CPU suggestions for simulation games?

[-Ice]

[cross-posting here since there seems to be more activity in this sub-forum, apologies in advance if this is frowned upon]



I play mostly flight simulation games with my go-to being Falcon BMS. I also play DCS and XPlane 11. I've recently fixed my setup so I can play racing sims as well, specifically Project Cars 2 and Assetto Corsa.

While I'm not too sure with regards to the racing sims, I know that the flight sims and BMS in particular don't really benefit from multiple cores/threads but rather do better with higher GHz CPUs, so a faster quad core would be better than a slower octa core. At least that's how I understand the advice given. I'm still OC'ing my current system but I'll be running tests afterwards to see how much performance gain I have after overclocking.

I'm looking for suggestions for a good replacement CPU with the specified requirements above. I've always been an Intel user as far as CPUs with an i5 750 and now an i5 6600K. Will upgrading to the latest i5 9700K be a decent jump in performance? Or is there an AMD option that is cheaper or more powerful than a 9700K setup? Is it worth waiting for the newest AMD Ryzen release and reviews? I think the next-gen Intel chips won't be here until late 2020, right?

My sim setup has 5 monitors so an integrated GPU is a bonus or even a must. I am currently running my main screens off the GPU, one touchscreen off the iGPU, and the second touchscreen via a Targus USB device. I'm not sure if I can run two touchscreens off of a USB device? However, testing BMS with two GPUs (not SLI, but three display screens on the main GPU and the two touchscreens on the second GPU) shows a performance loss in terms of FPS compared to when running 3-GPU/1-iGPU/1-USB setup.

For this upgrade, I'll be buying just the CPU, motherboard, and RAM. I'll be using all my other old stuff with the new build. I think I'll just get a 16GB DDR4 2666MHz or 3000MHz RAM kit or maybe 32GB if there's enough room in the budget, so maybe a 9600K instead of a 9700K? But I doubt a 32GB RAM would make up for the difference in performance between an i5 and an i7?

My two previous motherboards have been Gigabytes as well so suggestions for a good brand/model to go with the CPU would be great! Ideally, it would be a popular one used in OC guides so I can follow along without getting lost.

Thanks in advance for any help!

 

[EarthDog]

Generally more cores and threads does well with those games... but it depends on the game, res, etc.

Edit: deleted dupe thread. One thread per subject.

 

[-Ice]

Like I said, the game is Falcon BMS and while it is based on Falcon 4.0 which was released in 1999, it's been heavily modded. However, the core code is still old and thus has been said to heavily favor higher clocks than multi-thread. More cores and more threads still bring benefit as the additional workload (touchscreen support, voice control programs, etc.) can be offloaded to the extra cores, but basically there will be minimal effect between say a quad or an octa core.

I play at 5896x1080 resolution for my game display then there's two touchscreens at 1920x1080 res each for instruments, gauges, and cockpit control.

 

[EarthDog]

Sorry.. yeah, if it needs single threaded performance and clocks, right now Intel has it.

Is the GPU holding it back? That res is GPU heavy.

 

[-Ice]

I'm using a GTX 1070. I've OC'ed my CPU from stock 3.9GHz to 4.5GHz and framerates didn't change much (average of less than 1fps gain over 6 runs) so I guess at this point, it's the GPU that is the bottleneck. However, I found it odd that using a second GTX 1070 to drive the two touchscreens resulted in lower fps performance on the main screens. At this point, I wonder if spending the money for a cpu/mobo/ram upgrade would be better spent in getting a GTX 2070 or 2080 instead if the GPU is indeed the bottleneck, but I would hate to buy a new GPU and find out I'd only gain a handful of framerates.

I'll have to test OC and non-OC performance on other games to see if those other simulations also show GPU bottleneck.

For now, however, I'd appreciate some suggestions for a good CPU to start my research with. High clock speed, at least quad-core, overclockable, and with an integrated GPU if possible. At the moment, I'm looking at a 9600K as I'm not sure the extra performance gain from a 9700K will warrant the £100+ increase in the price. I have not been following Team Red's offerings but have been hearing good stuff about the upcoming Ryzen chips.

 

[EarthDog]

I dont see why a quad is even a consideration. Make sure it's at least a hex core. If you dont want HT (for whatever reason... budget..etc) then be sure its 8c/8t.

Ryzen comes out 7/7 and will be the better bang for the buck. I'd wait until then.

Your sims have built in benchmarks, right? Just wondering about the resting methods.

Re: ram, if you are close to using 16gb now, then get 32. Unless you've run out it wont make a difference in performance from 16 to 32. Ram speeds...for Intel I'd be around 3200mhz.. for new ryzen, who knows we need to see some reviews but they start at 3200mhz.

If you want, remove the 'replaced'items of your sig. It's not information that helps and just takes up space.

 

[-Ice]

"resting methods"??

Fixed sig

All I'm saying is that it has to be at least a quad core, but I guess at this stage that's the absolute minimum anyway unless going i3? But we're not going there so a quad is the bare minimum. Not sure about HT as I'm not sure how games takes advantage of that? I don't do much content creation and even when editing videos, it's not like I'm under any time pressure so that's not an issue.

RAM usage is about 8-10GB from what I've noticed, so no pressure to go up to 32GB yet although DCS users say it's required now.

 

[EarthDog]

An obvious typo.... TESTING methods.

My advice for CPUs is to get the best you can/want to afford. Today, I'd go NO LESS than 6 cores.

What is DCS?? Regardless, doesnt sound like you need it if you a hitting only 10gb.

 

[-Ice]

Hahahaha... it wasn't obvious! I thought you were talking about how I rest or reset after each test! Both BMS and DCS don't have built-in testing methods so I just run a custom mission that is heavy on the GPU, so usually bad weather/rain and with ground targets and targeting pod and Maverick missile displays on the in-cockpit display systems.


Seeing as the i5 9600K and the Ryzen 5 2600X are both 6-core CPUs, I think that's a given.


DCS:

 

[JLK03F150]

IMO the more cores the better and I'd be considering 32GB RAM for future too. Microsoft Flight Simulator is coming back in 2020. System requirements haven't been released yet, but if we go by historical MSFS releases the PC that'll achieve 60 FPS is due to be out in 2024.

 

[EarthDog]

Ahh so non empirical testing. The problem there is that you cant really run the same test as you are doing different things each run that can throw off results.

Anyway, old arse title, single threaded, high res, non repeatable testing..... sounds like a thread going in circles....wait this is for cpu suggestions....so confused.

 

[trents]

Seems like you need to do some testing and research for each of your games to determine what is bottlenecking performance: CPU, GPU, or outdated game engine and which benefit from the most from more cores or higher single core performance. To get better results across the board you might need to upgrade both GPU and CPU. And in the case of the old 1999 flight simulator it might be the case that neither will help.

I have Project Cars Pagini edition (free demo) and from what I have read it benefits more from higher single core performance than many cores. But the demo I have is now several years old so that could have changed. In general, there is a shift by the game producers to products that can take advantage of many cores since the CPU market has shifted in that direction.

 

[EarthDog]

Hes done that a bit in this thread and more so in the 6600k overclocking thread too.

 

[trents]

To some extent, yes. I just think OP needs to go about it in a more systematic way. Sounds like he has decided that the CPU is the bottleneck and ruled out the GPU. But with driving three monitors I still have a question about that. That's a lot of total pixels.

-Ice, It does seem as though most of your apps like high single core performance as opposed to lower per core but higher core count. So at this point I would suggest going with Intel. But I would also suggest you look at higher frequency RAM than you indicate in post #1. Newer Intels should handle 3600 easy and the higher frequency might help performance a bit. I would still look at the 9700k instead of the 9600k for a bit of future proofing. But on the other hand, the 9700k will run hot and your air cooling might limit the overclock without a delid.

Also, if IGP is a requirement in this situation then that rules out Ryzen unless you go with one of the APU's which would probably lack the CPU power you need.

 

[-Ice]

Ahh so non empirical testing. The problem there is that you cant really run the same test as you are doing different things each run that can throw off results.

Yes and no. It doesn't have a benchmark program so non-empirical. However, there are saved missions where the parameters are set and the user can run those missions over and over and over with minimal, if any, discrepancies between one run and the other. For example, in BMS, there's a bad weather mission where the aircraft is loaded with munitions and a targeting pod and Maverick missiles. Both the pod and the missile cameras are connected to the in-cockpit display, autopilot is engaged, and the benchmark test (MSI Afterburner) is run at a set distance from the waypoint. In DCS, a saved replay is used for testing and the replay saves everything including where the pilot was looking and his FOV levels at that particular time in the flight. So while it's non-empirical, steps have been made to ensure the missions/replay is as consistent as is possible.

Seems like you need to do some testing and research for each of your games to determine what is bottlenecking performance: CPU, GPU, or outdated game engine and which benefit from the most from more cores or higher single core performance. To get better results across the board you might need to upgrade both GPU and CPU. And in the case of the old 1999 flight simulator it might be the case that neither will help.

The devs have always said that the game was heavily CPU-dependent, that is why I was expecting the OC to improve the numbers. However, BMS is not the only game I'm playing and DCS and XPlane 11 are modern titles and still being actively developed. Same for pCars2 and AC. I only focus on BMS in my response since that's the one I'm most familiar with.

In general, there is a shift by the game producers to products that can take advantage of many cores since the CPU market has shifted in that direction.

As I have said in the previous thread, some things about BMS is hard-coded and I would expect core utilization would be one of those? Not 100% sure though as the dev team can work wonders, such as having the core game under 32-bit but bringing BMS to 64-bit and implementing new stuff into the game, stuff that didn't exist in 1999

To some extent, yes. I just think OP needs to go about it in a more systematic way. Sounds like he has decided that the CPU is the bottleneck and ruled out the GPU. But with driving three monitors I still have a question about that. That's a lot of total pixels.

I've not decided on anything, like I said, I simply went by what the devs have said that BMS is CPU-dependent so had my expectations set on that. I'm looking at GPU utilization numbers now and will see what I can learn from that.

-Ice, It does seem as though most of your apps like high single core performance as opposed to lower per core but higher core count. So at this point I would suggest going with Intel. But I would also suggest you look at higher frequency RAM than you indicate in post #1. Newer Intels should handle 3600 easy and the higher frequency might help performance a bit. I would still look at the 9700k instead of the 9600k for a bit of future proofing. But on the other hand, the 9700k will run hot and your air cooling might limit the overclock without a delid.

Aren't most games made for mostly high single core performance? Or if they can utilize multiple cores, they still don't saturate 4 cores? Not really familiar with the usual AAA titles as my interests are in simulations.

Should I be worried aobut cooling the 9700K with my Noctua NH-D15? I thought the 9700K heat spreader was soldered on instead of the usual thermal paste?

Also, if IGP is a requirement in this situation then that rules out Ryzen unless you go with one of the APU's which would probably lack the CPU power you need.

Not entirely ruling out the need for iGPU as I know people with more screens than I have are using USB. One of my screens is displaying through a Targus USB hub, so maybe there's a hub that can power two monitors and I can definitely consider a Ryzen.

 

[-Ice]

But I would also suggest you look at higher frequency RAM than you indicate in post #1. Newer Intels should handle 3600 easy and the higher frequency might help performance a bit.

From my favorite online store, a 2x8GB kit of 3000MHz RAM is £60-£75, 32GB is £140. 2x8GB 3600MHz RAM starts at £96, so that's still do-able. 32GB 3600MHz kits suddenly jump to £200+ which is hard to justify for the performance gain that they bring.

 

[trents]

Yes, prices and availability of components can vary a great deal from one part of the world to another. If you are planning to stick with your existing collection of games and sims then the advice to go for more cores is not relevant but I was thinking that if you upgrade those same titles over time you may find the developers moving to engines that better utilize more cores efficiently, since that is the direction the CPU manufacturers are heading.


Question: Are we to assume that your motivation for wanting to overclock more and/or upgrade is because your sims are not running smoothly?

 

[-Ice]

No, the sims are running fine, it's just that I got the i5 750 in 2010 then the i5 6600K in 2015 so I expect to be upgrading either late this year or next year. The wife was also talking about setting up a VR PC in the living room which would be a perfect hand-me-down for my current PC, hence starting to look at upgrades.

Is there a game that can really utilize a quad core? Is there a game that can take advantage of a hexa or octa core over a quad core? I know that CPU manufacturers are now moving past quads and hexa and octa cores may now be the new norm but my albeit outdated knowledge is that PC gaming developers have not written games that fully utilizes quad cores so anything over quads would be overkill. Don't get me wrong, I'd happily buy hex/octa CPUs, but I just want to justify any purchase with good info. Now if AAA game devs are slow to maximize on multi-core tech, imagine that sim devs are even slower.... and then realize that my main sim is a heavily modded 1999 sim!

Another point is that by the time games utilize more cores efficiently, it'll probably be 5 years down the line so it'll be another upgrade cycle for me so no sense in future-proofing for the next 5 years for tech that won't make it until after.

You are right though; I need to do more research on other sims like XPlane 11 and DCS. If they can give me good reason to aim for a particular CPU, at least I'll have a bit more guidance.

 

[bmwbaxter]

No, the sims are running fine, it's just that I got the i5 750 in 2010 then the i5 6600K in 2015 so I expect to be upgrading either late this year or next year. The wife was also talking about setting up a VR PC in the living room which would be a perfect hand-me-down for my current PC, hence starting to look at upgrades.

Is there a game that can really utilize a quad core? Is there a game that can take advantage of a hexa or octa core over a quad core? I know that CPU manufacturers are now moving past quads and hexa and octa cores may now be the new norm but my albeit outdated knowledge is that PC gaming developers have not written games that fully utilizes quad cores so anything over quads would be overkill. Don't get me wrong, I'd happily buy hex/octa CPUs, but I just want to justify any purchase with good info. Now if AAA game devs are slow to maximize on multi-core tech, imagine that sim devs are even slower.... and then realize that my main sim is a heavily modded 1999 sim!

Another point is that by the time games utilize more cores efficiently, it'll probably be 5 years down the line so it'll be another upgrade cycle for me so no sense in future-proofing for the next 5 years for tech that won't make it until after.

You are right though; I need to do more research on other sims like XPlane 11 and DCS. If they can give me good reason to aim for a particular CPU, at least I'll have a bit more guidance.

Even if the game can't utilized more than a quad core, most newer CPUs have better clock speeds on the more expensive CPU's with more cores. So you will get better performance with a octa/hexa over a quad core even if only only using 4 cores.

ryzen 3 2200G max boost 3.7ghz
ryzen 7 2700x max boost 4.3ghz
i3-9100 max boost 4.2ghz
i7-9700k max boost 4.9ghz

They also are way more future proof and have other feature such as larger cache sizes that will help improve performance.

 

[trents]

I am sure there are a number of current games that benefit from more than four cores but since I am not really a gamer I am not the one to give specifics.

There is a interesting discussion here from 2018 and even then it seems there were a number of games that benefitted significantly from 6-8 cores under certain conditions: https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/918735-games-that-use-68-cores/

Of course, the 9600K has six real cores as opposed to four that were present in the sixth and seventh generation Intels.