Just an FYI, I have been seeing alot of chatter on the internet about RAM and SSD prices about to drop due to little demand and too much supply.
Also seeing rumors of the flagship 3XXX going for $1399 USD. Obviously nothing solid but something to think about.
As for your build, Id go Intel, but Im an Intel guy. MSFS might be the only game to benifit from multi cores though, which would make the AMD better.
RAM 32GB is the min for flight sims.(IMO) If you can go 64.
As for the cooler, the Noctua is a beast! I believe its bigger than a radiator for a Yugo. Just make sure you have room.
DCS will benefit from more RAM as well. I believe DCS lists 16 as a requirement but also says 32 in heavy missions. Which means it benefits from more RAM.
Have you seen any benchmarks regarding this? Only thing I could find was speculation from before the release. When I looked at MSI afterburner, MSFS 2020 had a cpu usuage of around 40-45% while flying with a 9th gen i7 (8 core no HT). Basically the same as DCS. Maybe that’s not a good indicator I’m just curious if the multi core hype was real or not.
Currenlty here (gpu placeholder obviously). Not waiting for new cpus. The AMD 3950X is already $1000. New AMD cpus aren’t going to be any cheaper really. And as you say, always something around the corner. Will compare my list with above later. Gotta work ahhhh.
Hmm. That seasonic leak appears to indicate 850w PSU recommended… Anyone know off-hand whether that’s new for this upcoming GPU set or whether they often recommend that?
I’ve always heard 850 is overkill, but I wouldn’t surprised if we might actually get near to 750w now with that massive beast.
I’ve got a 12 core AMD 3900X and it’s using all the cores quite evenly without using hyper-threading. I don’t like the look of core usage with hyper-threading on (24 threads) though. Way less even useage.
I’d recommend water cooling. Allows overclocking with zero worry of longterm damage. I’ve got the Corsair H150i. Don’t know if it mid tower compatible. I’m on a full tower.
I’m overclocked to 5.0ghz. Idle 27ish. Under load. 45-55.
The coolant is electrically inert, so they say.
Never had one leak, even after remounting and one pump failure on a very old unit.
Be wary with TDP values, and do not use them for PSU concerns as for example Intel defines TDP as power under a pre-defined “typical” intense load. This is not close to maximum thermal output and power consumption, where a 9900k’s 95W TDP can bloom to 220W (My own test under Prime95 Small FFT / Max heat - which is well beyond what any program getting your CPU to 100% usage can achieve).
However, I have not found how Nvidia sets TDP to know if the GPU’s TDP vs. Max power draw compares, but take a 180W GPU TDP and add it to my 220W actual test and we have 400W without powering the motherboard, drives, lights, cooler and fans.
If we use the same Actual:TDP ratio the GPU could theoretically reach 417W so 220 + 417 and we’re at 637W for CPU and GPU alone, but again this is theoretical.
I have always liked this tool:
As well, rumor before launch showed the I9-10900K peaking at around 300W, and that Intel might have to de-tune it as the motherboards were already made and the VRMs couldn’t handle that load. I haven’t followed up since, but I would definitely check in to that and account for actual max power draw to be safe.
