• Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance & Benchmark Analysis

    MSFS Performance And Benchmark Analysis

    Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance & Benchmark Analysis: Take flight with the best build possible.

    Note: This article is republished from PremiumBuilds.com. You can read the original article here.

    Since the release of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 we’ve put the PremiumBuilds test rig to work, analyzing the factors that have the most impact on performance in this sim. In this article, we’ll discuss what we’ve found and use the data to inform component recommendations – such as the CPU, GPU and memory -- so that you can be sure of getting the best performance in Flight Simulator 2020.

    GPU killer, CPU hater, or just plain badly coded?

    There’s been a lot of talk about Flight Simulator 2020’s performance since its release, and not all of it has been positive. In particular, people have pointed to benchmarks and testing showing frame rates in the mid 40’s on high-end hardware – indeed the highest-end hardware, and claimed that the game is a dog, or that no PC can run it well. This is unfair. It’s perfectly possible to specify a system that runs this game fluidly and at acceptable frame rates. It’s a more involved process than for a ‘normal’ gaming PC though: there are interdependent factors at play and imbalances between components or incorrect settings can  be detrimental to the experience. This article uses the data to help you understand exactly what makes this sim tick.

    MSFS Performance And Benchmark Analysis

    Simulators: They’re not just toys. 

    The first major issue is that whilst it can be achingly beautiful Flight Simulator 2020 is a simulator, not a game in the traditional sense. There is a complex flight model running behind the scenes, calculating the physics that dictate whether you’re flying or falling. Ultimately it is this physics model that constrains performance. Our testing shows that the game uses just 4 threads (and yet can still max out 8 core CPUs at times) and performance is primarily dependent on the single-core speed of the CPU.

    That said, no current hardware will exceed around 60 FPS in this game using the full flight model. Frame rates are variable and we conducted our testing under the most challenging conditions because these place the biggest demands on the underpinning hardware. Where we’ve demonstrated a playable 35FPS over a busy city it translates to a buttery smooth 50 FPS+ flying high over less complex terrain on the same configuration. There are also still some consistency issues particularly as the sim initializes at a busy airport or when you overfly a complex urban area. You shouldn’t be surprised to see frame rates in the low teens in this situation but it smooths out after a few seconds. We experienced this across almost all configurations and have witnessed it in others testing too so it appears to be an ingrained issue with the code, not the hardware. Hopefully, such performance inconsistencies will be ironed out as the sim matures. In particular, it relies on the aging Direct X 11 API, one of the reasons it’s so constricted to 4 cores. There is a planned migration to DX12 in future and we’re hopeful this will bring substantial optimizations with it.With those expectations set, let’s dig into the numbers and see what we can learn:

    The testing protocol:

    Every test in this article followed the same pattern. Using an A320 we took off from JFK Airport, climbing to 2000 feet, flying towards Manhattan and then turning left to overfly Manhattan before ending logging over the Statue of Liberty in a flight lasting 3 minutes. This is arguably a ‘worst case’ scenario for Flight Simulator 2020 with an airliner over a busy metropolitan area and many users have reported NYC ‘unplayable’. Each test was conducted in order to isolate the variable under test: For the CPU tests we ran an RTX 2080 Ti GPU at 1080p and high graphics settings ensuring that the system was entirely CPU bound throughout the flight. When testing GPUs we used our Ryzen 3600 test system with 16Gb RAM at 3600MHz. The Ryzen 3600 was chosen for two primary reasons: Firstly it’s more representative of the CPU that most people will be running. Secondly it demonstrated more consistency than the pure 8 core i7-9700K, probably because of the flexibility of the 6 physical and 6 additional logical cores made available via multithreading. Ram testing also used the Ryzen CPU owing to the known benefits of RAM speed with Zen 2 CPU’s but kept the GPU and game settings the same.

    Flight Simulator 2020 CPU scaling

    MSFS Performance And Benchmark Analysis

    We can see in the graph above the impact of CPU performance, from a Ryzen 3100 analogue (in fact the Ryzen 3600 with 2 cores disabled) to the 6 core 12 thread Ryzen 3600, followed by the 8 core Intel i7-9700K in various states of overclock. The broad pattern is consistent with game performance closely tied to CPU performance but there are a couple of features of interest. Firstly note that the 4C/8T CPU suffers terrible performance in Low, 1% Low, and 0.1% low metrics: This is indicative of the playing experience with large and frequent stutters, lag and spikes. Despite this for the most part the game was playable with the aircraft controllable but it is far from ideal.

    Contrast those results with the six-core, 12-threaded Ryzen 3600: Here we see a small increase in peak and average FPS, but a marked improvement in the Low and 1% Low metrics, from 10-12FPS to 26 and 20 FPS respectively. This manifests in a much more consistent playing experience with smooth framerates and little stutter. Note that the 0.1% lows remain in the basement, at 8 FPS: They will become a consistent feature of this analysis whenever a CPU limit is encountered.

    Moving to the Intel i7-9700K, this chip has been on the podium of gaming CPU’s throughout 2019 and the first half of 2020 with only the i9-9900K and now the Comet Lake iterations superseding it. It marginally outperforms the Ryzen 3600 in Flight Simulator 2020 at stock speeds but still suffers from rock bottom 0.1% lows. Overclocking it to 4.7GHz and then 4.9GHz sees a small improvement proportional to the increased clock speed and importantly an improvement in 1% and 0.1% Lows – the CPU is being maxed out less often at this higher clock speed. This allows us to draw the conclusion that FS2020 peak performance is indeed dictated by the CPU, and primarily by the CPU’s individual core speed and not necessarily the total CPU performance.

    Logging CPU usage throughout testing rarely saw any CPU exceed 60% utilization. However, logging on a per core basis sees individual cores hitting their limit at 95%+ utilization. Occasions where all active cores become swamped correlates to those instances of 0.1% Lows in frame rates. This is visible on the graph below: The dotted lines represent lesser used cores, the dashed lines the more prominently used cores that are running the game code. On two occasions here we see spikes towards total CPU utilization denoted by the solid red line. These instances correlate to several seconds of very low performance with long frame times and stutter and is the source of those shockingly low 0.1% lows when CPU limits are reached.

    MSFS Performance And Benchmark Analysis

    Simply put, when the CPU can’t cope with the game engine, it stalls and we see a huge spike in frame time as the GPU sits and waits for information to render the next frame. See videos of a Ryzen 3950X making just 44FPS in FS2020 whilst showing under 20% utilisation? Now you know why. This Sim cannot use more than 4 cores.

    CPU Scaling Conclusions

    Microsoft Flight Simulator needs a combination of adequate cores and the highest individual core speeds possible. The Ryzen 5 3600 performs admirably and would be our recommendation for anyone building on a budget. Mid-tier processor recommendations go to the Ryzen 7 3800X due to its 8c/16t topology and 4.5GHz boost speed, and the Intel Core i5-10600K due to its even higher single-core capability and hyperthreading. At the high end we recommend the Intel Core i7-10700K or the i9-10900K – and if you’re serious about squeezing every last frame out of Flight Simulator 2020 – then a strong cooling solution and some time spent overclocking is well-advised no matter what CPU you opt for. 


    25 Comments
    1. SpookyDiver's Avatar
      SpookyDiver -
      My custom built system consists of an i9-9900k CPU all cores @5ghz (Liquid Cooled), MSI Pro Carbon with 64 Gig RAM Corsair RGB 3200 Dominators, MSI RTX 2070 OC +170/+750, Drive C: 970 Pro M.2 512Gigs , Drive D: 2TB 970 EVO Plus M.2 NVMe, two 960 EVO 1TB SSD, and an external Raid Box. 34440x1440P wide screen monitor. My internet is 1 Gig Fiber.
      The only thing I don't have that it is not "optimal" is my video card. But even then, my "worst case scenario", with EVERYTHING (I mean everything) in ULTRA, and at my monitor's native resolution is 24FPS. This only happens when I am flying over a very dense city, such as Tokyo or Buenos Aires at a very low altitude, like 1500Ft. which is very unrealistic to fly that low. If I keep my altitude at up of 2500 feet, I average 30-34 FPS. IMHO, 25-30 FPS is acceptable and anything beyond that is a plus. This morning I was in middle of the hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico with all the magnificent looking clouds, and I was able to look at my plane and clouds with the external CAM moving it as fast as I could without any hiccups, all at 28-30 FPS. And the most noticeable thing is that my CPU runs at maybe 40-55%, while my video card runs at 99-100%. Moral of my story, the CPU doesn't matter much, what matters is your video card and having at least 32 gigs of fast RAM and a very fast internet connection. A lot of the folks that are having problems will be able to solve it most likely with a new video card.
    1. zswobbie1's Avatar
      zswobbie1 -
      Great article.
      It does not take away the fact that, apart from mediocre GA aircraft, awesome eye candy scenery, the whole world to fly in, & a high performance PC with it's costs to get relativley decent performance...
      I'm not too sure if it is all that mind boggling & justifiable..

      To me, it seems to be a very different sim to any other. Maybe it compliments them, but certainly is not a replacement. Scenerywise, obviously it is all modern, with no regression available at this stage. There are many of us that fly in the classical/vintage world - 1950-1960, & MSFS, at this stage, does not give us that opportunity.

      So, who is this new sim for? obviously the Xbox generation, (rumour has it that MFFS will be released there. The high tech simmer? Us casual simmers will need a costly high end PC to run the sim smoothly.

      Gone are the days of the virtual clubs where we used to meet up with our PCs & laptops & do a Saturday morning flight together.

      However, time & technology moves on.. & I still think that the older sims still have their place.

      Godzilla rocks!
    1. falcon409's Avatar
      falcon409 -
      I agree as well. I knew there would come a time when my system (as good as it is) would fall short and MSFS2020 is that "wall". This is a Sim for a new generation or any old farts that have money to spare (most of us don't). FSX is where I will stay, but I am impressed with 2020, just no longer have the big bucks it would take to enjoy it.

      Rock On!!
    1. piet06273's Avatar
      piet06273 -
      Very informative, based on an ASUS Z390 MB , 32GB RAM DDR4 3000 mhz and SSD M2 1TB (and WIN10 2004) could the author please give some max $1.000,00 recommended combinations of CPU and GPU ? thanks in advance.
    1. richjb2's Avatar
      richjb2 -
      Can someone please translate this into English? I have an i9 9900K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2060 card Build was last November. Yes, I didn't get the best video card; had to draw the line somewhere. The i9 is running at 4.7Mhz. I have not really pushed overclocking on the CPU or video card. In MSFS 2020, my frame rates with Ultra settings are around the 18-20 FPS range, sometimes better depending on scenery or weather. At LAX in the fog, it was down to 15 FPS at one time.

      In developer mode, from what I can tell I am GPU limited by the FPS meter, if anyone understand that display.

      What settings are needed to get the frame rates higher? That's all I need to know.

      Thanks,

      Rich Boll
      Wichita KS
    1. N069NT's Avatar
      N069NT -
      As a 20+ year overclocker builder for both games and FS, I found the 4.7GHz->4.9GHz overclock bump having an actual reduction in performance across Min/Avg/Max spectrum interesting (only showing gains in low FPS 1% & 0.1% spectrum). Previous FS versions always responded with higher FPS across the board the higher you overclocked, but they were one-threaded programs. My last FSX rig was an i5 4690K overclocked to 4.6GHz, the happy spot (good cooling, low Vcore). Had it up to 5.1GHz for a test in the cold of winter outside and the frames shot up significantly using aftermarket weather and complex weather and scenery, but that was unsustainable for a Noctua NH-D14 cooled rig indoors year round.

      It is also good to know that the current sim is no more than a 4-core user. For now anyway. One can only believe that MS will eventually patch it up to use DX12 for the PC as we now know that the new XBOX X will utilize DX12 (as will the PS5). One also has to wonder if future patches will unlock more core use as well. I remember when FSX SP2 (aka Acceleration) used as many cores as were on the processor. However, being a single core coded design, a single core still does most of the work. Other cores are used for loading textures and things I can't remember off the top of my head in testing. But it still helped in squeaking out the precious frames we needed, especially with aftermarket frame wrecking payware like aircraft from Carenado.

      It will be interesting to see if MS does anything more with more cores, at least for the PC version. No idea what their plan is for the upcoming 5th generation Xbox X on patches, but that will be interesting to watch too. In any event, it is good to know that the GPU now makes a big difference according to the tech review site Guru3D which now has MSFS in their game review benchmark reports for video cards. Even if you have a last generation Nvidia 2xxx GPU, you will benefit from a new 3000-series GPU as the sim currently is still severely CPU bound...especially at higher resolution. For example, going from an 8GB RTX 2080 to a 10GB 3080 makes a whopping difference from 29fps to 42fps at 4K!

      https://www.guru3d.com/articles_page...review,20.html
    1. Jon PB's Avatar
      Jon PB -
      Quote Originally Posted by piet06273 View Post
      Very informative, based on an ASUS Z390 MB , 32GB RAM DDR4 3000 mhz and SSD M2 1TB (and WIN10 2004) could the author please give some max $1.000,00 recommended combinations of CPU and GPU ? thanks in advance.
      Hi There!

      I'm Jon from PremiumBuilds.com, Author of the article.

      You have a basic great system there. FOr CPU I'd recommend either the i7-9700K or since prices are droppping the i9-9900K. Both are compatible with your motherboard and remain close to the highest performance CPU's you can get. I'd err towards the i9-9900K because whilst it can only use 4 threads, Performance really does seem to be helped by hyperthreading when the CPU is near peak demand - fewer stutters and frame drops.

      You don't say what monitor(s) you use and that's critical to match GPU power to the target resolution.

      At 1080p a GTX 1660 super or RTX 2060 does fine.

      At 1440p I'd recommend 8Gb VRAM, so look at RTX 2070 Super, RAdeon RX5700XT, RTX 2080 Super. There are used bargains to be had now that Ampere has been released. If you can find a RTX 3070 that will also be excellent.

      At 1440p ultrawide, 1440p multi-screen, or 4K, you just need as much GPU as you can afford. I'd look for used RTX 2080ti's, or RTX 3080.

      RTX 3080 at about $700 and an i7-9700K fills your budget and gets about as much performance as possible as a 'perfect pairing'. My own PC is a i7-9700K, 32Gb ram, RTX 2080ti and I run 1440p ultrawide. I can vouch for the performance of such a set up, with smooth framerates on ultra settings -but still the occasional stutter at airports or on take-off, even with the new update containing 'performance optimisations'!
    1. Jon PB's Avatar
      Jon PB -
      Quote Originally Posted by richjb2 View Post
      Can someone please translate this into English? I have an i9 9900K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2060 card Build was last November. Yes, I didn't get the best video card; had to draw the line somewhere. The i9 is running at 4.7Mhz. I have not really pushed overclocking on the CPU or video card. In MSFS 2020, my frame rates with Ultra settings are around the 18-20 FPS range, sometimes better depending on scenery or weather. At LAX in the fog, it was down to 15 FPS at one time.

      In developer mode, from what I can tell I am GPU limited by the FPS meter, if anyone understand that display.

      What settings are needed to get the frame rates higher? That's all I need to know.

      Thanks,

      Rich Boll
      Wichita KS
      Hi Rich. Jon Stom PremiumBuilds here, I wrote the article.

      You don't say what monitor you're using and that's important to gauge the required GPU performance. Resolution dictates performance.

      Firstly, try global settings to medium and see if that lifts up performance. If it's still not good enough then you can try setting resolution scaling to 70-80% and see how that looks and feels. You'll trade some visial sharpness for better frame rates. Leave TAA on if you do this.

      As I say in the article, it's a fine balance of getting the most out of your CPU without actually hitting it's lmiits. If you start to encounter big frame drops and stutter once frame rates are higher that could be a CPU limit: Try a frame rate setting at 30 fps to eliminate it, or dial graphics settings back up a little.

      Hope that helps.

      Jon.
    1. Jon PB's Avatar
      Jon PB -
      Quote Originally Posted by SpookyDiver View Post
      And the most noticeable thing is that my CPU runs at maybe 40-55%, while my video card runs at 99-100%. Moral of my story, the CPU doesn't matter much, what matters is your video card and having at least 32 gigs of fast RAM and a very fast internet connection. .
      This is contrary to my findings!

      Your CPU reports 40-55% usage because the game can only occupy 4 threads in your 16 thread CPU. You can hit a single core performance limit, and be CPU limited, and your total CPU usage will still not show 100%. Ryzen 3950X rigs with 16 cores and 32 threads hit a CPU limit and show under 20% cpu usage! That's why I graphed per-core usage and also how I demonstrated that performance in this sim does not scale with core count, but with core speed.

      The actual findings are that CPU is critically important to performance: You need a fast single core speed and at least 6 cores, prefereably 8 with hyperthreading, which you have in your oiverclocked i9-9900K.

      GPU dictates what resolution and settings you can run comfortably, but only inside the confines of the potential CPU performance.
    1. SpookyDiver's Avatar
      SpookyDiver -
      Quote Originally Posted by richjb2 View Post
      Can someone please translate this into English? I have an i9 9900K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2060 card Build was last November. Yes, I didn't get the best video card; had to draw the line somewhere. The i9 is running at 4.7Mhz. I have not really pushed overclocking on the CPU or video card. In MSFS 2020, my frame rates with Ultra settings are around the 18-20 FPS range, sometimes better depending on scenery or weather. At LAX in the fog, it was down to 15 FPS at one time.

      In developer mode, from what I can tell I am GPU limited by the FPS meter, if anyone understand that display.

      What settings are needed to get the frame rates higher? That's all I need to know.

      Thanks,

      Rich Boll
      Wichita KS
      Hi Rich. Read my previous post, I also have an i9-9900k but I OC to 5 ghz on all cores. Having your i9-9900k running at 4.7 is perfectly fine, because FS2020 only uses like 60 percent and less of my CPU power. I also have an RTX card, the model 2070. Depending on who built your video card, it should have a control panel that allows you to overclock it. My RTX 2070 was built by MSI and I manually overclocked it with their Afterburner utility to +170 on the clock and +750 on the video RAM. I was running it a little higher but it caused crashes. Now is rock solid and the temperature stays at 67c which is really good. With the RTX 2060, you will need to lower the graphics, no other way. I use a 3440x1440 monitor. If your monitor is also a wide screen and you have a spare monitor with less resolution, like a 1080p, use that one. The games today are more dependent of video cards than CPUs. Go to your graphics setting and try the setting FS2020 picked for your system and start bumping the options to ultra one at a time until you get to the point where the frames are not lower than 25/sec. The biggest frame drops are always below 2000 feet and over dense cities, like for example Tokyo or Buenos Aires. 25/30+ FPS is your goal. You can change the Graphics settings on the fly.
      Good luck.
    1. SpookyDiver's Avatar
      SpookyDiver -
      Quote Originally Posted by richjb2 View Post
      Can someone please translate this into English? I have an i9 9900K, 32 GB RAM, RTX 2060 card Build was last November. Yes, I didn't get the best video card; had to draw the line somewhere. The i9 is running at 4.7Mhz. I have not really pushed overclocking on the CPU or video card. In MSFS 2020, my frame rates with Ultra settings are around the 18-20 FPS range, sometimes better depending on scenery or weather. At LAX in the fog, it was down to 15 FPS at one time.

      In developer mode, from what I can tell I am GPU limited by the FPS meter, if anyone understand that display.

      What settings are needed to get the frame rates higher? That's all I need to know.

      Thanks,

      Rich Boll
      Wichita KS
      I forgot to say, make sure you close every application you have running in the background, in particular virus checkers. You can turn them back on after you are done flying.
    1. jeep9's Avatar
      jeep9 -
      try "jet boost" . a small app that may help in shutting off background programs.
      also in the guide by "SoFly" they have a very good chapter on setting-up , to wring out those extra fps.
    1. SpookyDiver's Avatar
      SpookyDiver -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jon PB View Post
      This is contrary to my findings!

      Your CPU reports 40-55% usage because the game can only occupy 4 threads in your 16 thread CPU. You can hit a single core performance limit, and be CPU limited, and your total CPU usage will still not show 100%. Ryzen 3950X rigs with 16 cores and 32 threads hit a CPU limit and show under 20% cpu usage! That's why I graphed per-core usage and also how I demonstrated that performance in this sim does not scale with core count, but with core speed.

      The actual findings are that CPU is critically important to performance: You need a fast single core speed and at least 6 cores, prefereably 8 with hyperthreading, which you have in your oiverclocked i9-9900K.

      GPU dictates what resolution and settings you can run comfortably, but only inside the confines of the potential CPU performance.
      You are absolutely correct! I was getting the info from the built in Windows xbox interface, which (now I know) was giving me a general usage information. I fired up HWinfo64 and check the CPU usage and darn I was wrong! Thank you for pointing it out to me.
    1. bstikkel's Avatar
      bstikkel -
      This is the most clear and informative article I have ever read about the cause of stutters and the way to reduce them.
      Thank you very much, Premium Builds.
    1. golson33's Avatar
      golson33 -
      Quote Originally Posted by zswobbie1 View Post
      Great article.
      It does not take away the fact that, apart from mediocre GA aircraft, awesome eye candy scenery, the whole world to fly in, & a high performance PC with it's costs to get relativley decent performance...
      I'm not too sure if it is all that mind boggling & justifiable..

      To me, it seems to be a very different sim to any other. Maybe it compliments them, but certainly is not a replacement. Scenerywise, obviously it is all modern, with no regression available at this stage. There are many of us that fly in the classical/vintage world - 1950-1960, & MSFS, at this stage, does not give us that opportunity.

      So, who is this new sim for? obviously the Xbox generation, (rumour has it that MFFS will be released there. The high tech simmer? Us casual simmers will need a costly high end PC to run the sim smoothly.

      Gone are the days of the virtual clubs where we used to meet up with our PCs & laptops & do a Saturday morning flight together.

      However, time & technology moves on.. & I still think that the older sims still have their place.

      Godzilla rocks!
    1. stevetag's Avatar
      stevetag -
      I purchased an AlienWare ryzen 3700 with the RTX2080 Super and 32 GB RAM I have all settings in MSFS at ultra and where there is no Ultra, I am using he highest setting allowed. Smooth as glass not a bit of hesitation anywhere and the eye candy is awesome although the weather, even though patched, is not that impressive as I have seen with AS16 in P3D. But I guess it just is a question of how much performance and budget you want and have. This is the first decent pc I have owned in all my years of struggling with low settings in flight sims and I have to say, I am enjoying this.
    1. piet06273's Avatar
      piet06273 -
      Quote Originally Posted by Jon PB View Post
      Hi There!

      I'm Jon from PremiumBuilds.com, Author of the article.

      You have a basic great system there. FOr CPU I'd recommend either the i7-9700K or since prices are droppping the i9-9900K. Both are compatible with your motherboard and remain close to the highest performance CPU's you can get. I'd err towards the i9-9900K because whilst it can only use 4 threads, Performance really does seem to be helped by hyperthreading when the CPU is near peak demand - fewer stutters and frame drops.

      You don't say what monitor(s) you use and that's critical to match GPU power to the target resolution.

      At 1080p a GTX 1660 super or RTX 2060 does fine.

      At 1440p I'd recommend 8Gb VRAM, so look at RTX 2070 Super, RAdeon RX5700XT, RTX 2080 Super. There are used bargains to be had now that Ampere has been released. If you can find a RTX 3070 that will also be excellent.

      At 1440p ultrawide, 1440p multi-screen, or 4K, you just need as much GPU as you can afford. I'd look for used RTX 2080ti's, or RTX 3080.

      RTX 3080 at about $700 and an i7-9700K fills your budget and gets about as much performance as possible as a 'perfect pairing'. My own PC is a i7-9700K, 32Gb ram, RTX 2080ti and I run 1440p ultrawide. I can vouch for the performance of such a set up, with smooth framerates on ultra settings -but still the occasional stutter at airports or on take-off, even with the new update containing 'performance optimisations'!
      Thanks for yr appreciated reply, little more 'saving' now and wait what 'Year-end sales' may bring.
      thanks again, Peter
    1. stevetag's Avatar
      stevetag -
      Good points and i am happy with my performance. i have a 27" Samsung monitor but the resolution is high and crystal clear i'm in a night flight now so I will write later on the settings.
    1. milleron's Avatar
      milleron -
      I have a purpose-built PC for MSFS. I was completing the build in mid-August, not anticipating the release of MSFS until October or November. Thought I had plenty of time, but all the good GPUs vanished from the face of the Earth except for the ones going for 2-3 times MSRP. I therefore decided to install a cheap card, good enough to install the OS and the sim but not good enough to play it, and delay getting into the sim until I could procure a new 3080. That placeholder card is an RX 570, and it goes with a 6-core Ryzen 5 3600XT, 32 GB of 3600 RAM, and a 1TB PCIe Samsung Evo Plus SSD. I got the OS installed in 8 minutes and MSFS downloaded and installed rapidly. I launched it, hoping to get a couple of peripherals installed and look at the menus. To my utter surprise, though, the old, obsolete 570 allows smooth play at 1440 with "medium" settings, which is enough to immerse oneself in the sim and start to learn my way around. The frame rates are only about 17-19 fps, which I've always thought was utterly unplayable, but, lo and behold, in a flight sim, that is not only adequate (barely) but pretty smooth.
      The moral of the story seems to be that a good CPU, SSD, and RAM can compensate a little for a very, very underwhelming GPU . . . temporarily (although definitely not permanently).
    1. ecorry's Avatar
      ecorry -
      Excellent article.
  • Recent Forum Activity

    ralphie1313

    FPS Sound Right?

    Thread Starter: ralphie1313

    I am running an AMD 2990wx 32 core at 4.1 speed, asus x-399e, 2080ti black, ram to the max, When flying from jfk new york with max graphic options,...

    Last Post By: loki Today, 10:16 PM Go to last post
    J_london

    Dash 8

    Thread Starter: J_london

    Can any tell me if there is a Dash 8 available yet to download?

    Last Post By: J_london Today, 10:07 PM Go to last post
    jfitler

    MSFS Addons

    Thread Starter: jfitler

    OK, as far as Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Flight Simulator goes, I did not "just fall off the cabbage truck". But I have been attempting to...

    Last Post By: jfitler Today, 09:47 PM Go to last post
    ralphie1313

    Overspeed!!

    Thread Starter: ralphie1313

    Hi is there any way to stop it from saying overspeed!!!lol

    Last Post By: ralphie1313 Today, 07:32 PM Go to last post