Intel or AMD that's the question?

  • Hello, everybody,


    since a few days I am concerned with the question if I should upgrade my system and if so, how?


    Currently I have an older I7 4970K processor with a Z97 board that is permanently overclocked to 4.5 Ghz. Until now I was very satisfied with it. But through VR I notice that I am at the performance limit especially in combination with my current graphics card (RTX2070).


    Since my last PC build, processor technology has changed a lot (from quadcore's to 32 cores). AMD's Ryzen is much discussed by gamers. There is often talk of good value for money.


    Are the Ryzen processors now competitive for compute-intensive and graphically complex flight simulations? Or should I stay with Intel?


    What is your opinion? In the old days, Intel and Nvidia were the best combination for flightsims. Is that still the case today?


    What system would you put together today to be well equipped and happy with Aerofly and VR in the future?


    I'm looking forward to your answers.


    Best regards

    Thomas

  • Aerofly is much more GPU dependent than CPU. To get the best performance in VR if you were to just upgrade components I would start with the fastest GPU as you can afford. You will get more out of a RTX2080 Ti however it might not be that apparent since you already have a 2070. The next upgrade item that I would look at is memory; if you are running W10 you should have at least 16GB but 32 is recommended.

    If you were to completely replace your system with new, go for an i9 CPU, 32GB fast memory, W10, RTX2080Ti, and SSD drives.


    There is a lot of performance overhead in Aerofly at the moment so you should see smooth performance with everything maxxed in settings but stick with VR RSF of 1.50 for best results.

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.


    Regards,


    Jeff

  • Just a thought. I would have thought that those existing specs should run AFS2 fairly comfortably (maybe not flawlessly), have you checked for anything else that might affect performance? Of course, if you are running a Pimax or HP Reverb (or Index at 144 Hz), you might need a more powerful GPU. I always thought that one of the attractions of AFS2 was that you did not need a supercomputer to run it in VR (unlike certain other flight sims).

  • You are totally right, with my specs Aerofly runs very comfortably (non VR and VR). But as you know, you can't have enough power especially if you have a HP Reverb. :)


    After the good hints from the community for the best settings, Aerofly runs extremely well with native resolution of the Headset and fluently (with 90 Hz) in most of the various scenarios. I have to say explicitly here Aerofly is really the best performance optimized flight simulator I've ever seen. Again a big compliment to the developers for their work. Thank you very much!!!!

    But of course in highly detailed cities like Amsterdam, New York and partly in Monterrey it comes to frame rate break-ins with my hardware (which doesn't surprise me either). With the tool fpsVr I could observe very well that apparently not the GPU but the older CPU is the problem. That's why I asked the question what would be the best of the best.


    Regards,

    Thomas

  • Currently I'm finding prices for a whole PC upgrade to a 2080ti and i9-9900k with 32gb of Ram a bit too high right now. Most setups are over $2600.. As much as I would like to upgrade for the bit of performance boost, I don't believe the 2080ti was a big improvement from 1080ti to justify. I will patiently wait til Nvidia reveals the next gen graphics cards. Of course I can't speak for others because this would be a great upgrade.


    Have you tried Motion Reprojection? Where the headset only runs at 45fps but imitates a second image to give the illusion of 90fps? That's what I use for heavy dense cities.