to go. I had MSFS on a 2TB SSD before my latest system rebuild and I was reaching 90% full.

I currently have 1.5TB in my FS_Addons folder, another 170GB in my OrbX folder, and 412GB being used by the sim itself. So I'd have already had to start deleting if I hadn't updated to 4TB. (Two 2TB m.2 SSDs in a RAID0 config to appear as one drive.)

Also, unless you only fly in VR, the frame doubling on the 4000-series Nvidia cards is worth every penny over the 300 series. Even though you can get great frame rates on a 3000-series card in most situations. the 4000 cards make framerate a total afterthought.
 
MZee1960 said:
Judging by all the wonderful eye candy I see in the screenshots forum, it will certainly all be worth it.

MZ..
Click to expand...

Your proposed systems are very excellent either one. I might wait for the upcoming 7800x3d but the 7950x3d would be a monster. And the 13900K is also a monster. I would also go with the 4090. I have a 4080 and the frame generation alone is worth the high cost. I went from a 1080 Ti to a 4080 and doubled my fps in DX12 with frame gen. Earlier last year I did a major system upgrade from a 4790K to 12700K and doubled my fps in most areas (sometimes tripled). So even though I spent about 4k usd including the video card it's been well worth it. I usually see high 80's with heavy payware and clouds and AI. In more rural areas or even big cities without heavy payware addons I'll easily go triple digits hehe!

I'm using 1440p res for 2D and in VR I use the HP Reverb G2 (4k per eye) - this is where I wish I had the 4090 but I had to stop somewhere LOL

You'll love your new system! It's going to be night and day from the one you have. Once you do get it put together you may need to enable HAGS for frame gen (and you also must be in DX12 within MSFS - note that you can use DLSS or TAA in frame gen):

https://www.majorgeeks.com/content/page/hardware_accelerated_gpu_scheduling.html
 
Thank-you, to everyone, for your advice and feedback.

I am currently revisiting the 1300W power supply recommendation by the IT guy. PCPartPicker indicates the Ryzen CPU version 1) as needing around 890W. I realize headroom is good, but maybe 1000W would suffice ?
 
MZee1960 said:
Thank-you, to everyone, for your advice and feedback.

I am currently revisiting the 1300W power supply recommendation by the IT guy. PCPartPicker indicates the Ryzen CPU version 1) as needing around 890W. I realize headroom is good, but maybe 1000W would suffice ?
Click to expand...

I plugged my entire system into kill-a-watt (including my X530 speaker system and 10 port usb3 hub) and while MSFS was running in VR it peaked at 520w. I run a 850w psu from evga.

IMO 1000w is plenty even for a 4090-based system.
 
ryanbatc said:
I plugged my entire system into kill-a-watt (including my X530 speaker system and 10 port usb3 hub) and while MSFS was running in VR it peaked at 520w. I run a 850w psu from evga.

IMO 1000w is plenty even for a 4090-based system.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Ryan.

I appreciate your feedback. Yes, I also am beginning to think 1300W is overkill. The techs stress test all systems at the shop for a week or so, before releasing them and have their opinions re what has worked/not worked in the past. Maybe they were just being cautious and quoted the 1300W supply - reason being that apparently system components perform at their peak when power supply adequately meets all their peak operating needs, as well as, of course temps in the case are on the lower end of the scale at same time. I picked a larger case and more fans for improved air flow/cooling, but certainly do not want a space heater if 1000W will be enough. Apparently some power supplies will not ramp up their performance unless called upon by the components to deliver more power, and so can operate 'cooler' when system is at minimal load - or something like that ? I have to do a bit more research on the power supply component, I guess.
 
Hello, again. My system is nearing completion, now. Thank-you, everyone, for your valuable input.

I have a quick installation question without a clear answer, please ..... (maybe it makes no difference)

The main MS Flightsim site says to let the MSFS launcher app install on the C drive (amongst the rest of windows apps - where it natively wants to live), then install the second 'main files portion' on a dedicated second drive (to protect your sim files in the event of OS crash/drive failure etc.). This setup may also prevent some future sim update problems, apparently. Many people disregard this and install both parts of the sim on a second dedicated drive to keep everything more 'organized'. Will MSFS install 'anything at all' on the C (OS) drive even if one chooses a separate dedicated drive for both sim parts at the very start ? It just seems to me that it may not really make any difference where the launcher app is put (OS drive vs dedicated MSFS drive) ? Perhaps I am missing something ?
 
The first download is what I call the "core" files. It contains the actual executable and a few other critical files. I've never heard of anyone installing this to a custom location, but I suppose it's possible.

The second download is the one that many people choose to download to at least a custom location, if not a secondary drive altogether. And while updates rarely upset completely default installations, beta participants have been known to have their sim wiped when coming out of beta versions. At least that's the way I understand it. My sim is fully default in its install locations, but I don't participate in any betas from MS/Asobo either.
 
The base sim (launcher) is pretty small, and if you ever have to reinstall, you're going to install it anyway. So it really doesn't matter what drive that ends up on.

The main files (the folder with OneStore and Community, which you specify during setup) are what you want to put on a second drive. Your life is sooo much easier if you just create a folder like D:\FlightSim and install the remainder of the download there. Easier to find the files, you don't lose them if you have to wipe/reinstall your Windows drive, and you're never bitten by the "update forced all my files to be redownloaded" issue, which I've even seen some non-beta participants complain about.

If you do put both the launcher and data files on a second drive, the system will still store some cache/temporary files in your AppData folder, which is generally on your Windows drive.
 
Thank-you, Tom and Denny.

I think keeping the 'core' files on C drive will work best, and I will set up a custom Flightsim folder on D drive as per your suggestion, Denny. This will contain the OneStore and Community folders and be easy to find.

Denny, I am also taking your advice re storage space (future-proofing) for MSFS scenery etc. and have opted to go with 2x 2TB (1x 4TB not available here) Samsung 990 PRO PCIe 4.0 NVMe drives (D,E), both for MSFS. I am planning on re-downloading a lot of Orbx scenery I had in FSX, as it becomes available for MSFS. Hoping to use Addon Linker to link everything addon on D and E drives together with the sim Community folder - but I'll cross that bridge when the time comes, lol !
 
Sounds cool, MZee! If you're using addon linker that setup should work fine.

You could also set up the two 990 drives in a RAID0 array. That will make them look like a single drive, and also give you a little bit of a speed boost. I have two of my m.2 drives set up that way on my PC.
 
DennyA said:
Sounds cool, MZee! If you're using addon linker that setup should work fine.

You could also set up the two 990 drives in a RAID0 array. That will make them look like a single drive, and also give you a little bit of a speed boost. I have two of my m.2 drives set up that way on my PC.
Click to expand...

Thank-you, again, I never thought about RAID 0.

You currently have what I would eventually aspire to have down the road, especially wrt scenery addons and Orbx. Ultimately I hope to get all my addons (including Orbx stuff) in a custom folder (arranged using sub-folders into scenery, aircraft, mods etc.) and have Addons Linker link everything to the Community folder. I'll cross that bridge at a later time, lol ! First things first, as they say.

I really appreciate all of this valuable guidance from yourself and everyone here.

Cheers,
Milan .....
 
DennyA said:
You could also set up the two 990 drives in a RAID0 array. That will make them look like a single drive, and also give you a little bit of a speed boost. I have two of my m.2 drives set up that way on my PC.
Click to expand...

Does that give any significant advantage in practice? I mean that if something happens say 0,01 s and it improves to 0,001 s you don't even notice it.
 
PHo17 said:
Does that give any significant advantage in practice? I mean that if something happens say 0,01 s and it improves to 0,001 s you don't even notice it.
Click to expand...

I haven't benchmarked it, but MSFS is literally about the most file I/O-intensive application you can put on a Windows PC this side of a corporate database, so anything helps.

I wouldn't buy a second drive just for potential speedup, no. But if you already have two identical drives, why not set them up in the potentially fastest configuration?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top