Help building a new PC for Flight Simming

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Hello guys,

 

I have a dinosaur PC and i think i'ts time to change, initially i was planning to change everything except my GPU ( EVGA GTX1080Ti watercooled AIO) => 1600e but currently it's too much for me...

So i'll get keep everything but upgrade :

 

• CPU ( Ex 4790K OCed to 4.6 Ghz + OLD Corsair H110i Watercooler)
  • I7 10700K :https://www.materiel.net/produit/202003040081.html + H115I Platinium : https://www.materiel.net/produit/202003040081.html
• MoBo
  • ASUS TUF GAMING Z490-PLUS https://www.materiel.net/produit/202004220006.html (does it support NVIDIA GPU ?)
• RAM: (EX CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM DDR3 1600MHz)
  • CORSAIR DOMINATOR PLATINUM DDR4 3000MHz  https://www.materiel.net/produit/201507280028.html

 

Will that give me 30 steady FPS with the fslabs  + P3DV5 ? What about MSFS2020. it is easy for a noob to get 5.0GHz without a high Vcore ?

i was wondering if an i5 10600K could be enough if i can OC it at 5.0 GHz, can p3dv5 and msfs2020 use 6 cores at 100%, the price is 150e less than the i710700k but i want something that can last me at least 5 years

 

thanks for your input

[Camille MOUCHEL]

No one has an opinion ?

[Robert Sutherland]

Your question about the motherboard support for graphics cards, it will support an Nvidia card, and seemingly supports all the newest models. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/?compatible_with=MVRgXL

In terms of processors, I think an i7 would probably future-proof your PC more on the basis that I think MSFS makes better use of mulitple cores. But I have an old i5 and it works okay on that. 

I'd also say that if you're upgrading all the components perhaps 32gb of RAM is better than 16gb. But I'd let others chime in on that  

[Camille MOUCHEL]

14 minutes ago, Robert Sutherland said:

Your question about the motherboard support for graphics cards, it will support an Nvidia card, and seemingly supports all the newest models. 

https://pcpartpicker.com/products/video-card/?compatible_with=MVRgXL

In terms of processors, I think an i7 would probably future-proof your PC more on the basis that I think MSFS makes better use of mulitple cores. But I have an old i5 and it works okay on that. 

I'd also say that if you're upgrading all the components perhaps 32gb of RAM is better than 16gb. But I'd let others chime in on that  

i can go with the i5 10600k and then get the i7 like 2 years later as now even msfs2020 can't uses more than 4 cores because not yet compatible with DX12

I'd like 32gb but i really want to pay the less for now, when i'll jump o msfs next year when the NG3 will be availabe, i'll then get another 16Gb RAM

 

thanks for your input

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Well I just bought everything from above except that I went with the i5 10600k, will assembly the parts this weekend

[klaus legrand]

Shame i did not see it before.

I would have suggested the I7-10700k , and the 32 Gb RAM this would be a good compromise for performance budget and PC life time.

I have built my own 2 years ago and seems like a dinosaur today ! (i7-8700K 16Gb RAM and GTX1070) i can run p3dV4.5 smoothly 30fps in major airports with FSLABS + it is stable. I guess with the new RTX3080 i could probably add 10-20 fps...will see at least i have started putting aside for that beast. 

[Camille MOUCHEL]

On 9/28/2020 at 4:42 PM, klaus legrand said:

Shame i did not see it before.

I would have suggested the I7-10700k , and the 32 Gb RAM this would be a good compromise for performance budget and PC life time.

I have built my own 2 years ago and seems like a dinosaur today ! (i7-8700K 16Gb RAM and GTX1070) i can run p3dV4.5 smoothly 30fps in major airports with FSLABS + it is stable. I guess with the new RTX3080 i could probably add 10-20 fps...will see at least i have started putting aside for that beast. 

wats the point, P3DV+ fslabs doesn't event used fully my 6 cores, I also fly on XP11 and my CPU in flight is never above 40%, avg 25-35% so how can 2 more cores give me better FPS ?

besides my 1080ti is used in avg at 45-65 % so stillv ery limited by CPU so how can a RTX 3080 gives better performance unless you are limited VRAM wise ?

 

Besides if in the futur i'm still getting poor performance, i can still upgrade to the 11th generation from intel should be compatible with socket 1200

[peter kelberg]

yea   there  so many options  to  choose  from, going  to upgrade  my  pc  in the  next  3  or  so months   this  is the  build  so  far  probably  will  change   in the  next month or  so

  Intel Core i9 10900KA 10 Core, Z490 Chipset, GeForce RTX 3080 10GB, 32GB 3200MHz RAM, 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD, 2TB HDD, Cooler Master Case, 850W PSU, Win 10 Home

[Camille MOUCHEL]

14 minutes ago, peter kelberg said:

yea   there  so many options  to  choose  from, going  to upgrade  my  pc  in the  next  3  or  so months   this  is the  build  so  far  probably  will  change   in the  next month or  so

  Intel Core i9 10900KA 10 Core, Z490 Chipset, GeForce RTX 3080 10GB, 32GB 3200MHz RAM, 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD, 2TB HDD, Cooler Master Case, 850W PSU, Win 10 Home

 

Do you really need 10 cores ? even msfs can't use more than 4 cores

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Hi guys, Did an overclock to 4.9Ghz on my 10600k with an Vcore of 1.25/1.26 under full load, LLC 4 and is stable under one hour of OCCT with SSE and AVX2 instruction on small data. The temps was averageing 64/65°C after max being 67°C, is that correct ?

I'll try to get 5.0Ghz with 1.30v max and then OC the ring to 46/47 if i'm lucky.

 

however i think that i got  bad chip, at stock speed, i got a 3400 marks at cinebench 20 whereas all reviews as 3600 marks and 3900 when oc to 4.9/5.0 GHz. after OC to 4.9GHz, only have 3600 marks which is the score of the average 10600k at stock speed ???

Does RAM speed comes into play for cinebench 20 ? my 3600 marks was with my CPU oc and XMP 1 profile activated so my RAM was at 3000MHz, maybe those scores on review were at 4000/4400MHz ?

[Markus Burkhard]

8 minutes ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

Do you really need 10 cores ? even msfs can't use more than 4 cores

I'm no expert on the inner workings of MSFS, but Prepar3D happily uses more than 4 cores! Plus our software can also make use of all cores available. And if one is to buy a new system today, it should be made future-proof for the next couple of years, which is another good reason to go for at least 8 cores if the budget allows.

[Camille MOUCHEL]

5 minutes ago, Markus Burkhard said:

I'm no expert on the inner workings of MSFS, but Prepar3D happily uses more than 4 cores! Plus our software can also make use of all cores available. And if one is to buy a new system today, it should be made future-proof for the next couple of years, which is another good reason to go for at least 8 cores if the budget allows.

agreed but even on my 6 cores, i have yet seen over 80% CPU usage

[peter kelberg]

49 minutes ago, Markus Burkhard said:

I'm no expert on the inner workings of MSFS, but Prepar3D happily uses more than 4 cores! Plus our software can also make use of all cores available. And if one is to buy a new system today, it should be made future-proof for the next couple of years, which is another good reason to go for at least 8 cores if the budget allows.

thats  my plan   if  your  going  to upgrade  you might  as well go  all  the  way  to  your  budget  of  course

[Daniel Saffran]

Does one really need 10 Cores?
Maybe it is too much ... but maybe it is far too less - it all depends on the workload respectively the requirements. When I learned one thing about P3D it is: there are no universal rules!

For my case / my requirements, 10 Cores would be not enough. I've upgraded this year to an 9900K (OC to 4.8G All-Core) and my CPU is at 90-100% usage on all 16 Cores & Threads. Sometimes I regret it and contemplate that it would have been wiser to wait for the next Zen-Iteration and go for a Ryzen 9 with 16C/32T (the successor of the 3950X).
But that is how I want it - I want to run many Addons, I want to crank up every Setting, I want AI-Traffic. Surely if one can settle with less, 10/8/6 pCores would be enough. => So there is no universal answer to this questions, it all depends on how your Setup looks and how you want to run it. 

[Søren Rasmussen]

22 minutes ago, Daniel Saffran said:

it all depends on how your Setup looks and how you want to run it

.... and your bank account as well

[peter kelberg]

30 minutes ago, Søren Rasmussen said:

.... and your bank account as well

and if  your  single  as  well

[Jalil Errais]

Ive ordered this PC:

 

I7 10700K
ASUS ROG 3080
32GB RAM XPG RGB 3600
250+1TB M2 XPG
CASE COOLERMASTER MB511 RGB
COOLERMASTER AIO LIQUID
850W COOLERMASTER

[Camille MOUCHEL]

2 hours ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Does one really need 10 Cores?
Maybe it is too much ... but maybe it is far too less - it all depends on the workload respectively the requirements. When I learned one thing about P3D it is: there are no universal rules!

For my case / my requirements, 10 Cores would be not enough. I've upgraded this year to an 9900K (OC to 4.8G All-Core) and my CPU is at 90-100% usage on all 16 Cores & Threads. Sometimes I regret it and contemplate that it would have been wiser to wait for the next Zen-Iteration and go for a Ryzen 9 with 16C/32T (the successor of the 3950X).
But that is how I want it - I want to run many Addons, I want to crank up every Setting, I want AI-Traffic. Surely if one can settle with less, 10/8/6 pCores would be enough. => So there is no universal answer to this questions, it all depends on how your Setup looks and how you want to run it. 

 

90+% on 16 threads !!! that's insame, i'm almost on ultra setting except shadows and relfection on aircraft only and i don't have that can't of load on the CPU

[Camille MOUCHEL]

Manage to get my 10600K to 5.0GHz on all cores with a VID of 1.30/1.31V and is enough stable on OCCT and P3DV5. Gonna TEST with OCCT AVX instructions

what are your thought ?

 

BIOS_1.BMP

BIOS_2.BMP

BIOS_3.BMP

BIOS_4.BMP

 

 

 

 

EDIT: well BSOD on OCCT AVX2

EDIT 2: Stable with AVX-1

[Daniel Saffran]

Hmm maybe two Cores more and no OC would have saved you troubles 

Always test AVX benchmarks first.  They (respectively the Instruction Set) need much more power and therefore generate more heat (watch out for thermal throtteling in HWinfo!). At least it was that way with Coffee Lake (9xxx) - but since it is basically the same microarchitecture I'd bet it is still this way.
If the CPU stays stable and within Temperature-Range, you're pretty safe. And test long enough, so you can be sure not to get into thermal throtteling once the water cooler is in his "steady state". (Thermal Throtteling is really bad, the CPU reduces the multiplier heavely - it's wiser to have 100MHz+ less if that stays within temp range)

[Camille MOUCHEL]

11 hours ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Hmm maybe two Cores more and no OC would have saved you troubles 

Always test AVX benchmarks first.  They (respectively the Instruction Set) need much more power and therefore generate more heat (watch out for thermal throtteling in HWinfo!). At least it was that way with Coffee Lake (9xxx) - but since it is basically the same microarchitecture I'd bet it is still this way.
If the CPU stays stable and within Temperature-Range, you're pretty safe. And test long enough, so you can be sure not to get into thermal throtteling once the water cooler is in his "steady state". (Thermal Throtteling is really bad, the CPU reduces the multiplier heavely - it's wiser to have 100MHz+ less if that stays within temp range)

thanks for your input, manage to get it stable at 5.0Ghz and Ring Ratio x46 with on adaptive mode + 0.070V offset => VID of 1.33XV under AVX load

 

Cinebench20 scores ( priority set to real time)

ring ratio x44:
 
3918
504
7.78
 
ring ratio x45:
3907
507
7.70
 
ring ratio x46:
 
X46
3929
511
7.69

 

room temp was about 18/19°C

 

but i think i can get it stable at 5.2Ghz but only for xplane/p3dv5 because avx load generated from OCCT/prime95.... are unrealistic for flight simulator at leas.

 

I did a flight on p3DV5 with max load radiaus... and the max wattage was 125W compared to the 190+W from OCCT AVX load. However i will keep it like this, now i'll try to redeuce as musch as i can the offset voltage so i can get lower temp. I just know that +0.050V i'm unstable at AVX-0 but stabke at AVX-1, so i'll try +0.055-0.065 range

[Daniel Saffran]

4 hours ago, Camille MOUCHEL said:

but i think i can get it stable at 5.2Ghz but only for xplane/p3dv5 because avx load generated from OCCT/prime95.... are unrealistic for flight simulator at leas.

Why? You're not CPU-Bottlenecked, so why invest even more time? Or is just "because I can"? 

I'm not 100% sure but pretty sure that P3D (and FSL) do use AVX Instructions. OC-Testing and if an OC is stable should not be defined under light workload conditions - imho. So if your CPU onstock can run for hours/days stable under maximum workload, an OC should do the same.
You could try 5.2GHz with AVX-Offset -2 (so AVX runs on 5GHz)

[Camille MOUCHEL]

19 minutes ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Why? You're not CPU-Bottlenecked, so why invest even more time? Or is just "because I can"? 

I'm not 100% sure but pretty sure that P3D (and FSL) do use AVX Instructions. OC-Testing and if an OC is stable should not be defined under light workload conditions - imho. So if your CPU onstock can run for hours/days stable under maximum workload, an OC should do the same.
You could try 5.2GHz with AVX-Offset -2 (so AVX runs on 5GHz)

at 5.1, i'm not stable OCCT SSE at VID 1.35/36V and I don't want to go over 1.36v but i could  be stable at 5.1/5.2 on Xplane or P3DV5.

 

i will try if i can get 5.2 at 1.38V and see i dont crash on p3DV5 but im sure i wont be stable on OCCT SSE even with 1.40+V and i only fly on XP11 and fslabs so whats the point of OC to 5.2 if my CPU will always throttle back to 5.0 on XP11/FSLABS ?

[Camille MOUCHEL]

24 minutes ago, Daniel Saffran said:

Why? You're not CPU-Bottlenecked, so why invest even more time? Or is just "because I can"? 

I'm not 100% sure but pretty sure that P3D (and FSL) do use AVX Instructions. OC-Testing and if an OC is stable should not be defined under light workload conditions - imho. So if your CPU onstock can run for hours/days stable under maximum workload, an OC should do the same.
You could try 5.2GHz with AVX-Offset -2 (so AVX runs on 5GHz)

I'm very CPU limited with FSLABS and a bit less on XP11 where my GPU is between 75-95% usage

[Andrzej Witold]

On 10/13/2020 at 12:59 PM, Daniel Saffran said:

Does one really need 10 Cores?
Maybe it is too much ... but maybe it is far too less - it all depends on the workload respectively the requirements. When I learned one thing about P3D it is: there are no universal rules!

For my case / my requirements, 10 Cores would be not enough. I've upgraded this year to an 9900K (OC to 4.8G All-Core) and my CPU is at 90-100% usage on all 16 Cores & Threads. Sometimes I regret it and contemplate that it would have been wiser to wait for the next Zen-Iteration and go for a Ryzen 9 with 16C/32T (the successor of the 3950X).
But that is how I want it - I want to run many Addons, I want to crank up every Setting, I want AI-Traffic. Surely if one can settle with less, 10/8/6 pCores would be enough. => So there is no universal answer to this questions, it all depends on how your Setup looks and how you want to run it. 

Since I am contemplating building brand new PC from time to time I would like to ask thsi question:

Does P3D v4.5 or P3D 5 use these 10 cores? Of so, does it work out of the box or you need some tweaking? Some or a lot of?

I ask this because choice between 4-6 and 10 cores is VERY costly

&

[Daniel Saffran]

Depends on what you're aiming for  (Settings/Graphics)
Camille is happy with 6 Cores, I'm "okay-ish" with 8 Cores but wished for more (that and more VRAM -.- )

I'd wait a little longer if I were you and would go for an all AMD-Setup. With Zen3 (Ryzen 4xxx/5xxx) you'll get more Cores for the same money and with Big Navi (Radeon 6800/6900) you'll get more VRAM for the same money.