PC Option question

[trisho]

Does anyone know what PC desktop is the best option to pick for the PMDG planes and the reason?

Option 1:
9th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 9700KF (8-Core, 12MB Cache, Base Speed 3.6 Overclocked up to 4.6GHz across all cores)

Option 2:
13thGen Intel(R) Core (TM) i9 13900KF (24-Core, 68MB Total Cache, Base speed 3.0GHz to 5.8GHz P-Core w/Intel Thermal Velocity Boost)

Patricio Valdes

[Theta60]

Option I have the same CPU zero issues with the sim or any other games

[DDowns]

You are asking for opinions, and those are like belly buttons. Everyone has one.

As an engineer my first question is what is your budget? Your budget should be a major factor and there is a wide range of that among the flight sim community. Secondly, you worded it as if the PMDG products demanded some level of performance; however, it is the MSFS platform that demands the performance. Anything that runs MSFS to your satisfaction is more than enough for a PMDG product.

I moved from the 9700K to a 10700K almost exactly two years ago and it is capable of any MSFS scenario that I am interested in. I don't chase frame rates because I don't consider that a good metric for measuring performance, I am more interested in fluid animation and minimum stutter which with my setup I have no stutter and frame rate is locked at half my screen refresh rate (ie 30 Hz).

You are asking for a CPU recommendation when the GPU is just as important. I went from a 2080Ti to a 3080Ti with 13 GB VRAM about a year ago and I'm very please with display quality. Also important is your display screen and there are as many opinions on this as there are belly buttons. I'm using a 4K 42-in TV that is my arm length from my nose and I love it. Mileage varies with user.

Aside from your computer hardware, the choice of yoke/stick and throttle controllers is just as important in my opinion.

Just asking for a CPU recommendation is not asking the right questions.

[flickswagen]

Definitely 2 in this case. I don't know why anyone would pick option 1 today, it dates back to 2018.

[trisho]

I thought CPU Base speed 3.6 gives better performance than Base speed 3.0 for games. So, Option 1 should be candidate to go?

Patricio Valdes

[Want2BFlyin]

The 9700K would typically be better because while games are taking advantage of more cores, they still won't be able to use all 24 cores of the 13900KF. You would only need that many cores for certain processor-intensive computing needs (compiling large software from source code, rendering videos, etc.). Save some money and go with the 9700K.

[Flypops]

If money is no object why wouldn't choose the more powerful system, which is hands down option 2? Modern day motherboards will optimize the CPU (alter the base clock) and option 2 would run circles around option 1.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-9700K/4129vs4030

But, as Dan said above, there are many more considerations for running a PC sim than simply the CPU.

[Want2BFlyin]

Benchmark tests in these scenarios are typically a little bit misleading. They test a CPU's capability with all cores in use at maximum capacity. Of course, a 24-core CPU will perform better than an 8-core CPU in those tests. What you would really want to compare is how well each one does in a more limited test where only 2 or 4 cores for each CPU are being maxed out. This would give a better indication of how each CPU would perform while running a game.

More cores does not necessarily equal a better processor. It really depends on what you are using your computer for. For most gamers, 8-12 cores is plenty. There is simply no need to spend money on a CPU with more cores when the games that you will be playing still don't make use of all of those extra cores.

[Flypops]

Uh, no they don't only test all cores for comparison. If you actually read the bench test you'll see testing on single, dual, quad and octa cores (and all were substantially higher scores with the 13900 - As would be expected). And I prefaced my comment by saying "If money is no object" so that part of your argument was also addressed.

[Want2BFlyin]

Yep, I didn't read down below the top line of the comparison. This is a better benchmark comparison than others I have seen. It still doesn't counter my main point, though. Just because a CPU has more cores, that doesn't inherently make it a better CPU. It depends on what it will be used for. I will never recommend that a gamer pay a premium for a 24-core CPU regardless of their budget.

[trisho]

If money is no object why wouldn't choose the more powerful system, which is hands down option 2? Modern day motherboards will optimize the CPU (alter the base clock) and option 2 would run circles around option 1.

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-13900K-vs-Intel-Core-i7-9700K/4129vs4030

But, as Dan said above, there are many more considerations for running a PC sim than simply the CPU.

So, Option 2 has faster CPU than Option 1 even considering the Base speed in question, right? MSFS will run better with Option 2, correct?

Patricio Valdes

[Captain Kevin]

Patricio, are you looking at getting a new computer or just replacing components of one. Keep in mind that the i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket, and the i9-13900KF uses the LGA1700 socket. That means that you would also need to select the motherboard with the compatible socket since the two aren't interchangeable. As Dan said, you've only mentioned the CPU with no mention of anything else, so that's not giving us anything to work with.

[Want2BFlyin]

Think of it this way. The 13900 costs approximately 80% more than the 9700 while giving you about 60-70% more performance. In terms of running MSFS, this performance gain will come from around 16% of the CPU's capacity. Your CPU will not be running at maximum capacity, and probably never will unless you are also using your computer for high-powered multi-core processing.

[Greg B]

Funnily enough, I’ve just built a new PC moving from option 1 to option 2 this weekend. A very, very noticeable difference in performance for quality, smoothness and speed.

[DD_Arthur]

If these are your choices go for option 2.

[trisho]

I think this will clear more before decisions are made.

OPTION 1:

9th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 9700KF (8-Core, 12MB Cache, Base Speed 3.6 overclocked up to 4.6GHz across all cores)
64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 2666MHz UDIMM Non-ECC
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti OC with 11GB GDDR6
850-Watt Power Supply with High Performance Liquid Cooling

OPTION 2:

13thGen Intel(R) Core (TM) i9 13900KF (24-Core, 68MB Total Cache, Base speed 3.0GHz to 5.8GHz P-Core w/Intel Thermal Velocity Boost)
64GB, 2x32GB, DDR5, 4800MHz
NVIDIA(R) GeForce RTX(TM) 4070 Ti, 12GB GDDR6X
1350W PSU, Alienware Cryo-tech (TM) Edition CPU Liquid Cooling & Clear Side Panel

Regardless on budget my concern is about the CPU Base speed for PMDG planes with FSX, P3Dv4-v5 and MSFS sim.

Patricio Valdes

[trisho]

Patricio, are you looking at getting a new computer or just replacing components of one. Keep in mind that the i7-9700K uses the LGA1151 socket, and the i9-13900KF uses the LGA1700 socket. That means that you would also need to select the motherboard with the compatible socket since the two aren't interchangeable. As Dan said, you've only mentioned the CPU with no mention of anything else, so that's not giving us anything to work with.

Hello my friend Captain Kevin, just posted more details about my question. Does it matter the CPU Base speed for flight simulators? I assume the CPU Base speed at 3.6 GHz will give a better smooth performance than the 3.0 GHz speed. But not sure ...

Patricio Valdes

[Flypops]

I think this will clear more before decisions are made.

OPTION 1:

9th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 9700KF (8-Core, 12MB Cache, Base Speed 3.6 overclocked up to 4.6GHz across all cores)
64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 2666MHz UDIMM Non-ECC
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti OC with 11GB GDDR6
850-Watt Power Supply with High Performance Liquid Cooling

OPTION 2:

13thGen Intel(R) Core (TM) i9 13900KF (24-Core, 68MB Total Cache, Base speed 3.0GHz to 5.8GHz P-Core w/Intel Thermal Velocity Boost)
64GB, 2x32GB, DDR5, 4800MHz
NVIDIA(R) GeForce RTX(TM) 4070 Ti, 12GB GDDR6X
1350W PSU, Alienware Cryo-tech (TM) Edition CPU Liquid Cooling & Clear Side Panel

Regardless on budget my concern is about the CPU Base speed for PMDG planes with FSX, P3Dv4-v5 and MSFS sim.

Patricio Valdes

Patricio,
If budget is no concern then you would be foolish to choose 1 over 2. Option 2 is a considerably faster, more robust and much more powerful machine.

[DD_Arthur]

Hello my friend Captain Kevin, just posted more details about my question. Does it matter the CPU Base speed for flight simulators? I assume the CPU Base speed at 3.6 GHz will give a better smooth performance than the 3.0 GHz speed. But not sure ...

Patricio Valdes

Go for option 2. It is a far superior cpu both in terms of cache and clock speed.
You are looking at base speeds; the 13900kf will ramp up to 5.8Ghz.

[rheinis]

I think it's also important to factor in the screen size & resolution at which you'll want to play.

I myself still play on Full HD (1920x1080) which is more than enough for me and my 25" screen.
My "ancient" i7 4790K / 16GB / 1080 system still runs the MSFS/PMDG combo butterly smooth (@4400 MHz) in practically all scenarios. I even have all settings on ULTRA (only have the Buildings on HIGH, which seemed on my system to cause a noticable framerate drop)

Only when flying very low over something like New York the experience gets a bit stuttery, but still being very playable.
Then again, I only flew over NY (Central Park, skyscrapers) in the PMDG for some stress tests. It's not something I would normally do.

[trisho]

Many thanks for all Pilots from this topic to make a decision to Option 2. My monitor screen is DELL Monitor AW2721D.

Patricio Valdes

[Captain Kevin]

Hello my friend Captain Kevin, just posted more details about my question. Does it matter the CPU Base speed for flight simulators? I assume the CPU Base speed at 3.6 GHz will give a better smooth performance than the 3.0 GHz speed. But not sure ...

Patricio, the base speed is just that, the base speed. Both processors can ramp up to higher speeds if need be, with the i9-13900KF giving you up to 5.8 GHz, and the i7-9700K giving you only up to 4.9 GHz. Therefore, the i9-13900KF would actually give you better performance. What Tim said earlier isn't incorrect, but if you're planning to spend that much money now, presumably you intend to keep the computer for a long time, so it would be better to get something better now if your budget allows for it rather than get something older now and then find out in the next iteration of flight simulators that it may not be enough and then you have to upgrade something. Additionally, Tim's assumption is that you aren't doing anything else other than running a flight simulator. If you're running additional software as would be the case if you're recording a video trying to show me what you're doing wrong when flying a Boeing 747-400, you're probably going to want to get something more powerful.

By the way, I noticed in your second option you have an Alienware PSU. Are you actually getting the computer from Alienware.

[trisho]

Patricio, the base speed is just that, the base speed. Both processors can ramp up to higher speeds if need be, with the i9-13900KF giving you up to 5.8 GHz, and the i7-9700K giving you only up to 4.9 GHz. Therefore, the i9-13900KF would actually give you better performance. What Tim said earlier isn't incorrect, but if you're planning to spend that much money now, presumably you intend to keep the computer for a long time, so it would be better to get something better now if your budget allows for it rather than get something older now and then find out in the next iteration of flight simulators that it may not be enough and then you have to upgrade something. Additionally, Tim's assumption is that you aren't doing anything else other than running a flight simulator. If you're running additional software as would be the case if you're recording a video trying to show me what you're doing wrong when flying a Boeing 747-400, you're probably going to want to get something more powerful.

By the way, I noticed in your second option you have an Alienware PSU. Are you actually getting the computer from Alienware.

Both PC are Alienware from DELL Co. The old one (Option 1) going to my wife's desk. I am taking the Option 2 and stay for flight simulator Collection. You are right, I do some videos for my own just for flying.

Patricio Valdes

[Kevin Hall]

I think this will clear more before decisions are made.

OPTION 1:

9th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 9700KF (8-Core, 12MB Cache, Base Speed 3.6 overclocked up to 4.6GHz across all cores)
64GB (2x32GB) DDR4 2666MHz UDIMM Non-ECC
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti OC with 11GB GDDR6
850-Watt Power Supply with High Performance Liquid Cooling

OPTION 2:

13thGen Intel(R) Core (TM) i9 13900KF (24-Core, 68MB Total Cache, Base speed 3.0GHz to 5.8GHz P-Core w/Intel Thermal Velocity Boost)
64GB, 2x32GB, DDR5, 4800MHz
NVIDIA(R) GeForce RTX(TM) 4070 Ti, 12GB GDDR6X
1350W PSU, Alienware Cryo-tech (TM) Edition CPU Liquid Cooling & Clear Side Panel

Regardless on budget my concern is about the CPU Base speed for PMDG planes with FSX, P3Dv4-v5 and MSFS sim.

Patricio Valdes

I wouldn't worry about how PMDG planes will perform. PMDG addons are very efficiently coded. As long as your rig meets their recommended spec then you will not have any issues flying them.

[Captain Kevin]

Both PC are Alienware from DELL Co. The old one (Option 1) going to my wife's desk. I am taking the Option 2 and stay for flight simulator Collection. You are right, I do some videos for my own just for flying.

Eh, I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them, but that's just me.

[Pablo Vazquez]

Does anyone know what PC desktop is the best option to pick for the PMDG planes and the reason?

Option 1:
9th Gen Intel(R) Core (TM) i7 9700KF (8-Core, 12MB Cache, Base Speed 3.6 Overclocked up to 4.6GHz across all cores)

Option 2:
13thGen Intel(R) Core (TM) i9 13900KF (24-Core, 68MB Total Cache, Base speed 3.0GHz to 5.8GHz P-Core w/Intel Thermal Velocity Boost)

Patricio Valdes

Patricio, have you checked with Jetline Systems? I have been their client since the very start (2006) and never gone anywhere else. They can customize your system to whatever you need. Plus they have amazing customer service and if you buy from them, you get a free lifetime support. I would check with them first before committing with the Alienware system. This is just my opinion.

[Captain Kevin]

Patricio, have you checked with Jetline Systems? I have been their client since the very start (2006) and never gone anywhere else. They can customize your system to whatever you need. Plus they have amazing customer service and if you buy from them, you get a free lifetime support. I would check with them first before committing with the Alienware system. This is just my opinion.

Yes, I would agree with Pablo on this one. Even though I don't buy computers from them anymore since I build my own, my very first desktop computer actually came from Jetline Systems. Aside from being able to customize your system to whatever you need, they can install and test your simulators and add-ons for you, so you don't have to worry about doing all that on your own. That said, if you have a lot of add-ons, I wouldn't go too crazy with it because if they're busy, that's just adding more work for them if they have other computers they need to build for other customers. I did get a chance to visit them twice. Once shortly after I got my computer, and a second time when my friend was picking his computer up.

[trisho]

Just visited Jetline Systems and I found no difference with Alienware except the price a bit more convenience. Since I had Dell machines for over than 25 years and never had issues, I decided to keep going on with Option 2.
I appreciate all comments from this topic thread. In the event if the Alienware fails then without hesitations I will switch to Jetlines.

Patricio Valdes

[trisho]

I wouldn't worry about how PMDG planes will perform. PMDG addons are very efficiently coded. As long as your rig meets their recommended spec then you will not have any issues flying them.

The only reason of selecting the PC is for PMDG and Flight Simulators before anything else. Thanks for your comments.

Patricio Valdes

[DDowns]

I see a lot of additives in those Dell specifications that are designed just to take your money like a 1.35 KW power supply.... really? Any then where it matters they drop down a step or two in performance with a 4070 Ti instead of the 4080 because it costs more.... but this is a top of the line system? Agree with Kevin, I dropped Dell permanently around 2008 and won't go back.

[Pablo Vazquez]

I used to buy from Dell a lot. Not anymore. I purchased my first Jetline System in 2006 and have been with them ever since.

Pablo Vazquez

[Flypops]

Yeah, I too feel into the Dell trap a long time ago. I had been building my own PC's for awhile but for some reason this particular time I bought a Dell.

Shortly after the warranty ran out the PSU also decided to quit. I could not find a PSU to replace it with anywhere. Nothing would fit in the cage they had built for it inside the case. Only another Dell PSU would fit.

That's when I learned they are built specifically NOT to be upgraded. Never again would Michael Dell get another dime from me.

[simpilot787]

I agree, gave up on Dell...too much "bloatware" and the components got cheaper!

Fabio van Roon

[trisho]

I see a lot of additives in those Dell specifications that are designed just to take your money like a 1.35 KW power supply.... really? Any then where it matters they drop down a step or two in performance with a 4070 Ti instead of the 4080 because it costs more.... but this is a top of the line system? Agree with Kevin, I dropped Dell permanently around 2008 and won't go back.

I built online that Option 2 configuration in order to save something. Regarding on PSU, I choose the very best available, indeed. I think the Option 2 is good enough for flight simulators considering other tasks demanding power like sim video recordings.

Patricio Valdes

[Want2BFlyin]

I built online that Option 2 configuration in order to save something. Regarding on PSU, I choose the very best available, indeed. I think the Option 2 is good enough for flight simulators considering other tasks demanding power like sim video recordings.

Patricio Valdes

A 750W or 850W power supply is typically plenty for a computer that has a 4070 Ti in it. I wouldn't go over 1000W unless you have two GPUs in the computer. Recording video is not typically a high-power task.