Jump to content

A $1000 MFS system


Mathijs Kok
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Root Admin

After the totally stunning release news from Nvidia for their new 3000 cards, things are changed a lot. That's an understatement, it's a mega shift in what is possible. Epic. The 3070 and 3080 are breaking new ground. 

 

BitWit did a YT vid on a $1000 gaming system based on a the RTX 3070 (remember that's about as fast as high end 2080 you can buy now for close to half the money). His system will run MFS great. a few weeks back the same performance would cost at least $250 more. If you add another 16Gb of mem (MFS totally loves memory) and get a 1Tb disk you would have a very very serious system. You will get 60 FPS in most situations. For say, $1150.

 

MFS loves memory and graphics cards. And Nvidia just showed how to corner the market. If you want to go even cheaper, look for second hand 2080 cards, I seen the sold for less than half the price of new ones today. 

 

 

 

And, I ordered a 3080, how could I not?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

MSFS uses

 

1.  from 16-24Gbytes of RAM, while I have 32Gbytes.

 

2.  maximum 24% of my Ryzen 7 3600 during program loading and setup.  Then it goes back to steady 16% CPU utilization.  There’s a lot of processing power still available.  Overkill is the word.

 

3.  On graphics, it’s a graphic RAM hog.  If my graphics card has 6Gb, it’d use over 5.5Gb.  If card has 8G, it’d use 7.6G. If card has 12Gb, it’d use over 11Gb.  I’ve from that an Rx5600 would still stutter at 1440p, fine at 1080p.  An Rx5800 is smooth at 1440p and adequate at 4K.  I’ve turned down Trees to Low or Medium, and found no significant difference visually.  
 

IMHO, running 4K with MSFS2020 is very much unnecessary luxury.  The difference between 1440p and 4K is not worth an extra $1,000 using today’s graphics card prices.  In fact, 1080p at Ultra, then tune down Trees to Medium or Low, is sufficient.  
 

If you’re flying for hone in technique and skills, above 1080p is unnecessary.  
 

if you’re traveling MSFS2020 for scenery, then get 3080 or 3090.  But add on the costs of 4K monitor.

 

I don’t believe Monitor definition is as important as its Response rate.  I’d go for a 1440p monitor at over 120hz rather than a 4K at 60hz monitor.  There is no 4K monitor at above 60-75hz at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin
20 hours ago, fred florist said:

2.  maximum 24% of my Ryzen 7 3600 during program loading and setup.  Then it goes back to steady 16% CPU utilization.  There’s a lot of processing power still available.  Overkill is the word.

 

Well no. That would assume a CPU that is way cheaper would run all cores at max and it would not, it would run at the same loads.  There might be CPU resources to spare, but apart from some very specific applications that are purely mathematical (like compression and load testers) there are no applications that are able to use all cores at 100%. Software just does not work like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2021 at 4:12 AM, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Well no. That would assume a CPU that is way cheaper would run all cores at max and it would not, it would run at the same loads.  There might be CPU resources to spare, but apart from some very specific applications that are purely mathematical (like compression and load testers) there are no applications that are able to use all cores at 100%. Software just does not work like that.

So we do agree that “there might be CPU resources to spare” in my case?

 

For the record, I merely pointed out my case of a Ryzen 7 running MSFS2020.  I never made any assumptions how low end CPU (for LOL , the MC68020 or Pentium) would do the job (due to changes in architectural implementation across generations, a hardware issue),

 or for that matter, how 16% CPU utilization should have resource usage linearly correlated to 100% CPU utilization, a software issue (that would require too much reading into something that’s not there).

 

Perhaps I could be clearer to point out that the Majority of the $1,000 (title of thread) should be spent toward GPU rather than CPU.  In layman’s term, a $900 Ryzen 9 5600 may not get you a better flight experience than a used $230 Ryzen 7.  But it does stroke the ego.  LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Root Admin
4 hours ago, fred florist said:

So we do agree that “there might be CPU resources to spare” in my case?

 

 

Yes, but not for the simulator. You have ample CPU for other tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, best part in this thread is "$1000". The GPU mentioned in the videoclip is more expensive.

And actually it was also back then - as the most popular comment to on YT says - 'Congrats to the 4 people that were able to actually build this at $1000"

 

&

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/26/2021 at 4:59 AM, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Yes, but not for the simulator. You have ample CPU for other tasks.

Prove it.  Otherwise, it’s just hand waving conjecture.

 

Prove that, for example, a barrel shift register is Fully utilized in each of the multiple cores for the duration of running the simulation.  How do you prove your assertion with real data?  We’ve got real data to show otherwise.

 

Yes.  It’s kind of like insisting the earth is Flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...