Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Article: Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance & Benchmark Analysis

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 1996
    Location
    FlightSim.Com World HQ
    Posts
    3,583
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default Article: Microsoft Flight Simulator Performance & Benchmark Analysis


  2. Default

    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.

  3. #3

    Default

    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!
    Last edited by zswobbie1; 09-16-2020 at 03:43 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    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!!

  5. Default

    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.

  6. Default

    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

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Alpharetta, GA, USA.
    Posts
    266

    Default

    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
    Last edited by N069NT; 09-17-2020 at 08:16 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    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'!

  9. #9

    Default

    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.

  10. Default

    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.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Need help in performance analysis of B-377 Stratocruiser
    By rcktman in forum Newcomer Services
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 01:11 PM
  2. flight analysis and saved flight
    By jgf in forum FS2004
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-30-2010, 01:18 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-30-2005, 11:24 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-12-2003, 05:22 AM
  5. Flight Analysis feature
    By plefseaff in forum FS2002
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-17-2003, 12:08 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •