Thank you so much for creating such a thorough, concise & professional quality review! I’m looking into doing my 1st build & was very apprehensive to begin, as I have no computer background, but intend to run F.Sim someday (& no, I don’t really game, just research & offline archiving). After approaching the guys at the local computer shop, they left me with little hope of being able to run the program with anything less than the best gaming computer that money could buy & custom build. I’m glad that my skepticism kicked in from having the frustrating past experiences of working around people who would rather give a cocky and quick answer when they don’t have the knowledge to fully answer the question with 100% honesty or have the humility to admit they don’t. Thank you for your help & saving me so much headache, embarrassment and money! God Bless!
I mean this title doesn't exactly run on a potato, however it still runs on consoles. I gotta admit those come sort of well equipped and thought out this generation, but a pc build mimicking that performance shouldn't be "the best that money could buy". Your pc shop guys maybe also got a little excited for a nice commission selling a luxurious build that day :D
Once we have confirmed information on it, I will do. I have a couple of concerns 1) I haven't seen reliable testing of it yet to confirm the performance, although it looks great, and 2) AMD have a habit of releasing products like this that are incredibly hard to buy on the retail market (see the 3300X). Once we've confirmed performance and availability, I'll pin it.
The big issue comes with Addon planes with a lot of complex system simulations. The lack of spread over the threads and cores causes issues, and its hard to tell if its poorly coded or limitations of the sim. Most planes out there are not that complex at the moment but there are some stand outs, and more than one might think. The PMDG DC6 is the one I think of the most because I love it but 36 FPS is not good enough, especially now that I just got Track IR, it feels pretty bad. There are 3 or 4 other Addons I know having similar issues. But I also know a few that simulate alot of systems and still do well. What separate the good from the bad is often that the good ones are old stuff without GPS systems in them. I have a pretty beefy system now, 5900X and 32 Gb 3200 Mhz ram, 2060 Super 8 gb, and while one might look at the GPU and think, oh thats just... well, its hard to even get MSFS to fully utilize it let alone a 3090... I hope DX12 will sort a bit of this out but as its still in very early stages most of us dont use it, for some it works for others it does not. I see people that have thrown 5k or even 10k USD's in to their systems for this simulator alone, 128 Gb of ram or 64 Gb of ram and 16 or 32 Core CPU's even... but its clearly wasted because the sim have no clue what to do with that at the moment. Only game I have that I know for sure uses my 5900X heavily is Cyberpunk 2077, and that game is pretty terrible even after all its updates. It runs just fine, its even stable, but its still an early Beta at best, and I have completed the game more than once and 250 hours in it. This game will push the CPU to 60% or more at times, nothing else come close. MSFS sits at 10 - 15% mostly... even if I run at Ultra... All this said, its very hard to pinpoint where the issues lie, every plane is a bit different, especially the Addons, the sim is very modular, you can put in your own modules that bypass the systems in the sim to make complete custom stuff and many of the big studios that do the high fidelity planes do just that, and that changes the CPU load completely, especially in large complex multi engined airliners, even old ones without lots of computer screens in them.
Thanks so much, you have been answering many questions I have had for a long time. Perfect summary and very well reduced to what is necessary to get a feel for what suits your idea and budget. Most informative advice that relates to real life tests that I have come across so far. I subscribed instantly 👍
while that is true you are most likely going to be gpu limited for the most part, from what i heard most flight sim fans are content with 30fps gameplay and 60fps is more than enough. For the most part your horizon changes very slowly and lower fps feels significantly better than something like fast paced first person shooter. Whoever uses high refresh monitors for Flight sim uses for very specific flights. Imo you are most likely going to use high resolution monitors maybe wider than 16:9 aspect ratio, possibly triple monitor setup, high resolution and be limited by your gpu. these 1080p high cpu benchmarks with top of the line gpus to push cpu are useful for sure but they are very far off from realistic scenario
@@h1tzzYT while 30fps may be enough. 60fps is still preferred as it still makes the camera controls much smoother. And a definitely a must for VR play.
@@symol30872 it IS enough though, sure its not ideal, but is enough, then goes the visual quality and only then 60fps target, 60fps is secondary for most (only considering MSFS).
@@h1tzzYT Hardware unboxed showed the 5800x3D had an 18% FPS improvement at 1440p over standard 5800x at "high end" quality setting with a 3090ti. Your attempt to seriously downplay the advantage this CPU has in this title, (but also in Star citizen it is netting in some cases DOUBLE the FPS vs 12700KF), is mostly unfounded. The point is that this CPU is a far better choice than any of the ones reviewed in this video (no fault of the creator here - just a timing issue). Only at 4K and "high end" settings do things actually even out between the 5800x and the 5800x3D (according to the Hardware Unboxed review) - so if you are not currently playing at 4k with a 3090ti on "high end" settings, your framerate stands to be higher with this CPU. You are right, that 30fps is definitely "acceptable" in a flight sim, but I think most people would prefer an "enjoyable" framerate over an "acceptable" one - and in this title if it can be achieved with a $400 CPU, over say an $800 CPU (12900KS), then that is information that people who play this game will want to hear , especially since the title topic we are discussing here is _"Build the _*_best_*_ PC for microsoft flight simulator"._ not _"Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ..."_
@@WaspMedia3D Just because hardware unboxed showed 18% difference in their heavily cpu limited use case (for understandable reasons) doesnt mean you are going to see the same difference using exact same setup with max or ultra settings at most likely different resolution and render scale. You are basing your "acceptable" vs "enjoyable" argument on unrealistic settings and most likely gpu configuration. That is common benchmark trap that many people get themselves into. "especially since the title topic we are discussing here is "Build the best PC for microsoft flight simulator". not "Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ..."" im guessing you havent watched the video as the author himself said its more oriented towards good value oriented, helping to find a good balance between performance and price, NOT the best of the best, watch at 1:42 im guessing you just saw the tittle, clicked on it, skipped to charts and called it a day.
Very much appreciated your detailed work! Thanks a lot for all these recommendations. For VR with Oculus Quest 2 - imo - at least an rtx 3080 (my config) / rx6800xt is necessary, 3080ti will bring noticably better immersion. Personally, I am going to stick to the rtx 3080 for now and will wait for next gen GPUs rtx 4080 (ti) / 7800/7850xt which should outperform even an rtx 3090ti by around 20-30% in flight simulator (maybe even 30-40% in low 0,1% FPS). Finally, next gen GPUs will bring excellent immersion for VR headsets like Proverb G2 and Oculus Quest 2. Concerning 1440p (ultra) and 4k (high settings) an rtx 4060 (ti) might be the sweet spot.
Super great Video. Take note that the 5800X3D should do super well in such a cache heavy game. I've see some benchmarks that shows the 5800X3D in a league of it own. It's by far the best cpu for this game.
@@BuildPicker Agreed, I've decided to buy it for my aging AMD R7-1700 desktop with a RTX3080ti. I currently only use it for mining and play games on my G17 (3070+5900HX) laptop.
Wow! ...thanks for all the info and hard work you guys put into making this video. Great stuff. Would certainly be interested in your VR test findings and certainly interested in your own in sim/game settings. Thanks again
Great video, I am a DCS world guy, but I think MSFS seems to be very comparable title regarding hardware. Agree on alot of your recommendations. I do like the seagate 530 cuda 2tb. Thanks!
I appreciate the work you have put into testing, however I have been playing with the Sim Update 9 beta and have seen some big multi-thread improvements on my system (12700k + 3080 Ti) that may mean you have to re-visit this sooner than you anticipated. I'm seeing ~30% FPS improvements in demanding senarios at 1440p at full Ultra settings.
Interesting. I'll be sure to check that. It's always a toss up between whether they can pull threads out of the main engine, or else properly re write the engine to really maximise core counts.... Until they do that I do think we'll still see that main thread performance limit. They've made huge strides in performance since the early days anyway.
Yep, to be expected given the importance of Cache in gaming performance. There's always something newer and faster on the horizon. Hopefully we'll get some more in depth testing on the 5800X3D in FS2020: LTT's numbers look a little wonky - they have the i7 outperforming the i9 which shouldn't happen.
Such a good video! Really appreciate the time and effort put in for some quantifiable results rather than just “opinions” like other videos. Keep up the good work! :)
Crumbs! What an impressive Channel! Scary, though. I had to watch this video whilst hiding behind the sofa. I'm so out of touch... A sign of just HOW out of touch with the modern computing world I am is that I (literally) couldn't even afford the ELECTRICITY to run a modern system. 🙂 My home music recording studio (built in 2005, kids!) has no internet connection, uses a single core AMD Athlon 64 CPU, 2GB of RAM, a 160 GB HDD, a decent sound card, Sonar, and Windows XP. I've not changed it because it still does everything I need it to. I'm into making music, not cool graphics and stat-chasing, so I'm content to get on with using what I've got instead of constantly seeking more of everything. I know that's not an attitude that'll go down well on a Channel like this...🤭 I often wonder if a simulator addict would ever say, "This is fine, the system's performance is perfectly adequate, the sense of 'immersion' is all I need - now let's just fly", and spend the next 10+ years perfecting his skills on that setup, or whether he'd be forever dissatisfied, seeking faster frame rates and hitting those 'ultimate' settings because deep down he's more interested in tweaking than flying. That'd be sad. I understand how 'more, more, more' can become an obsession, but it's a pity if gear lust and system envy gets in the way of the reason peeps took up gaming or flying (or composing) in the first place. Please note - I'm not criticising anyone for doing what they really want to, here - by all means, compare and upgrade and replace and hone and perfect if that's what makes you happy. It's a free world. (Er, if you can afford it...)
I would recommend 32gb ram, minimum, unless you really don't have the money. After researching, I saw a lot of people relieved about stuttering and sudden FPS drops, after they upgraded their rigs from 16 to 32gb ram. It does not solve the problem but reduces it dramatically. 64gb seems to solve the problem altogether. Soo I would say 32gb 3600 DDR4, for entry. The 32gb higher speed OC, DDR5, for mid level , and finally 64gb for ultimate level.
He can @BuildPicker review this pc (overalls) Here are specs: Rx 6800 XT 7 5800 X3D 32 GB team force (2*16, 3200mhz, 22lc) Water colling Wd ssd 1tb(m2 nvme sn570) 1000 w 80+ gold B550 steel legend
I really tried to keep them realistic (I re-checked them on the day I published it), and actually prices are coming back down and have dropped in the 2 weeks since the video went live! I'm glad you found the rest informative anyway.
Absolutely brilliant! Wish I'd had this before I bought my system a few couple o' three years ago. Simulators are so complex, it's very hard to tell what really matters and how to budget for it. Also, I found MSFS a great program - if it worked. I bought the top of the line version, but it was so problematic, I spent more time getting it to work, than actually playing it. Final step was when Microsoft installed an X-Box account on my machine, then you have to sign in every time you use it, and it forced a reconfiguration as new install, and no support. And of course Microsoft used the opportunity to hoist and hawk new Microsoft products to you every chance they got. Dumped it and was lucky to get my money back. Fortunately there are much better flight simulators out there without the hassle. I just hope you are bench-marking those too so we can make better and more informed choices. Thanks again and cheers!
Thank you for your kind words! Let me know if you have any feedback and how you found BuildPicker, we're always trying to improve it where we can and listening to the community!
On the war path to choose and build my new MSFS system I’ve been browsing the Tube for information. Found your channel recently and you came up with this most important video just right in time. Nice content, really like your thorough research and information presenting. Thanks!!
@@salmansirajsalarzai7237 I don't run everything in Ultra for sure but I usually get fps in the 30's and 40's. It's playable for me. I run on my 4k monitor but set it to 2k for the game.
I'll add it to the list of stuff to test: It can take a while to develop a robust testing methodology, and then of course running through the various hardware configs takes a while!
This was an excellent analysis to help upgrade a PC for this demanding specs. I am running VR with Varjo Aero and my (old) system is struggling and has bottlenecks. Thanks for the video! My specs: i7-7700 Msi Gaming M3 z270 Msi RTX3080Ti Gaming Trio Ram 32G 3333Mhz (XMP)
My only comment would be that to make the 747 work well on both PC and XBox, it is likely gutted with respect to detail and cockpit functionality - like the included A320 neo. A better and more interesting test would be to use a fully-fleshed out airliner like Fenix or PMDG, where hydraulics and electrical are fully simulated, and cabins are dressed (not so on 747/Neo). I also have a suspicion that for MSFS, the extremely wide-ranging bugs that are reported are brought on by unfinished workload or computations not ready in time to be used by other processes. Perhaps this could be explored in future testing?
Very informative. Watching this in 2024. I have a i9 13900H,64gb 5200mhz ram and an RTX4070. I run everything on Ultra but switch off water. I still spend most of my setup time tweaking the look. I think anything over 40FPS is more than usable. But for me performance is measured by the overall quality of the visuals. 3 months before MSFS 2024 comes out. I won’t be jumping for an RTX 4090. But I won’t sit by if the visuals need it for awesome graphics. As for VR I have a quest 3 and it’s more than adequate but I tend to be very tactile when it comes to flight sim. I have physical. A320 MCDU, FCU. A Javasim mini overhead panel and physical radio panel. When they bring out mini EFIS and ECAM later this year I’ll hopefully get those. I generally only use VR for VFR flying the C172 with G1000. And most of that is just sightseeing flights around places I’ve actually been.
hello to everyone reading this, i have a problem installing windows. where when i finished checking the bios and starting to install windows via flashdisk, windows will be stuck on the logo and will not respond again. Can someone help my prob? :')
Thanks for this presentation and the amount of work you've put into it. Being a bit dazzled about the technical terms, this video does offer a base to decide which components are best suited for your wallet.
Great review. I'm on the 12700K, 32G DDR4 and the 3070ti. It's nice to finally have the tech "headroom" to run this thing with great framerates and not have to tweak too much so far.
@@periclesserotini7919 I speak with google translation above the manathan pond 53fps triple screens 32 7780x1440 12700k 5.0Mhz DDR4 4000 cl 18 rtx3080 .h ello from france .
Great work using data and not just opinion, usually I would say a Nvidia GPU is better and a CPU can start with either AMD or Intel but if you building a new system I would say the i5 12400f is the best one.
Great comprehensive overview. No critical comment. What I would still want to have from an "operating system" is a simple and transparent tool to assign specific jobs/tasks to specific CPU cores (and hopefully such a program/service might learn something over time and automate it for me). It looks like FS does not scale well beyond 4 cores and that may be a consequence of how it was written, but alternatively there might be something bottlenecking. Are the CPU cores running FS doing something else? How much I/O do the cores need to do and could a pair of thread cores with a single I/O channel be bottlenecked by that single channel? (This is why Intel launched their CPUs with a few single thread-core cores.) I am not convinced that either Windows or drivers take care of carefully placing loads across the cores, so then the question is, can we manage that ourselves. As to your RAM test - excellent in itself and faster latency may exist? - and me not running FS but e.g. Lightroom Classic (LrC) and Photoshop (Ps), I uncovered several problems to get these to perform with two 4K displays and very high resolution raw images. Windows (10-64) may in theory be able to run without page file, but in practice it is absolutely not. For LrC and Ps, 16GB RAM and 4GB discrete video RAM in a notebook was not enough and I could only start one of the two after a cold reboot and nothing having run before. Rebuilding a deskside workstation again with 64GB RAM and 11GB video RAM made clear in the Taskmanager that memory use frequently shot over 32GB and video memory use easily surpassed between 6GB and 8GB. As LrC maintains track of what I do with my images in a database (called catalog) and I also save the edits to an .XML sidecar file, there's considerable burst and sustained I/O going on. Therefor I constructed a RAID 0 array with a simple PCIe expansion card. This connects SSD directly to CPU lanes, thus bypassing the South Bridge (SB) bottleneck. The "question of conscience" then is what data to keep on SSD tied to the SB (these are all RAID 1 - gives faster reads, more IOPS and more I/O cache) and what data on the RAID 0 array (faster writes). So the RAID 0 array (software defined) hosts page file, catalogue and cache folders. So, if we knew more about how FS works, scales and where it has potential bottlenecks, and if we could manage how to distribute workload to CPU cores, then it might even scale better - by a lot?
I have a $200 pc with an i3 intel, 32ram and some readon 500 graphic card...2t hd and I love it. Up close the buildings are melted but at altitude it's good. So unless your power crazy, if you're broke like me, a cheap gaming pc is probably going to run mfs2020 just fine. If it doesn't we'll, I have my Xbox S.
Very helpful and interesting video, thanks for your work. What a confuse indeed in SSD section. Probably Direct Storage will change something in that matter.
Awesome video, just what I needed as I'm putting a sim together for cadets. Seems like I was on the right track, but wish I found this sooner as had been piecing together bits from multiple sources!
I'll save you 34 minutes... You need a top tier CPU if you want to get the most out of MSFS. Despite what people think, this is a simulator, and simulators require immense CPU power to do all of the various real time calculations for things like wind and such. You can get by with a fairly midrange GPU and still get a great experience out of it. The CPU and RAM are the key factors to a smooth MSFS time. The more processing power you can throw at it, the better off you're going to be.
After wathing many tests and reviews of the i5 12600K, I would say it's such a powerful chip it should be listed among the high-end CPUs (it beats the i9 11900K). Especially if you OC it.
I play MSFS on a 2600X with 16GB RAM, and a 2070S at 1400p 30fps, with no issues whatsoever. I use high settings, and turn off 'silly' things like lens flare, motion blur (can't recall if that's an option...haven't played for a while), etc. At worse I may get some mild stuttering at busy airports using live traffic, such as JKF or Heathrow, for example, but otherwise, and as I fly GA exclusively, it's not an issue for me.
Those tech channels that tell people 8 cores is the minimum you should buy for gaming in 2022 should take a look at the core count results in this video.
I built a system about 18months ago with almost that exact mid-range spec (@25:35 ) ( 5600X and 3060ti with 32Gb of 3600 ) . I am now using it with an HP G2 Reverb VR headset - I have to turn some of the settings down a bit but it is still very "flyable" .... Given the elec costs these days it would be interesting if you could show the actual running cost (e.g. per hour ? ) between the different specs when the PC /graphics card is in heavy use ( i.e. when running FS) 👍
I'm in the process of putting together the same/very similar build for the same purpose. 5600X is already in but the GPU I'll get in a few weeks most likely. I have had 3060 Ti (or 6700 XT) on crosshairs, but considering the potential VR performance, I do have some second thoughts. Initially 3070 or 3070 Ti didn't justify themselves at all considering price/perfomance...but even now, I don't feel like going for them. I'd rather get 3060 Ti now and wait 1-2 years then to get a newer generation GPU. In this regard it is interesting that you mentioned the electricity bills, I'm curious to see what really happens with the next gen.
very cool info - I am making some changes to my system to get the best possible performance in MSFS VR specifically - your video helped me confirm some upgrade plans thank you for putting this together!
I came upon this video after checking out controls for flight sims & though the content of this video is not what i would usually watch & i may not watch another video from this channel, however, i liked & subscribed due to the time & effort put into gathering & presenting data, creating the video, etc.
Great video. Clear, precise with cost estimates. Wish everybody who tries to tackle this issue on TH-cam would follow your testing and explanation method. Now I know where to start and what to look for. Thanks Mate !
24 fps is fine if your view is strictly in the cockpit, not panning around. Panning around from an outside view, you need at least 40 to get a descent fluid experience.
The absolute most comprehensive and complete analysis I've found thus far on the internet! I was hoping you could address displays. Specifically, how important is refresh rate with this simulator? I would speculate any 4k monitor with 60Hz or greater would work the same since there isn't much quick action scenes. I of course would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Thank you!
60FPS and 60Hz is a sensible target for the sim - and variable refresh rate monitors tend to be limited down to ~48Hz or so at the low end which provides quite a narrow range of operation, and many people run the sim closer to 30fps with settings cranked up. Whilst higher refresh rate isn't necessarily useful for flight sim, a good variable refresh rate monitor can help get the most out of the GPU. The most important thing is to match the settings to your monitor - and fixing refresh rate can be the biggest step to a perceived improvement in performance. Note the 'fps' settings in graphics menu aren't accurate, but refer to a fraction of your monitors native refresh rate! Confusing!
So much data clutter. I can't make heads or tails out of all that. Was hoping for a much more simplified, to the point conclusion. Could only watch half of this. Did you even cover VR capable systems?
Best for the money? is illogical. Best performance at any budget? No.... I had this one 1080, 3070, 3080ti (finally "DECENT" on an i9) and more recently... I'm satisfied... 12700 and 4090. But I new there was more... so I swapped in a 14900 with Tuf 4090OC. I'm FINALLY THRILLED with the performance of this title and it moves from "GAME" into a real sim with this setup. There is absolutely no jump between frames. People have different standards "saying it runs very well on a 2060". That' s joke. A sim, needs to similar real life... I didn't find that until the 4090. The 12700 was very good but the 14900 is ultimately "REAL LIFE SIMULATION OF FLIGHT". While VR make it more immersive and really feels like you're in a plane. The res is still crude and I enjoy it the most with the 49" Samsung ultra wide with TrackIR 5. Anything less.... was okay but was just a game and left me wanting more.
hopefully you can help.. not much of a techy. ive never played MFS at all but i have been playing with google earth flight sim / with keyboard & mouse on a old computer. i just ordered a computer from ibuypower with a Motherboard: ASRock Z690 Processor (8X 3.20GHz + 8X 2.40GHz/30MB L3 Cache) it will have 32GB 6000Mhz and a RTX 3080 graphics card running windows 11 i should get it in about a week.. my internet is super slow here something like 15 down and only 1.5 up , can i still play this ? do they offer a CD version for install ? TIA
Hello, I have a question for you regarding the pc game flight simulator 2020. My computer is Amd Rayzen 5 3600 6 core. The graphics card is an Ati Radeon 6650 8 gb and a 64 gb 3,200 mhz ram memory. What would be the best graphic setting to use for flight simulator 2020? Is it, say, a medium setting
Built a budget pc for my dad recently, on which he also wanted to play MSFS on 1080p. It was before this video came out and I went for a 10400, MSI B460m Pro, 16gb 2400mhz cl15, 1tb nvme 3.0 ssd and an old 1050ti that I had laying around. Total system cost including case, cpu cooler, fans and PSU, but excluding graphics card was 600€. It runs great on medium to low settings and once the graphics card prices are down and he'll put in a better graphics card he will surely be able to run it at high to very high settings.
I’d say $4000-$5000 is way too high. You are definitely wasting money if you’ve spent that much. I recently built a PC with the following: - i9 12900KF ($325) - RTX 4070 Ti ($800) - Z790 motherboard ($180) - 32 GB DDR5 RAM ($100) - 2TB NVMe ($120) - 850 W PSU ($124) - Case ($80) - Monitor ($200) - Yoke and throttle ($300) - Rudder pedals ($60 used) For a total of about $2600. This is more than enough to run ultra settings and get 60 FPS at 1440p.
Wow 🤩. New sub here. I hope you are remunerated for your hard work! That was the best breakdown and presentation on hardware with MSFS I’ve ever watched. Thank you 🙏. FYI, my system 32GB ddr4@3200, 8700k cpu @4.8 and 3080ti undervolted I’m getting a good 40-60 fps in both screen and vr settings. Screen at max insim settings, vr at mid to high settings with my HP g2. Very happy with that on wide screen tho I’m thinking about upgrading my cpu. Thanks again!
The 8700K was always a strong performer and it's holding it's own! I'd hold off a CPU upgrade until we've seen what intel 13thgen and Zen 4 from AMD can do!
You know what......this may work out. I'm making this machine for my Pops and Ma can watch her soap operas on it too. To simulate the Microsoft Flight Simulator - Ok I'll have the 12600k 32gb 3200 with a 6900 XT Is that acceptable ?????????????????????
I have a R7 5700X RX 5700XT Red Devil 32GB DDR4 3200 RAM B550M Pro VDH WIFI and 2 1TB NVME SSDs and I'm experiencing some stutters in areas with installed scenery below 500 ft with an average of 40 FPS otherwise. Am I GPU limited or CPU limited and how do I find out?
Crazy to me. I have asus tuff z690 i7-12700k 32gb 3200 mhz rtx3080ti and a 500gb nvme os drive and a secondary 1tb sad but only get 25-30 fps on MSFS 4K mostly max settings I do use a lot of add on scenery’s and use the pmdg 737 as well as the fenix a320 the 500 gb car is maxed out at 97% but that was before the frame gen mod and dlss tweak to v3.7 now everything is maxed out and in 4K I can get about 60-80fps with run time in the sim 12-36 hours load times for the sim are about 5 or so minutes if anyone has questions or suggestions please don’t hesitate to ask below
This guy is not lying about very high-end hardware for VR. For perspective, my setup is: RTX 3080 12GB (undervolt) i-7 11700K CPU (liquid cooled) 64GB RAM (3600Mhz) 2X 1T M.2 SSD ROG Strix Z590-E Moobo 1000 watt PSU HP Reverb G2 VR Most of my graphics settings are medium. The only thing ultra is volumetric clouds. I'm lucky to get a consistent 40 fps.
![[UNCUT] “บอสณวัฒน์” ลากไส้!! ใครหนุนหลัง "แม่ตั๊ก ป๋าเบียร์" I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 30 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QlD7mU2KKRk/mqdefault.jpg)
So in a nutshell, we are victims of the programmers. Which basically means having a good CPU may do well in one game but not so well in another.
Really appreciate your hard work.
Such an underrated channel, well done and thank you for such an intensive test.
Would Have been nice to see a like for this from the author
No kidding! Months of research in 30 minutes, and he did a better job than all my reading led me to.
Agreed.. This is beyond what Gamers Nexus does.
@@andrewlaw2420 We gave it a heart?!
I truly appreciate your hard work, Mate! Keep at it, I am confident that this channel will get the proper recognition it deserves very soon! Cheers!
Thank you so much for creating such a thorough, concise & professional quality review! I’m looking into doing my 1st build & was very apprehensive to begin, as I have no computer background, but intend to run F.Sim someday (& no, I don’t really game, just research & offline archiving). After approaching the guys at the local computer shop, they left me with little hope of being able to run the program with anything less than the best gaming computer that money could buy & custom build. I’m glad that my skepticism kicked in from having the frustrating past experiences of working around people who would rather give a cocky and quick answer when they don’t have the knowledge to fully answer the question with 100% honesty or have the humility to admit they don’t. Thank you for your help & saving me so much headache, embarrassment and money! God Bless!
I mean this title doesn't exactly run on a potato, however it still runs on consoles. I gotta admit those come sort of well equipped and thought out this generation, but a pc build mimicking that performance shouldn't be "the best that money could buy". Your pc shop guys maybe also got a little excited for a nice commission selling a luxurious build that day :D
What a great wisdom for pc building especially in msfs2020 context... thanks for the comprehensive explanation 👍👍
5800x3D changes the game for MSF. The more cache the better.
You should update the video or pin a comment with update on the 5800X3D
Once we have confirmed information on it, I will do. I have a couple of concerns 1) I haven't seen reliable testing of it yet to confirm the performance, although it looks great, and 2) AMD have a habit of releasing products like this that are incredibly hard to buy on the retail market (see the 3300X). Once we've confirmed performance and availability, I'll pin it.
The big issue comes with Addon planes with a lot of complex system simulations. The lack of spread over the threads and cores causes issues, and its hard to tell if its poorly coded or limitations of the sim. Most planes out there are not that complex at the moment but there are some stand outs, and more than one might think. The PMDG DC6 is the one I think of the most because I love it but 36 FPS is not good enough, especially now that I just got Track IR, it feels pretty bad. There are 3 or 4 other Addons I know having similar issues. But I also know a few that simulate alot of systems and still do well. What separate the good from the bad is often that the good ones are old stuff without GPS systems in them.
I have a pretty beefy system now, 5900X and 32 Gb 3200 Mhz ram, 2060 Super 8 gb, and while one might look at the GPU and think, oh thats just... well, its hard to even get MSFS to fully utilize it let alone a 3090... I hope DX12 will sort a bit of this out but as its still in very early stages most of us dont use it, for some it works for others it does not.
I see people that have thrown 5k or even 10k USD's in to their systems for this simulator alone, 128 Gb of ram or 64 Gb of ram and 16 or 32 Core CPU's even... but its clearly wasted because the sim have no clue what to do with that at the moment.
Only game I have that I know for sure uses my 5900X heavily is Cyberpunk 2077, and that game is pretty terrible even after all its updates. It runs just fine, its even stable, but its still an early Beta at best, and I have completed the game more than once and 250 hours in it. This game will push the CPU to 60% or more at times, nothing else come close. MSFS sits at 10 - 15% mostly... even if I run at Ultra...
All this said, its very hard to pinpoint where the issues lie, every plane is a bit different, especially the Addons, the sim is very modular, you can put in your own modules that bypass the systems in the sim to make complete custom stuff and many of the big studios that do the high fidelity planes do just that, and that changes the CPU load completely, especially in large complex multi engined airliners, even old ones without lots of computer screens in them.
36 FPS is MORE than good enough for human vision. Standard TV rate is 29.9fps.
@@Dbentzjr easy solution, dont buy these.
Thanks so much, you have been answering many questions I have had for a long time. Perfect summary and very well reduced to what is necessary to get a feel for what suits your idea and budget. Most informative advice that relates to real life tests that I have come across so far. I subscribed instantly 👍
XBox. Cheap, easy and it runs FS2020 pretty well.
The 5800X3D has a huge performance lead in MSFS vs all other CPU's from other benchmarks I've seen elsewhere. That VCache must make a huge difference
while that is true you are most likely going to be gpu limited for the most part, from what i heard most flight sim fans are content with 30fps gameplay and 60fps is more than enough. For the most part your horizon changes very slowly and lower fps feels significantly better than something like fast paced first person shooter. Whoever uses high refresh monitors for Flight sim uses for very specific flights. Imo you are most likely going to use high resolution monitors maybe wider than 16:9 aspect ratio, possibly triple monitor setup, high resolution and be limited by your gpu. these 1080p high cpu benchmarks with top of the line gpus to push cpu are useful for sure but they are very far off from realistic scenario
@@h1tzzYT while 30fps may be enough. 60fps is still preferred as it still makes the camera controls much smoother. And a definitely a must for VR play.
@@symol30872 it IS enough though, sure its not ideal, but is enough, then goes the visual quality and only then 60fps target, 60fps is secondary for most (only considering MSFS).
@@h1tzzYT Hardware unboxed showed the 5800x3D had an 18% FPS improvement at 1440p over standard 5800x at "high end" quality setting with a 3090ti. Your attempt to seriously downplay the advantage this CPU has in this title, (but also in Star citizen it is netting in some cases DOUBLE the FPS vs 12700KF), is mostly unfounded.
The point is that this CPU is a far better choice than any of the ones reviewed in this video (no fault of the creator here - just a timing issue). Only at 4K and "high end" settings do things actually even out between the 5800x and the 5800x3D (according to the Hardware Unboxed review) - so if you are not currently playing at 4k with a 3090ti on "high end" settings, your framerate stands to be higher with this CPU.
You are right, that 30fps is definitely "acceptable" in a flight sim, but I think most people would prefer an "enjoyable" framerate over an "acceptable" one - and in this title if it can be achieved with a $400 CPU, over say an $800 CPU (12900KS), then that is information that people who play this game will want to hear , especially since the title topic we are discussing here is _"Build the _*_best_*_ PC for microsoft flight simulator"._ not _"Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ..."_
@@WaspMedia3D Just because hardware unboxed showed 18% difference in their heavily cpu limited use case (for understandable reasons) doesnt mean you are going to see the same difference using exact same setup with max or ultra settings at most likely different resolution and render scale. You are basing your "acceptable" vs "enjoyable" argument on unrealistic settings and most likely gpu configuration. That is common benchmark trap that many people get themselves into.
"especially since the title topic we are discussing here is "Build the best PC for microsoft flight simulator". not "Build an acceptable PC for microsoft flight simulator ...""
im guessing you havent watched the video as the author himself said its more oriented towards good value oriented, helping to find a good balance between performance and price, NOT the best of the best, watch at 1:42 im guessing you just saw the tittle, clicked on it, skipped to charts and called it a day.
Very much appreciated your detailed work! Thanks a lot for all these recommendations.
For VR with Oculus Quest 2 - imo - at least an rtx 3080 (my config) / rx6800xt is necessary, 3080ti will bring noticably better immersion. Personally, I am going to stick to the rtx 3080 for now and will wait for next gen GPUs rtx 4080 (ti) / 7800/7850xt which should outperform even an rtx 3090ti by around 20-30% in flight simulator (maybe even 30-40% in low 0,1% FPS). Finally, next gen GPUs will bring excellent immersion for VR headsets like Proverb G2 and Oculus Quest 2. Concerning 1440p (ultra) and 4k (high settings) an rtx 4060 (ti) might be the sweet spot.
You're in for a looooong wait. 🙂
Super great Video.
Take note that the 5800X3D should do super well in such a cache heavy game.
I've see some benchmarks that shows the 5800X3D in a league of it own.
It's by far the best cpu for this game.
Yep, I'm waiting for 2 things: 1) Confirmation that it really is as strong as it seems in robust benchmarking and 2) common availability at retail!
@@BuildPicker Agreed, I've decided to buy it for my aging AMD R7-1700 desktop with a RTX3080ti.
I currently only use it for mining and play games on my G17 (3070+5900HX) laptop.
Fantastic video. Very comprehensive and useful for those of us looking for a FS2020 gaming rig. Thank you.
5800X3D is the current flight simulator king by a long shot.
Really helpful as XBox X is great but limiting especially wanting VR
Wow! ...thanks for all the info and hard work you guys put into making this video. Great stuff.
Would certainly be interested in your VR test findings and certainly interested in your own in sim/game settings.
Thanks again
Aw , you dont need to thank me
Great video, I am a DCS world guy, but I think MSFS seems to be very comparable title regarding hardware. Agree on alot of your recommendations. I do like the seagate 530 cuda 2tb. Thanks!
I appreciate the work you have put into testing, however I have been playing with the Sim Update 9 beta and have seen some big multi-thread improvements on my system (12700k + 3080 Ti) that may mean you have to re-visit this sooner than you anticipated. I'm seeing ~30% FPS improvements in demanding senarios at 1440p at full Ultra settings.
Interesting. I'll be sure to check that. It's always a toss up between whether they can pull threads out of the main engine, or else properly re write the engine to really maximise core counts.... Until they do that I do think we'll still see that main thread performance limit. They've made huge strides in performance since the early days anyway.
Which cpu would u guys recommend now for around 4-500$ CAD dollars.
I think this review was a few days early - it looks like 5800X3D completely dominates MS Flight Simulator (per Linus Tech Tips review)
Yep, to be expected given the importance of Cache in gaming performance. There's always something newer and faster on the horizon.
Hopefully we'll get some more in depth testing on the 5800X3D in FS2020: LTT's numbers look a little wonky - they have the i7 outperforming the i9 which shouldn't happen.
Such a good video! Really appreciate the time and effort put in for some quantifiable results rather than just “opinions” like other videos. Keep up the good work! :)
Crumbs! What an impressive Channel! Scary, though. I had to watch this video whilst hiding behind the sofa. I'm so out of touch...
A sign of just HOW out of touch with the modern computing world I am is that I (literally) couldn't even afford the ELECTRICITY to run a modern system. 🙂
My home music recording studio (built in 2005, kids!) has no internet connection, uses a single core AMD Athlon 64 CPU, 2GB of RAM, a 160 GB HDD, a decent sound card, Sonar, and Windows XP. I've not changed it because it still does everything I need it to.
I'm into making music, not cool graphics and stat-chasing, so I'm content to get on with using what I've got instead of constantly seeking more of everything. I know that's not an attitude that'll go down well on a Channel like this...🤭
I often wonder if a simulator addict would ever say, "This is fine, the system's performance is perfectly adequate, the sense of 'immersion' is all I need - now let's just fly", and spend the next 10+ years perfecting his skills on that setup, or whether he'd be forever dissatisfied, seeking faster frame rates and hitting those 'ultimate' settings because deep down he's more interested in tweaking than flying.
That'd be sad. I understand how 'more, more, more' can become an obsession, but it's a pity if gear lust and system envy gets in the way of the reason peeps took up gaming or flying (or composing) in the first place.
Please note - I'm not criticising anyone for doing what they really want to, here - by all means, compare and upgrade and replace and hone and perfect if that's what makes you happy. It's a free world. (Er, if you can afford it...)
I would recommend 32gb ram, minimum, unless you really don't have the money. After researching, I saw a lot of people relieved about stuttering and sudden FPS drops, after they upgraded their rigs from 16 to 32gb ram. It does not solve the problem but reduces it dramatically. 64gb seems to solve the problem altogether. Soo I would say 32gb 3600 DDR4, for entry. The 32gb higher speed OC, DDR5, for mid level , and finally 64gb for ultimate level.
Excelent presentation. Hope you make one of this for the upcoming Xplane 12.
He can @BuildPicker review this pc (overalls)
Here are specs:
Rx 6800 XT
7 5800 X3D
32 GB team force (2*16, 3200mhz, 22lc)
Water colling
Wd ssd 1tb(m2 nvme sn570)
1000 w 80+ gold
B550 steel legend
The most expensive one you can afford
Appreciate the work that went into this. Very detailed.
Best ever video on MSFS I've seen but like all other content creators video's, GPU prices are still $100,- to $ 300,- over what you show here......
I really tried to keep them realistic (I re-checked them on the day I published it), and actually prices are coming back down and have dropped in the 2 weeks since the video went live! I'm glad you found the rest informative anyway.
Absolutely brilliant! Wish I'd had this before I bought my system a few couple o' three years ago. Simulators are so complex, it's very hard to tell what really matters and how to budget for it. Also, I found MSFS a great program - if it worked. I bought the top of the line version, but it was so problematic, I spent more time getting it to work, than actually playing it. Final step was when Microsoft installed an X-Box account on my machine, then you have to sign in every time you use it, and it forced a reconfiguration as new install, and no support. And of course Microsoft used the opportunity to hoist and hawk new Microsoft products to you every chance they got. Dumped it and was lucky to get my money back. Fortunately there are much better flight simulators out there without the hassle. I just hope you are bench-marking those too so we can make better and more informed choices. Thanks again and cheers!
Outstanding video. Thank you for sharing your testing results with the flight sim community. I look forward to checking g out Build Picker too.
Thank you for your kind words! Let me know if you have any feedback and how you found BuildPicker, we're always trying to improve it where we can and listening to the community!
It's cheaper to just buy a plane than build a PC capable of running it at a consistent frame rate.
Not at all true. Planes are really expensive!
Brilliant video ,thanks .
On the war path to choose and build my new MSFS system I’ve been browsing the Tube for information. Found your channel recently and you came up with this most important video just right in time. Nice content, really like your thorough research and information presenting. Thanks!!
what did you end up building?
Dunno what my frame rate is or any of that stuff is but it plays fine on my i7-2600K with 8Gb and a 4Gb RX570.
I'm still running this very well with my i7 4790k and RTX 2060 and 16gb ram.
how does it look and what fps are you getting
@@salmansirajsalarzai7237 I don't run everything in Ultra for sure but I usually get fps in the 30's and 40's. It's playable for me. I run on my 4k monitor but set it to 2k for the game.
thanks!
Very good work. Do you play DCS World by chance? I’d absolutely love a test like this on it.
I'll add it to the list of stuff to test: It can take a while to develop a robust testing methodology, and then of course running through the various hardware configs takes a while!
@@BuildPicker no one tests dcs like you would, channel would get loads of interest.
This was an excellent analysis to help upgrade a PC for this demanding specs. I am running VR with Varjo Aero and my (old) system is struggling and has bottlenecks. Thanks for the video!
My specs:
i7-7700
Msi Gaming M3 z270
Msi RTX3080Ti Gaming Trio
Ram 32G 3333Mhz (XMP)
Might be worth looking at the 5800X3D!
My only comment would be that to make the 747 work well on both PC and XBox, it is likely gutted with respect to detail and cockpit functionality - like the included A320 neo. A better and more interesting test would be to use a fully-fleshed out airliner like Fenix or PMDG, where hydraulics and electrical are fully simulated, and cabins are dressed (not so on 747/Neo). I also have a suspicion that for MSFS, the extremely wide-ranging bugs that are reported are brought on by unfinished workload or computations not ready in time to be used by other processes. Perhaps this could be explored in future testing?
Good video. No one seems to cover this topic. I built my system in 2020 just for FS 2020...
Just awesome, very informative, comprehensive and right on the spot. 👍
Very informative. Watching this in 2024. I have a i9 13900H,64gb 5200mhz ram and an RTX4070. I run everything on Ultra but switch off water. I still spend most of my setup time tweaking the look. I think anything over 40FPS is more than usable. But for me performance is measured by the overall quality of the visuals. 3 months before MSFS 2024 comes out. I won’t be jumping for an RTX 4090. But I won’t sit by if the visuals need it for awesome graphics. As for VR I have a quest 3 and it’s more than adequate but I tend to be very tactile when it comes to flight sim. I have physical. A320 MCDU, FCU. A Javasim mini overhead panel and physical radio panel. When they bring out mini EFIS and ECAM later this year I’ll hopefully get those. I generally only use VR for VFR flying the C172 with G1000. And most of that is just sightseeing flights around places I’ve actually been.
Would you still use the i9 vs an amd high end cpu? Looking for an 4080 super build with i9.
hello to everyone reading this, i have a problem installing windows. where when i finished checking the bios and starting to install windows via flashdisk, windows will be stuck on the logo and will not respond again. Can someone help my prob? :')
Windows 10btw
Spec: i3 12100
B660 pro rs
Team elite plus black 2*8gb 3200mhz
Corsair cv450w
Try to format the drive, remove all partitions after a data backup and do a fresh install. If you have any other OS lying around try that as well.
Thanks for this presentation and the amount of work you've put into it. Being a bit dazzled about the technical terms, this video does offer a base to decide which components are best suited for your wallet.
Great review. I'm on the 12700K, 32G DDR4 and the 3070ti. It's nice to finally have the tech "headroom" to run this thing with great framerates and not have to tweak too much so far.
Hi there! Running @ how many fps in Manhattan on Ultra? (At what resolution?)
@@periclesserotini7919 Hi, the DevMode FPS counter says 35-40. In more or less Ultra at 1080p. I don't ever go any higher-res than that.
@@periclesserotini7919 I speak with google translation above the manathan pond 53fps triple screens 32 7780x1440 12700k 5.0Mhz DDR4 4000 cl 18 rtx3080 .h ello from france .
When you're done testing, send me all the hardware I need to do my own testing to confirm "wink wink" lol amazing work.
Great video…..I need this guy on speed dial for the rebuild of my flight sim PC!
You can always message or drop us an email at buildpicker.com!
Wow! You really put a lot of work in this! Thanks a lot 💪💪💪😃
Great work using data and not just opinion, usually I would say a Nvidia GPU is better and a CPU can start with either AMD or Intel but if you building a new system I would say the i5 12400f is the best one.
Thanks for your hardwork, I'm looking forward to get this game soon
Great comprehensive overview. No critical comment. What I would still want to have from an "operating system" is a simple and transparent tool to assign specific jobs/tasks to specific CPU cores (and hopefully such a program/service might learn something over time and automate it for me). It looks like FS does not scale well beyond 4 cores and that may be a consequence of how it was written, but alternatively there might be something bottlenecking. Are the CPU cores running FS doing something else? How much I/O do the cores need to do and could a pair of thread cores with a single I/O channel be bottlenecked by that single channel? (This is why Intel launched their CPUs with a few single thread-core cores.) I am not convinced that either Windows or drivers take care of carefully placing loads across the cores, so then the question is, can we manage that ourselves.
As to your RAM test - excellent in itself and faster latency may exist? - and me not running FS but e.g. Lightroom Classic (LrC) and Photoshop (Ps), I uncovered several problems to get these to perform with two 4K displays and very high resolution raw images. Windows (10-64) may in theory be able to run without page file, but in practice it is absolutely not. For LrC and Ps, 16GB RAM and 4GB discrete video RAM in a notebook was not enough and I could only start one of the two after a cold reboot and nothing having run before. Rebuilding a deskside workstation again with 64GB RAM and 11GB video RAM made clear in the Taskmanager that memory use frequently shot over 32GB and video memory use easily surpassed between 6GB and 8GB.
As LrC maintains track of what I do with my images in a database (called catalog) and I also save the edits to an .XML sidecar file, there's considerable burst and sustained I/O going on. Therefor I constructed a RAID 0 array with a simple PCIe expansion card. This connects SSD directly to CPU lanes, thus bypassing the South Bridge (SB) bottleneck. The "question of conscience" then is what data to keep on SSD tied to the SB (these are all RAID 1 - gives faster reads, more IOPS and more I/O cache) and what data on the RAID 0 array (faster writes). So the RAID 0 array (software defined) hosts page file, catalogue and cache folders.
So, if we knew more about how FS works, scales and where it has potential bottlenecks, and if we could manage how to distribute workload to CPU cores, then it might even scale better - by a lot?
I have a $200 pc with an i3 intel, 32ram and some readon 500 graphic card...2t hd and I love it. Up close the buildings are melted but at altitude it's good. So unless your power crazy, if you're broke like me, a cheap gaming pc is probably going to run mfs2020 just fine. If it doesn't we'll, I have my Xbox S.
Very helpful and interesting video, thanks for your work. What a confuse indeed in SSD section. Probably Direct Storage will change something in that matter.
I would love you to do this for DCS
I don't even care about FS, but I stayed anyway for the sheer amount of (seemingly valid) numbers pushed down my throat.
Came for no reason at all, stayed for the statistics... Fantastic!
I run a R5 3600 with a 6600XT 16GB ram and MFS2020 is playable at 1440 with mid setting. you don't need huge FPS to enjoy flight sim.
Awesome video, just what I needed as I'm putting a sim together for cadets. Seems like I was on the right track, but wish I found this sooner as had been piecing together bits from multiple sources!
Glad to be of service and good luck to the cadets!
I'll save you 34 minutes... You need a top tier CPU if you want to get the most out of MSFS. Despite what people think, this is a simulator, and simulators require immense CPU power to do all of the various real time calculations for things like wind and such. You can get by with a fairly midrange GPU and still get a great experience out of it. The CPU and RAM are the key factors to a smooth MSFS time. The more processing power you can throw at it, the better off you're going to be.
Please do the same testning for DCS
Fantastic work. would love to see 5800x3d numbers once/if you can get your hands on one!
I'd love to get my hands on one! 500€ for a single test is a bit steep sadly!
After wathing many tests and reviews of the i5 12600K, I would say it's such a powerful chip it should be listed among the high-end CPUs (it beats the i9 11900K). Especially if you OC it.
I play MSFS on a 2600X with 16GB RAM, and a 2070S at 1400p 30fps, with no issues whatsoever. I use high settings, and turn off 'silly' things like lens flare, motion blur (can't recall if that's an option...haven't played for a while), etc. At worse I may get some mild stuttering at busy airports using live traffic, such as JKF or Heathrow, for example, but otherwise, and as I fly GA exclusively, it's not an issue for me.
Yeah good effort thanks mate. Really appreciate the broad range of info you covered for any budget
Those tech channels that tell people 8 cores is the minimum you should buy for gaming in 2022 should take a look at the core count results in this video.
I built a system about 18months ago with almost that exact mid-range spec (@25:35 ) ( 5600X and 3060ti with 32Gb of 3600 ) . I am now using it with an HP G2 Reverb VR headset - I have to turn some of the settings down a bit but it is still very "flyable" .... Given the elec costs these days it would be interesting if you could show the actual running cost (e.g. per hour ? ) between the different specs when the PC /graphics card is in heavy use ( i.e. when running FS) 👍
I'm in the process of putting together the same/very similar build for the same purpose. 5600X is already in but the GPU I'll get in a few weeks most likely. I have had 3060 Ti (or 6700 XT) on crosshairs, but considering the potential VR performance, I do have some second thoughts. Initially 3070 or 3070 Ti didn't justify themselves at all considering price/perfomance...but even now, I don't feel like going for them. I'd rather get 3060 Ti now and wait 1-2 years then to get a newer generation GPU.
In this regard it is interesting that you mentioned the electricity bills, I'm curious to see what really happens with the next gen.
Really appreciated the in-depth research and breakdown of each component.
Just the video i really wanted!!
Great information. Thanks for your hard work on testing.
Keep making these videos, you will get get more viewers and subscribers at some point, you definitely deserve it
Will do! A little busy with other projects right now but have more videos in the works!
Thank You Very Much! ... No one really ever talks MS Flight Sim, Game or Not it is my Favorite and I am starting to Buy for a New Computer!
"Do you need a top flight PC...". Well you would. 30,000ft at least.
Great Video, was thinking about getting back into gaming since i bought FSIM but realised i had no computer that could run it
very cool info - I am making some changes to my system to get the best possible performance in MSFS VR specifically - your video helped me confirm some upgrade plans
thank you for putting this together!
I came upon this video after checking out controls for flight sims & though the content of this video is not what i would usually watch & i may not watch another video from this channel, however, i liked & subscribed due to the time & effort put into gathering & presenting data, creating the video, etc.
very informative thank you
DUDE AWESOME .
Very well explained
thank you
Thank you very much, that's what I have been looking for!
Great video. Clear, precise with cost estimates. Wish everybody who tries to tackle this issue on TH-cam would follow your testing and explanation method. Now I know where to start and what to look for. Thanks Mate !
It's not a high frame rate title, anything over a cinema frame rate (24fps) is enjoyable
I'd say 30Fps is a desirable and achievable minimum, whereas 60FPS is an attainable dream (and much more important for VR).
24 fps is fine if your view is strictly in the cockpit, not panning around. Panning around from an outside view, you need at least 40 to get a descent fluid experience.
Consider doing a follow-up with the 5800X3D
Thanks for the great report on MSFS 2020 PC requirements..✈️
The absolute most comprehensive and complete analysis I've found thus far on the internet! I was hoping you could address displays. Specifically, how important is refresh rate with this simulator? I would speculate any 4k monitor with 60Hz or greater would work the same since there isn't much quick action scenes. I of course would love to hear your thoughts on this subject. Thank you!
60FPS and 60Hz is a sensible target for the sim - and variable refresh rate monitors tend to be limited down to ~48Hz or so at the low end which provides quite a narrow range of operation, and many people run the sim closer to 30fps with settings cranked up. Whilst higher refresh rate isn't necessarily useful for flight sim, a good variable refresh rate monitor can help get the most out of the GPU. The most important thing is to match the settings to your monitor - and fixing refresh rate can be the biggest step to a perceived improvement in performance. Note the 'fps' settings in graphics menu aren't accurate, but refer to a fraction of your monitors native refresh rate! Confusing!
just get the best stuff.. 3090ti with a 12900kf.. You say it's a lot but eventually ordering pizza will be that much, so..
So much data clutter. I can't make heads or tails out of all that. Was hoping for a much more simplified, to the point conclusion. Could only watch half of this. Did you even cover VR capable systems?
Best for the money? is illogical. Best performance at any budget? No.... I had this one 1080, 3070, 3080ti (finally "DECENT" on an i9) and more recently... I'm satisfied... 12700 and 4090. But I new there was more... so I swapped in a 14900 with Tuf 4090OC. I'm FINALLY THRILLED with the performance of this title and it moves from "GAME" into a real sim with this setup. There is absolutely no jump between frames. People have different standards "saying it runs very well on a 2060". That' s joke. A sim, needs to similar real life... I didn't find that until the 4090. The 12700 was very good but the 14900 is ultimately "REAL LIFE SIMULATION OF FLIGHT". While VR make it more immersive and really feels like you're in a plane. The res is still crude and I enjoy it the most with the 49" Samsung ultra wide with TrackIR 5. Anything less.... was okay but was just a game and left me wanting more.
Look at that !!!
Love it!!!
Now I can rely on, to master my pc :)
Thanks
Thank you for your hardwork.
hopefully you can help.. not much of a techy. ive never played MFS at all but i have been playing with google earth flight sim / with keyboard & mouse on a old computer. i just ordered a computer from ibuypower with a Motherboard: ASRock Z690 Processor (8X 3.20GHz + 8X 2.40GHz/30MB L3 Cache) it will have 32GB 6000Mhz and a RTX 3080 graphics card running windows 11 i should get it in about a week.. my internet is super slow here something like 15 down and only 1.5 up , can i still play this ? do they offer a CD version for install ? TIA
Hello, I have a question for you regarding the pc game flight simulator 2020. My computer is Amd Rayzen 5 3600 6 core. The graphics card is an Ati Radeon 6650 8 gb and a 64 gb 3,200 mhz ram memory. What would be the best graphic setting to use for flight simulator 2020? Is it, say, a medium setting
Built a budget pc for my dad recently, on which he also wanted to play MSFS on 1080p. It was before this video came out and I went for a 10400, MSI B460m Pro, 16gb 2400mhz cl15, 1tb nvme 3.0 ssd and an old 1050ti that I had laying around. Total system cost including case, cpu cooler, fans and PSU, but excluding graphics card was 600€. It runs great on medium to low settings and once the graphics card prices are down and he'll put in a better graphics card he will surely be able to run it at high to very high settings.
Looks like you did a good job!
That was the best review video I have ever seen so far. Great job, very detailed test setups.
I’d say $4000-$5000 is way too high. You are definitely wasting money if you’ve spent that much. I recently built a PC with the following:
- i9 12900KF ($325)
- RTX 4070 Ti ($800)
- Z790 motherboard ($180)
- 32 GB DDR5 RAM ($100)
- 2TB NVMe ($120)
- 850 W PSU ($124)
- Case ($80)
- Monitor ($200)
- Yoke and throttle ($300)
- Rudder pedals ($60 used)
For a total of about $2600. This is more than enough to run ultra settings and get 60 FPS at 1440p.
Thank you for this, I want to build a PC for this game.
Thank you so much, I'm building my pc in a month, and this was the perfect guide! Thanks for helping me, and I'll use this advice!
Amazing video.
Already used this video to plan out my new build. Wish it was easier to benchmark VR performance!
Wow 🤩. New sub here. I hope you are remunerated for your hard work! That was the best breakdown and presentation on hardware with MSFS I’ve ever watched. Thank you 🙏. FYI, my system 32GB ddr4@3200, 8700k cpu @4.8 and 3080ti undervolted I’m getting a good 40-60 fps in both screen and vr settings. Screen at max insim settings, vr at mid to high settings with my HP g2. Very happy with that on wide screen tho I’m thinking about upgrading my cpu. Thanks again!
The 8700K was always a strong performer and it's holding it's own! I'd hold off a CPU upgrade until we've seen what intel 13thgen and Zen 4 from AMD can do!
You know what......this may work out.
I'm making this machine for my Pops and Ma can watch her soap operas on it too.
To simulate the Microsoft Flight Simulator - Ok I'll have the 12600k 32gb 3200 with a 6900 XT
Is that acceptable ?????????????????????
I have a R7 5700X RX 5700XT Red Devil 32GB DDR4 3200 RAM B550M Pro VDH WIFI and 2 1TB NVME SSDs and I'm experiencing some stutters in areas with installed scenery below 500 ft with an average of 40 FPS otherwise. Am I GPU limited or CPU limited and how do I find out?
Crazy to me. I have asus tuff z690 i7-12700k 32gb 3200 mhz rtx3080ti and a 500gb nvme os drive and a secondary 1tb sad but only get 25-30 fps on MSFS 4K mostly max settings I do use a lot of add on scenery’s and use the pmdg 737 as well as the fenix a320 the 500 gb car is maxed out at 97% but that was before the frame gen mod and dlss tweak to v3.7 now everything is maxed out and in 4K I can get about 60-80fps with run time in the sim 12-36 hours load times for the sim are about 5 or so minutes if anyone has questions or suggestions please don’t hesitate to ask below
This guy is not lying about very high-end hardware for VR. For perspective, my setup is:
RTX 3080 12GB (undervolt)
i-7 11700K CPU (liquid cooled)
64GB RAM (3600Mhz)
2X 1T M.2 SSD
ROG Strix Z590-E Moobo
1000 watt PSU
HP Reverb G2 VR
Most of my graphics settings are medium. The only thing ultra is volumetric clouds. I'm lucky to get a consistent 40 fps.