First of all: I hope you understand that the CPU's were deliberately underclocked to 3,5GHz to establish IPC. There's no other way to do it. No need for greek reasoning. It could have been 4GHz, it just so happens it was 3,5GHz.
I agree with you fully: how do we benchmark Prepar3D at all, so we can have the hard facts? For me, the business case for Prepar3D is to use it to demonstrate situations for a donation driven organisation. So money is an issue.
For now, I am waiting for evidence, just like you, before spending big bucks. It could swing me towards Intel, but for now, I'm not overly convinced. And no, AMD does not offer overclocking but I wasn't going to overclock anyway, as I would need to move my PC to places where it may be hotter or colder, and when it runs, it needs to run stable when people are watching or enjoying the ride. It's very awkward when you have someone doing a flight and all of a sudden it freezes or bluescreens. So I left that out of the equation.
Any ideas how we can set up some benchmark standard? Or is there one that I've overlooked?
I'd suggest you open a brand new thread for build advice, then copy/paste your last post into it. Make sure to include EVERY add-on program feature you MIGHT want to utilize for importing into the sim: weather, air-traffic, ground traffic, lighting, shading, ATC, Terrain, et cetera.....Also, include if you plan to prioritize flying at LOW altitude or HIGH, and in Urban airports like Heathrow, JFK, LaGuardia where your sim might try to render Airline traffic going to two or three nearby airports as well. Low altitude and urban flight is going to be harder to render.
Flight simulation is a niche market that has rarely been kind to the miser. I usually view penny-pinching on new system-builds as MORE COSTLY in the long run as a new hardware feature or attractive software release will likely push you into regretting the bottle-necks you originally accept now as part of a costs tradeoff. Eventually, in a year or two, to take advantage of an attractive new feature that suddenly has become worthwhile or interesting, you will almost inevitably end up spending more money getting yourself out of any bottleneck you had originally accepted in an effort to save a little money up front.
Today, I think any system builder for P3D is wasting cash if they purchase anything that's not a 3900x or 9900k. The Prepar3D program, as a simulation backbone, is infinitely expandable to be more than a match for any hardware we can currently throw at it. So the question is, how _real_ of an experience do you want to create?
FlightBeam's SFO; SSTIK3, 01L
HWinfo and Fraps data capture started moments before takeoff roll, stops at Porte (just south of Half Moon Bay) crossing at 10,000 ft.
An easy one ...just before dawn and clear skies ...but still a pretty good load on the system.
Not posting as a mine vs yours hardware benchmark as most of my hardware is no longer available at the retail market. I'm posting because I think valuable info can be shared/learned on the relationship of hardware, settings and expectations.
Been logging all of my flights over the past 7 days or so (mostly between SFO and LAX), so I would be more than happy to share more.
My setting (always):
PMDG 747
Orbx Nor Cal and So Cal
ASN 5 layers clouds
8xMSAA with 4X SGSS
fog enabled
Fsdreamteam LAX
flightbeam SFO
Orbx KMRY and Blue Canyon
TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10
Ai traffic
1440P at 150 Hz
CplDaniel wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:59 pm
Make sure to include EVERY add-on program feature you MIGHT want to utilize for importing into the sim: weather, air-traffic, ground traffic, lighting, shading, ATC, Terrain, et cetera.....Also, include if you plan to prioritize flying at LOW altitude or HIGH, and in Urban airports like Heathrow, JFK, LaGuardia where your sim might try to render Airline traffic going to two or three nearby airports as well. Low altitude and urban flight is going to be harder to render.
...
Today, I think any system builder for P3D is wasting cash if they purchase anything that's not a 3900x or 9900k. The Prepar3D program, as a simulation backbone, is infinitely expandable to be more than a match for any hardware we can currently throw at it. So the question is, how _real_ of an experience do you want to create?
Daniel, I will be using the Lionheart Quest Kodiak as well as some Orbx sceneries, so low traffic, low flying, that kind of thing. Maybe later I'll invest in a Carenado Cessna Caravan or Twin Otter. I plan to buy a Oculus Rift S or the Pimax 5K at some time. My TrackIR 4 has stopped working (not being recognised at all when attaching to USB) so good reason to switch to VR.
What's your experience on the I7 9700K as it seems to be almost as good but 100 EUR cheaper than your favorite 9900K?
