I should correct / update my previous post. According to the CPU User Benchmarks, the just-released (?) Core i7 - 9700KF would seem to now be the fastest choice for FSX, at around 79% faster than my old Core i7 970. So yes, state of the art for predominantly single-threaded games like FSX is now around 80% faster, not 70%. But I will still wait for 90% performance improvement regardless, even if it means waiting 18 months or more 😈

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-9700KF-vs-Intel-Core-i7-970/m710154vsm8374

Edited February 27, 20197 yr by JonP01

On 2/26/2019 at 10:02 AM, JonP01 said:

I am still running the Core i7 970-based machine with Nvidia GTX580 that I built around 2010 / 11 or thereabouts. Yes, oh the humanity. After realising that my machine really can't handle most payware scenery and aircraft add-ons to my satisfaction, I had been planning to upgrade to something like the i7 9900X. But I have decided to hold off until the next generation after that, since Intel are claiming there will be an emphasis on further improvements in single core performance on these next generation processors over the next two years.

It was quite sobering when I looked up CPU comparison tables and noted that a state of art Intel CPU of today is "only" around 70% faster than my decade old CPU in single core performance. Whilst the actual improvement in FSX might be a bit different than that (maybe a bit better, maybe a bit worse), I well remember the days when a 70% improvement in performance could easily happen within twelve months and often less than that.

So I am holding off. I want good value for money for my next build and I want it to run for the best part of a decade like my current machine has. For me, a 70% performance boost isn't quite enough to warrant the upgrade, but something more akin to 90% is. Especially given I have held off this long for an upgrade - I might as well get the best value out of it. So I guess I am hoping that the Intel CPUs on the market come 2021 are at least 90% faster in single core applications than my ancient Core i7 970 is and possibly even double the speed with some mild over-clocking. 

Well, I have build at that time a i7 2600K with also a 580GTX and even P3dV4 was running very well on it. Now I have changed the 580 for a second hand 1060GTX 6Gb and upgraded the RAM on the mainboard to 16 Gb and pumped up the good old Sandy Bridge from 4,5 tot 5.0 Ghz and there she goes... steady 30 fps with nearly all maxed out in P3DV4...

I have all the ORBX stuff loaded and the only place I am falling back to 20fps (Yes, 20 fps was horrible in FSX but worked very well in P3DV4.4) with TrueEarth The Netherlands and FlyTampa Amsterdam and a PMDG NGX on top. I have sold my Samsung VR gear again by that was even good running especially in Aerofly.

Conclusion.. The first generation MB's and i7 CPU's are still awesome with a moderate new generation GPU and 16Gb of RAM.

 

 

 

I find with my old i7 970 that even with the stock aircraft and nothing more than ORBX Global plus ORBX Pacific Northwest (with no add-on airifields) that I am dipping into the low 20s at the large airports. So I'd really hate to think what I would be getting with any complex payware aircraft and a full ORBX "with the lot" installation (which is what I am ultimately striving for) but I don't think "slide show" would be too far off the mark. And even though it is well-acknowledged that the GPU is well and truly secondary in FSX, I was still hoping my GPU might have been partly responsible for the frame rate dipping so low in a case like this. But even when I turned the resolution to minimum and turned off all the anti-aliasing and filtering, it barely made any difference at all - so as usual it was still a CPU horsepower issue. It was then I decided I'd just hold off buying any more payware of any sort for the time being and wait till I could get a state of the art CPU in about 18 months from now. Then build a whole new machine with a GPU upgrade to boot.

I actually find it a bit of a depressing thought that with no further Microsoft Flight Simulator versions ever to materialise, that in my lifetime, FSX isn't going to perform a whole lot better than it will in perhaps two years time. If it has taken more than a decade to get a 90% speed increase for single threaded gaming, I expect it will probably be another 30 years before we see a similar increment, such has been the challenge of getting CPUs to actually run faster and faster within a given core. 

Edited February 28, 20197 yr by JonP01

I just upgraded from my 7700K@4,9 with 1x 1080TI to a 9900K@4,9 with 2x 1080TI in SLI configuration. I did the upgrade in 2 steps:

 

1. step: 7700K@4,9 with 1x 1080TI to 9900K@4,9 with 1x 1080TI

This did not improve much. Framecount just barely went up, not really noticable, maybe 5% witch gave me, as an example, 32 fps instead of 30. Smoothness is a different thing with the 9900K, this improved much. However, credit for smoothness probably also goes to the new M.2 SSD.

 

2. step: 9900K@4,9 with 1x 1080TI to 9900K@4,9 with 2x 1080TI SLI

This was a game changer. At complex airports with FSLabs A320 framerate almost doubled. Also in night operations with dynamic lighting switched on the framerate is twice as high as with one 1080TI.

Framerates are now well above 30 in all situations, day and night, regardless which airport and which aircraft. Still have to try ORBX TE Netherlands, though. Purchased it but still have to install it (more than 70 GBytes download.....).

Configuration in daylight is: HDR, reflections and DL off, everything else on max and 8xSSAA and Active Sky weather.

Configuration at night is: HDR and reflections off, shadows medium, everything else maxed out, DL on and 8xMSAA and Active Sky weather..

 

I have hyperthreading switched off, this helps with temperatures and doesn't impact framerates or smoothness.