If You Could Build A New Computer Just for Falcon BMS Right Now…
-
This post is deleted! -
What are you hoping to get in the $2000? Meaning, does that have to include stuff like monitors, PC case, keyboard, mouse, HOTAS, etc?
What is your ideal final setup? Will you be content on gaming on a single 1920x1080 monitor? Are you looking to play on multiple monitors or maybe a big 4K display? Will you be extracting stuff onto secondary screens?
What is “similar sims”? Similar in age? Similar in scope? A PC that can run BMS well might rightly struggle with DCS.A broad-stroke answer is to get the best CPU and GPU you can afford. Personally, I’d pick up a 7600K, mobo, 1080Ti, SSD or NVMe drive, and so on. It’s more than enough to run any title and therefore should handle Falcon easily and I have the option to go multiple screens or VR. You can buy a cheaper setup, sure, but then that also means you’re limiting your options. I like my options
I would need a monitor, case, keyboard and mouse, but I already have HOTAS. I’d be content with on monitor for now but would like to expand to 3 or a VR setup eventually, so not included in that 2K budget. Not really planning on DCS but it would be nice. Do you think something like this https://pcpartpicker.com/guide/hsgXs…t-gaming-build
-
What are you hoping to get in the $2000? Meaning, does that have to include stuff like monitors, PC case, keyboard, mouse, HOTAS, etc?
What is your ideal final setup? Will you be content on gaming on a single 1920x1080 monitor? Are you looking to play on multiple monitors or maybe a big 4K display? Will you be extracting stuff onto secondary screens?
What is “similar sims”? Similar in age? Similar in scope? A PC that can run BMS well might rightly struggle with DCS.A broad-stroke answer is to get the best CPU and GPU you can afford. Personally, I’d pick up a 7600K, mobo, 1080Ti, SSD or NVMe drive, and so on. It’s more than enough to run any title and therefore should handle Falcon easily and I have the option to go multiple screens or VR. You can buy a cheaper setup, sure, but then that also means you’re limiting your options. I like my options
Kaby Lakes are worthless if you’re using a separate gfx card. Get the 2011v3 Broadwells instead and you’ll get a ton more power. Much more bang for your buck. Intel’s own site says the Kaby Lake is little more than an optimization of how the onboard gfx fits in with the rest of the processor die–standard fare since they went away from the Tick-Tock plan. $30 more on newegg for a 6-core Broadwell @3.4 vice a quad-core Kaby @ 2.9. And the 2011 is a much better board and architecture anyway. There is a reason it is still the enthusiast’s chip. And it will DEF have enough power to run the other stuff you’re thinking of running.
For 2k you will have to make a decision between GFX card and Monitor, I’m guessing. Mobo-CPU-Ram is usually right around 1100 for a good system with 32GB RAM and liquid cooling (Highly recommended…) Then 1 SDD and 1 HDD = 200. Leaves you 6-700 for your video card (3-500), Tower/power supply (70-120), and monitor (2-400).
EDIT: I forgot to add in the OS… Sorry man Windows is $120. Maybe 16GB ram and 2 spinners instead of an SSD… Or start playing Falcon on your TV and save the monitor cost…
-
Kaby Lakes are worthless if you’re using a separate gfx card. Get the 2011v3 Broadwells instead and you’ll get a ton more power. Much more bang for your buck. Intel’s own site says the Kaby Lake is little more than an optimization of how the onboard gfx fits in with the rest of the processor die–standard fare since they went away from the Tick-Tock plan. $30 more on newegg for a 6-core Broadwell @3.4 vice a quad-core Kaby @ 2.9. And the 2011 is a much better board and architecture anyway. There is a reason it is still the enthusiast’s chip. And it will DEF have enough power to run the other stuff you’re thinking of running.
For 2k you will have to make a decision between GFX card and Monitor, I’m guessing. Mobo-CPU-Ram is usually right around 1100 for a good system with 32GB RAM and liquid cooling (Highly recommended…) Then 1 SDD and 1 HDD = 200. Leaves you 6-700 for your video card (3-500), Tower/power supply (70-120), and monitor (2-400).
EDIT: I forgot to add in the OS… Sorry man Windows is $120. Maybe 16GB ram and 2 spinners instead of an SSD… Or start playing Falcon on your TV and save the monitor cost…
Cool, should I try to get an older version of windows?
-
Page not found on that link, buddy. As for OS, go with Win10 Anniversary Edition, or Win7 if you can find it.
One reason I recommend Sky/Kaby is due to that GFX chip… I’m using my GPU for 3 screens, the built-in GPU for 1 touchscreen, and the other one on USB. So yeah, depends on how far he wants to go, really.
-
Cool, should I try to get an older version of windows?
You cannot update windows 7 and older with Kaby Lake or Ryzen AMD CPUs so that is not advisable.
-
After a few months of planing I just rebuilt my rig.
My initial plan was to stick with Intel, a i5 7600k, they OC nicely to 4.5-4.8 with decent cooling.
I was aware of AMDs upcoming RyZen chip so I waited as long as I could. Being a long time AMD supporter I wanted to see what they had come up with.
In short I went back to AMD see here https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?31216-AMD-RyZen-Build&p=435126&viewfull=1#post435126
Look, at the time my i5-3570k @ 4.0-4.2 with 8GB of good G.Skill ram (@1866) and a GA Z77X-D3H had given great service for over 4 years, but I suspected the MoBo was failing, problems with Mic and USB devices (one of my MFD just died, wounder if this was the source of my problems). But I had the upgrade bug.
To the point of this post……
What ever CPU you chose the Base of a good rig is its Motherboard and Ram. Don’t skimp on either.
Great site for informative & knowledgeable engineering assessment of current Motherboard offerings http://www.tweaktown.com/cat/motherboards/archive/2017.html
Ram, 16 GB of 3200 ram, or better. I have had a great run with G.Skill. It OCs well on default voltage. My current DDR4 3200 is @ 3333MHz with 14 14 14 32 timings, very happy on default voltage.
Intel still hold the best single core performance but AMD have caught up and kill intel on price when it it comes to their 6 core multi-threading offerings.
A CPU cooler is a subject in its own right, and depends on what CPU you buy and if you OC it. My RyZen5 came with a decent unit for now,
For GPU don’t go under a Nvida 1070 or AMD 480/580.
Samsung do the best SSDs. Be wary of M.2 drives that mount just under the primary GPU on the motherboard, heat issues could be a problem.
Include a Terabyte mechanical drive for temp/setup files and storage, don’t forget to partition it, the front of the drive is substantially faster then the rear.
And it makes management easier.Don’t wast money on Win7, I’m sticking with it for now cause I ran out of cash.
And last a well filtered case with good air flow, not to fancy but serviceable. Read reviews.
Good luck and have fun with it.
-
Kaby Lakes are worthless if you’re using a separate gfx card. Get the 2011v3 Broadwells instead and you’ll get a ton more power. Much more bang for your buck.
No it is not much more bang for your buck it is exactly the opposite as Intel considers the 2011 setup to be more of a money maker for them and the price of the motherboards and CPUs prove it.
$30 more on for a 6-core Broadwell @3.4 vice a quad-core Kaby @ 2.9. And the 2011 is a much better board and architecture anyway. There is a reason it is still the enthusiast’s chip. And it will DEF have enough power to run the other stuff you’re thinking of running.
The ONLY quad core Kaby Lake CPUs on the list that have 2.9 base clocks are low power specific or mobile specific CPUs hence you are cherry picking numbers to make your choice look better. No one is going to chose a 7700T over a 7700K for a normal desktop setup. The 7700 has a base clock of 3.6 and the 7700K has a base clock of 4.2. Heck even the i5 Kaby Lake 7600K is a 3.8 base clock. Also never mind that going from a Kaby Lake based system where he could buy a new motherboard for 100-150 (from newegg) suddenly shoots up to 379 at the CHEAPEST on newegg for a 2011 based board. Oh yeah also not for a new motherboard but a refurb. If he wanted new then the price jumps again to 469. So much for “only” a 30 dollar difference.
Simple here. Unless he is going for a rig where he would need a ton of PCI Express lanes via several m.2 or u.2 NVMe drives he wouldn’t be well served by going the 2011 route as the performance does NOT match the price increase. Even if he wanted or needed a ton of PCIe lanes I wouldn’t suggest Intel via 2011 or from the i9 series but AMD Ryzen as that would fit his budget better and be a bit more in line with price to performance.
For 2k you will have to make a decision between GFX card and Monitor, I’m guessing. Mobo-CPU-Ram is usually right around 1100 for a good system with 32GB RAM and liquid cooling (Highly recommended…) Then 1 SDD and 1 HDD = 200. Leaves you 6-700 for your video card (3-500), Tower/power supply (70-120), and monitor (2-400).
No game out there requires 32 gigs of RAM. He would be just fine at 16. Air cooling is also just fine to control price.
Here would be a great comparison video for this scenario. It is comparing an older haswell versus a 6700k but the haswell stats are basically the same but it clocks slightlyly higher than the broadwell you are linking. The ONLY time there is a massive performance gain with a 2011 versus a Z170 is in applications. Games there is very little difference at all compared to the price jump.
-
There is a reason it is still the enthusiast’s chip.
However, that reason does not justify the extra cost of the chip and motherboard you’ll have to be using. It’s like going quad-SLI for an additional 25fps over a single-card configuration. Overkill and not really bang-for-buck.
32GB RAM and liquid cooling (Highly recommended…)
No, just no. 16GB RAM, done. If you need 32GB RAM, you need 32GB RAM and you know EXACTLY why you need 32GB RAM. Otherwise, stick to 16GB. Liquid cooling, I’m guessing you’re talking about AIO? Sure, they’re cool and if you want to be staring into your hardware and admiring all the cool lighting effects, go for an AIO solution. If you’re more about ease-of-maintenance, performance, and USING your PC as opposed to gawking at it, consider a good, beefy aircooler.
-
This is the PC I built last year:
Core i7-6700K 4.0GHz
Noctua NH-D15S Dual Radiator Cooler
Asus Z170 Pro Gaming Intel Z170
Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 3000MHz Dual Channel
MSI GeForce GTX 1070 GAMING X 8G
Samsung 256GB 850 PRO SSD
Samsung 512GB 850 PRO SSD
Western Digital Black 2TB 7200rpm HDD
Corsair Obsidian 450D
Super Flower Leadex GOLD 650W Fully Modular “80 Plus Gold” Power SupplyThat is more than powerful enough for BMS, and DCS, at maximum settings. However X-Plane 11 would benefit from 32Gb of RAM.
If I were building that PC this year I would upgrade the CPU, add more memory, possibly use a 1080 instead of the 1070, because the 1070 has been fine even at 1440, and is an easy upgrade later, and I’d add a second 2TB drive for X-Plane ortho scenery.
-
However X-Plane 11 would benefit from 32Gb of RAM.
Really? How and why? Is this for the OrthoXP stuff? I’m just getting started on XP11 and loving it!
-
Really? How and why? Is this for the OrthoXP stuff? I’m just getting started on XP11 and loving it!
XP11 eats RAM like there is no tomorrow, esp. once you start adding custom / hires scenery and objects (be warned, it’s addictive as heck :D)
I thought I had plenty of RAM for xp11 with 16 GB on Linux Mint….
@ original poster: With a cougar you’d best stick with win7 (also if you care about your privacy to avoid MS telemetry spyware) for better hardware compatibility with the TM. Some folks have gotten the cougar software to work on win10, but i’ve also heard and read many horror stories.
All the best,
Uwe
-
As hoover mentioned, the more you add to XP11, the greater the RAM load. You can manage with a pagefile, but I’d rather have the extra memory.
-
No it is not much more bang for your buck it is exactly the opposite as Intel considers the 2011 setup to be more of a money maker for them and the price of the motherboards and CPUs prove it.
The ONLY quad core Kaby Lake CPUs on the list that have 2.9 base clocks are low power specific or mobile specific CPUs hence you are cherry picking numbers to make your choice look better. No one is going to chose a 7700T over a 7700K for a normal desktop setup. The 7700 has a base clock of 3.6 and the 7700K has a base clock of 4.2. Heck even the i5 Kaby Lake 7600K is a 3.8 base clock. Also never mind that going from a Kaby Lake based system where he could buy a new motherboard for 100-150 (from newegg) suddenly shoots up to 379 at the CHEAPEST on newegg for a 2011 based board. Oh yeah also not for a new motherboard but a refurb. If he wanted new then the price jumps again to 469. So much for “only” a 30 dollar difference.
Simple here. Unless he is going for a rig where he would need a ton of PCI Express lanes via several m.2 or u.2 NVMe drives he wouldn’t be well served by going the 2011 route as the performance does NOT match the price increase. Even if he wanted or needed a ton of PCIe lanes I wouldn’t suggest Intel via 2011 or from the i9 series but AMD Ryzen as that would fit his budget better and be a bit more in line with price to performance.
This is fair, although all the other Kabys on the list were actually less than this one. So I used the highest price point. i5s are overpriced as a marketing sell to consumers… the 7700k is 369, which is exactly $30 difference for the CPU. It’s still a 4-core instead of 6, and there is ABSOLUTELY no point in OC’ing processors out there right now unless you are doing serious CPU intense video editing…in 4K…and 3D…on 3 concurrent streams. Nothing out there, and certainly no games, even come close to pushing these to their limits. Cores are more important than clock speed for the average machine, because cores improve multithreading, and multithreading is the new black… Historically, cores have had little impact on gaming, but this will become much more relevant in the gaming world as DX12 proliferates, because it uses multithreading.
I did say a good CPU/MoBo/RAM combo is 1100-1200, which accounts for the high MoBo cost you refer to.
No game out there requires 32 gigs of RAM. He would be just fine at 16. Air cooling is also just fine to control price.
Here would be a great comparison video for this scenario. It is comparing an older haswell versus a 6700k but the haswell stats are basically the same but it clocks slightlyly higher than the broadwell you are linking. The ONLY time there is a massive performance gain with a 2011 versus a Z170 is in applications. Games there is very little difference at all compared to the price jump.
This has been contested elsewhere in this thread, and they are correct. Just because Falcon can’t use it, doesn’t mean there aren’t games that don’t. Several 4x games can use it, XP11, DCS 2.1, or just general ability to multitask while doing something RAM intensive, like switching out of 3D to look something up. RAM is never a bad investment, and it’s cheap… dirt cheap. Why limit yourself if you don’t HAVE to? This is low hanging fruit certainly, and if you have to sacrifice something, then nix some RAM. But if you can get everything else you need, and still get the extra RAM, it WILL make a difference.
However, that reason does not justify the extra cost of the chip and motherboard you’ll have to be using. It’s like going quad-SLI for an additional 25fps over a single-card configuration. Overkill and not really bang-for-buck.
No, just no. 16GB RAM, done. If you need 32GB RAM, you need 32GB RAM and you know EXACTLY why you need 32GB RAM. Otherwise, stick to 16GB. Liquid cooling, I’m guessing you’re talking about AIO? Sure, they’re cool and if you want to be staring into your hardware and admiring all the cool lighting effects, go for an AIO solution. If you’re more about ease-of-maintenance, performance, and USING your PC as opposed to gawking at it, consider a good, beefy aircooler.
This depends on the situation. The extra RAM has already been contested. And there are a lot of uses outside gaming where it can come in handy. Win10 is very good with mem pre-fetch and caching. It will dynamically find good use for 64GB of RAM, let alone 32. It’s not a bad investment…
Hefty CPU without liquid cooling is just asking for failures. It’s a big picture approach, not just the CPU temp readout. When your CPU runs consistently at 70-80 C, that’s not good for the board or the CPU, or anything else in there which has a fan to help keep it cool (GFX card? RAM? HDD? all suffer in performance when they get too hot). Something WILL fail, much sooner than a properly cooled CPU at 25-40 C. Not to mention all that amazing extra clock speed you paid for in the ~K series, will get throttled when your core temp gets that high and you’ll perform like a $90 i3… This is 10x more true when you OC. The speeds are set where they are for that specific reason. It’s the best usable speed on a given die, under specific thermal conditions. This is why you can’t RMA an overclocked CPU, and it voids the warranty.
This all comes down to preference. I use my PCs for more than just gaming, but I have never regretted having the extra power from the -E chips (2011 boards) while gaming either. If you like the onboard GFX from the Kabys to run an additional screen, then whatever works. I would rather repurpose an old nvidia card and get a dedicated GPU and vRAM for something like that–even if it’s a little old or sub-par, instead of eating away from my system resources. And I would rather know the extra $30-60 I’m paying is being spent on cores and performance, instead of mediocre onboard GFX chips I won’t use. Most gamers would never touch the onboard GFX, so for the AVERAGE gamer, it is a useless improvement from the previous chip. Your setup is not AVERAGE, because you drive 25 monitors or something like that, but the AVERAGE gamer will likely never even plug anything into it. Wasted space on the CPU die…
-
What are people’s thoughts on AMD Ryzen?
My Q9550 has been in service in 2009 and performs still very well today - for a 8 year old system mind you! I’m looking at replacement options and I’m considering switching back to AMD for a Ryzen 5 1600 build. (Not convinced that the 1600X is worth the extra money). From what I read online, the 1600 outperforms equally priced i5s and offers much better value for money than the i7s.
I haven’t used AMD since the Athlon days (running a [email protected] on a KT7 board) so I am wondering what the thoughts are on Ryzen builds for BMS?
-
This has been contested elsewhere in this thread, and they are correct. Just because Falcon can’t use it, doesn’t mean there aren’t games that don’t. Several 4x games can use it, XP11, DCS 2.1, or just general ability to multitask while doing something RAM intensive, like switching out of 3D to look something up. RAM is never a bad investment, and it’s cheap… dirt cheap. Why limit yourself if you don’t HAVE to? This is low hanging fruit certainly, and if you have to sacrifice something, then nix some RAM. But if you can get everything else you need, and still get the extra RAM, it WILL make a difference.
This depends on the situation. The extra RAM has already been contested. And there are a lot of uses outside gaming where it can come in handy. Win10 is very good with mem pre-fetch and caching. It will dynamically find good use for 64GB of RAM, let alone 32. It’s not a bad investment…
I’m not so sure… over here, the most expensive 16GB RAM kit can be £100+ less than the cheapest 32GB RAM kit, in some cases, a 32GB kit doubles in price compared to a 16GB kit. While I won’t argue about how other games or programs may or may not use more than 16GB of RAM, I will argue that your £100 is best spent elsewhere on the system and may see significantly better results and returns for the money spent. However, if you’ve got a spare £100+ lying about and you’re happy with the rest of your machine, then sure, go and play with 32GB of RAM. That amount of money being “dirt cheap” would be relative to your financial situation
As the OP said: “to do anything other than run Falcon BMS and other similar sims” but then I asked what “similar sims” meant exactly?
Hefty CPU without liquid cooling is just asking for failures.
False. You are basically saying air cooling cannot compete with liquid cooling which is a lie. A good aircooler can outperform a mediocre liquid cooler, and a bad liquid cooler can outperform a bad aircooler. Compare a good aircooler with a good liquid cooler, compare their prices, and compare the temps. You’ll be surprised.
You can see from this page that a Noctua NH-D15 (£80) runs about 3 degrees C hotter than a H105 (£110) but is the same or cooler than a H110 under max load, or about 1 degree hotter under idle. In this other review, the NH-D15 is about 3.5 degrees C hotter than a H110i at Performance Mode (£120) at stock or about 5 degrees hotter at OC load. However, further down, you’ll see that the Noctua outputs around 24-35db while the H110i is at 40-68db. Cheaper and more quiet!
If you’re talking about failures, things can get more interesting with a liquid cooling setup. The absolute worst that could happen with an aircooler is that you end up with a passive heatsink.
I would rather repurpose an old nvidia card and get a dedicated GPU and vRAM for something like that–even if it’s a little old or sub-par, instead of eating away from my system resources.
-
This is fair, although all the other Kabys on the list were actually less than this one. So I used the highest price point. i5s are overpriced as a marketing sell to consumers… the 7700k is 369, which is exactly $30 difference for the CPU.
The 7700K is also 4.2 base clock and on big air is easy enough to push to 5.0. That is a lot of head room over 3.4.
It’s still a 4-core instead of 6, and there is ABSOLUTELY no point in OC’ing processors out there right now unless you are doing serious CPU intense video editing…in 4K…and 3D…on 3 concurrent streams. Nothing out there, and certainly no games, even come close to pushing these to their limits. Cores are more important than clock speed for the average machine, because cores improve multithreading, and multithreading is the new black… Historically, cores have had little impact on gaming, but this will become much more relevant in the gaming world as DX12 proliferates, because it uses multithreading.
Based on the stated budget that still points to an AMD Ryzen setup. Intel enthusiast is too expensive for what he can afford.
I did say a good CPU/MoBo/RAM combo is 1100-1200, which accounts for the high MoBo cost you refer to.
He needs a lot more than just a CPU/mobo/RAM. Add in a decent video card and you are up to at least 1300-1500 range and he still needs more for the new rig. That would also be a underpowered GPU compared to the CPU and RAM. AMD Ryzen or Intel 7700K setup will give him more room to buy a better video card and still have good performance.
This has been contested elsewhere in this thread, and they are correct. Just because Falcon can’t use it, doesn’t mean there aren’t games that don’t. Several 4x games can use it, XP11, DCS 2.1, or just general ability to multitask while doing something RAM intensive, like switching out of 3D to look something up. RAM is never a bad investment, and it’s cheap… dirt cheap. Why limit yourself if you don’t HAVE to? This is low hanging fruit certainly, and if you have to sacrifice something, then nix some RAM. But if you can get everything else you need, and still get the extra RAM, it WILL make a difference.
Yes it will but with his budget that could easily make the difference between buying a 1070 or a 1080 or a 480 to a 580 and going from 16 gigs of RAM to 32 is NOT going to equate to the same performance jump as either of those GPU upgrades.
Hefty CPU without liquid cooling is just asking for failures. It’s a big picture approach, not just the CPU temp readout. When your CPU runs consistently at 70-80 C, that’s not good for the board or the CPU, or anything else in there which has a fan to help keep it cool (GFX card? RAM? HDD? all suffer in performance when they get too hot). Something WILL fail, much sooner than a properly cooled CPU at 25-40 C.
Funny how I have never used WC yet I have OC’ed CPUs for a good decade now with ZERO issues of longevity or performance based on heat. Unless you are into pretty serious OCing WC is not required at all and no it isn’t going to kill your components or even affect performance as long as you have a good case with good airflow. My last setup was a i7-2700K and the only reason I am not running that now is because I wanted to have the best Sky Lake CPU that was supported on Windows 7. The 2700K and motherboard still works JUST FINE.
Not to mention all that amazing extra clock speed you paid for in the ~K series, will get throttled when your core temp gets that high and you’ll perform like a $90 i3… This is 10x more true when you OC. The speeds are set where they are for that specific reason. It’s the best usable speed on a given die, under specific thermal conditions. This is why you can’t RMA an overclocked CPU, and it voids the warranty.
LOL. The ignorance of this statement is really mind boggling. The only level of truth there is about RMAing CPUs. Other than that it is pure non sense. Like stated before I have run OCed Intel CPUs for a long time now, all on big air, with no performance issues what so ever. Certainly nothing that could ever make it comparable to any i3.
This all comes down to preference. I use my PCs for more than just gaming, but I have never regretted having the extra power from the -E chips (2011 boards) while gaming either. If you like the onboard GFX from the Kabys to run an additional screen, then whatever works. I would rather repurpose an old nvidia card and get a dedicated GPU and vRAM for something like that–even if it’s a little old or sub-par, instead of eating away from my system resources. And I would rather know the extra $30-60 I’m paying is being spent on cores and performance, instead of mediocre onboard GFX chips I won’t use. Most gamers would never touch the onboard GFX, so for the AVERAGE gamer, it is a useless improvement from the previous chip. Your setup is not AVERAGE, because you drive 25 monitors or something like that, but the AVERAGE gamer will likely never even plug anything into it. Wasted space on the CPU die…
The fact of the matter still remains that this guy or gal is working on a 2k budget and your recommendations don’t take into account those limitations. As of today for someone wanting to build a new rig I cannot see why anyone would recommend a 2011 or a 2066 setup as the cost is higher than AMD Ryzen and the performance isn’t that far off to justify the added expense. That or at a minimum a 7600K or 7700K as of today.
-
I’m not so sure… over here, the most expensive 16GB RAM kit can be £100+ less than the cheapest 32GB RAM kit, in some cases, a 32GB kit doubles in price compared to a 16GB kit. While I won’t argue about how other games or programs may or may not use more than 16GB of RAM, I will argue that your £100 is best spent elsewhere on the system and may see significantly better results and returns for the money spent. However, if you’ve got a spare £100+ lying about and you’re happy with the rest of your machine, then sure, go and play with 32GB of RAM. That amount of money being “dirt cheap” would be relative to your financial situation
Never mind that say he put the extra cash into the GPU for the new build he could always go back and add 16 gigs in later as money permitted. Not exactly as easy or convenient if he short changed his GPU purchase simply to have 32 gigs of RAM out the gate.
If you’re talking about failures, things can get more interesting with a liquid cooling setup. The absolute worst that could happen with an aircooler is that you end up with a passive heatsink.
Yeah this is the second cherry picked argument on the subject. He has completely avoided the AMD Ryzen comparison so far as well.
-
It’s still a 4-core instead of 6…. Cores are more important than clock speed for the average machine, because cores improve multithreading, and multithreading is the new black… Historically, cores have had little impact on gaming, but this will become much more relevant in the gaming world as DX12 proliferates, because it uses multithreading.
a machine that isn’t intended to do anything other than run Falcon BMS and other similar sims.
First, isn’t BMS still a clock-speed-dependent sim? IIRC, a faster dual-core will run BMS better than a slower quad-core… at least that’s how I understood it. Is it different now with 4.33? If not, then for the purposes of the OP, he wants faster clock speed, not necessarily more cores so a 6-core or 8-core is just extra, un-needed expense.
Second, BMS isn’t multithreaded, correct? Sure, he’ll still be able to benefit from extra cores for other stuff he runs alongside BMS, but again, no need to go more than 4 cores.
Third, DX12 is still a ways away and DX12 flight simulations even further, if any are planned. Is XP11 DX10/11? In any case, by the time DX12 proliferates enough, we’ll probably be 2 or 3 or even more CPU generations into the future.
-
Never mind that say he put the extra cash into the GPU for the new build he could always go back and add 16 gigs in later as money permitted. Not exactly as easy or convenient if he short changed his GPU purchase simply to have 32 gigs of RAM out the gate.
Well, a GPU upgrade is also a relatively easy thing of unplugging the old one and slotting in the new one, then flogging the old one on eBay But as you said, the extra cash spent on a GPU will give better ROI than if spent on RAM. Unless maybe RAM drive? But we’re getting extremely complicated for something that may be solved by slotting in an M.2 NVME drive…. and I would wager that a RAM drive vs. M.2 NVME drive performance won’t be “felt” by the user unless he constantly uses a stopwatch alongside his PC.
He has completely avoided the AMD Ryzen comparison so far as well.
I’ve not paid much attention to Ryzen aside from the fact that it’s got Intel scrambling to it’s feet. Competition is good!!