Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

187 Excellent

1 Follower

About AnkH

  • Rank
    Life Member

Profile Information

  • Gender:
  • Location:
    Bern (Switzerland)

Recent Profile Visitors

1,413 profile views
  1. It is not, the white cross is clarly off center, like in the danish flag. Nitpicking, I know, but as I am Swiss, I am used to wrongly used flags...
  2. It depends on your budget and how much variability this pre-assembler allows. Yes, a 8700K would be sufficient if it is overclocked to 4.8-5.0GHz and you might save some money for the 2080Ti, but pre-assembler often do not offer "old" CPUs anymore, that is why I suggested the 9700K. Don't get fooled by this Intel gaga specifications, a quick google search will give you the information you want. Yes, the base clock of current CPUs is extremely low, that is pure marketing to have a clock indicated where their CPUs will maintain the TDP they indicate. In reality, neither a 9700K nor the 9900K will ever run at 3.6GHz only, but on the turbo for all cores. This is 4.6GHz for the 9700K and 4.7GHz for the 9900K. The "5.0GHz" marketing blabla on the other hand is the "single-core turbo", means you reach this clock rate only when only one (sometimes two) core is under load. Nowadays, this is hardly ever the case, not even with P3D. The OC offering from a pre-assembler is also basically just a question of budget. As you can see, both the 9700K and the 9900K need overclocking for all cores running at 5.0GHz, as such the pre-assembler will use the better cooling solution for those products compared to a rig where no OC is indicated. As you have no experience in building a rig and probably also not in overclocking, I would suggest you take this "factory overclock" by your assembler if you can afford it or simply go for the non-OC version. Just careful: usually pre-assembler do not use the processors with a -K suffix for non-OC preassembled rigs. Yet you get more power out of those processors even if you do not overclock, as they usually have a higher default clock rate. Sounds complicated, but if you do some reading, you will quickly get the logic behind ;-)
  3. It will be fine, as long as your cooling solution is capable enough, your 9900K will provide enough power even without overclocking. The base clock will almost never be used. However, your list reads like it is a pre-assembled computer that already includes overclocking? Then you can care even less. The only thing you might consider: do you really need to go for the top-processor from Intel? You would have almost equally good results with a 9700K instead but save some money you could potentially invest into a 2080Ti instead (which would provide you more performance for VR). Then, although it is rather a personal preference than a prerequisite: I would not use any normal HDD anymore but only use SSD nowadays. Besides being faster, they are totally silent. You won't gain FPS with an SSD instead of an HDD, but loading times are much faster and it might have a positive effect on terrain loading while you are flying around. So, you might think about adding a 1TB SSD to this rig dedicated to the simulator. The 1TB HDD you could still use for stuff not depending on the speed of the SSD and you might use it as a backup (but then, it should have slightly more storage space, e.g. 4TB).
  4. Yes, you know why, but you have to accept it... Nowadays, besides "tweaks" that actually improve the visuals beyond what is possible via the GUI, no tweaks are really needed in P3Dv4.5. The only tweak I still use in my config is the affinity mask setting. And this is basically not even a "tweak", as it simply limits P3D to the cores I want and allows me to use HT on (I am simply to lazy to switch HT on and off depending on wheter or not I am going to use P3D). So, in your case I really strongly suggest to get rid of this "totally tweaked" prepar3d.cfg once and start from scratch. Might be that you wont have any issues with P3Dv4.5 anymore then...
  5. There are many reports that it IS worth it, although I wonder if this is true for the relatively small size of 27 inch. You might be better off with a WQHD (2560x1440) monitor for this size, no? Besides that, don't forget that although P3D is still mainly CPU bound, going to 4K asks for a rather fast GPU as well. If you own a nVIDIA graphics card, you can test how well your computer performs in 4K even without a 4K capable monitor: simply use DSR and set 4K in your sim and check FPS and smoothness of the sim.
  6. Check the .exe in your prepar3d main folder (prepar3d.exe if I am not mistaken), right click on it, go to properties and verify that "disable fullscreen optimizations" is checked. At least in my case, this checkbox ticked eliminated all my screen flickering.
  7. Maybe if one has to much time and money, yes. Here in Switzerland, there is in contrast to the EU no possibility to buy computer hardware and return them within 14d in any case. So, no, I can not just buy a Ryzen 3000X build just to test if P3Dv4.5 runs well on this hardware, especially not if people are around that DO have such a hardware combo. So, I disagree. Better than "buy one and check it out" is ask those that have one...
  8. That is exactly what I meant. And for certain games, it seems to be still the case: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_3600x_review,9.html While the Ryzen 3600X is just lousy 5% slower in the Cinebench15 single-thread run, but better in the IPC run and even slightly better (0.6%) in the Cinebench20 single thread run, the same processor is significantly slower in certain games (FarCry: 18% slower, Shadow of the Tomb Raider: 30% slower) and slightly faster in some other games (Strange Brigade: 3% faster). Means: those numbers basically do tell us nothing in regard of Prepar3d.
  9. Looks very nice, wonderful. What I do really like in the last preview screenshots is the comparison slider. With this slider, the difference is really obvious and it is a nice thing you guys at ORBX should keep for all future previews, please :-)
  10. Of course not. But it would be not the first time in processor release history that a processor is by far not that capable as benchmark results suggest. That is why. Those benchmark numbers are sometimes representative of the performance in Prepar3d, sometimes absolutely not. Besides that, the FS community still lacks a lot of knowledge and experience with AMD processors. The more people like you "publish", the better this situation gets.
  11. Thanks for those results, they look promising. Did any of you Ryzen 3000 series owner already test how well they perform in Prepar3d v4.x? I mean, those single-thread numbers are interesting, but if they do not translate accordingly into P3D performance, it is of no help at all, no? PS: I am not intending to switch my CPU, as my 5GHz 8700K is still at least on par with a current Ryzen 3000 series build. But to suggest others asking for hardware to use with P3D, it would be really nice to have some feedback about how well the Ryzen 3000 series perform in P3D...
  12. You might find some good points in those videos, for sure, but when modifying Windows 10 results in such a FPS increase, then most probably something was wrong with the setup that resulted in so little FPS beforehand. It is simply impossible that cleaning up Windows 10 provides you more than 200% more FPS with the same hardware... Besides that: the first video is primarly about disabling Windows 10 automatic updates and Defender. For sure this does not result in a single FPS but in a huge security issue if you do not use other tools to compensate this... Thanks, but no..
  13. Nice shots! \nitpicking mode on: sadly it is the wrong model variant of the A350... \nitpicking mode off...
  14. Nice shots, even when you just supported the prejudice that us citizen are unable to differentiate between Sweden (the country your screenshots are from) and Switzerland (the registration of the plane you use)... No worries, many of your compatriots get this wrong ;-)
  • Create New...