Michael, thank you for taking the time to share this. Great information! You might not get enough positive feedback from the comments. I think this is very good for X-Force in terms of brand-building, and I encourage you to continue. Showing some comparisons to MSFS would be very popular with your viewership, as I'm sure a lot of people, like me, use both Sims from time-to-time. Best Regards,
That's precisely why I am using MSFS above XP12. The performance in MSFS is so much better than that of XP 12 with the same hardware. And MSFS looking so much better. Yes, I know XP 12 has the advantage of the flight model and physics. But I'm not a pilot and I do not care much about that features because for me it's meaningless. That count for 80% of flight simmers who will never be a pilot in their lives. That means if LR can't fix the performance issues and the horrible AA at the same time, there are problems for LR on the horizon. And please, I'm NOT trolling but stating the facts.
I'm a big fan of both sims but I gotta agree that XP12 has a lot of catching up to do in order to come close to the quality of MSFS, esp. in VR. One thing this test does not demonstrate is with streaming PCVR (Quest 2/Pro and Pico 4) the much faster encoders on nvidia gpu's would probably either equalize or surpass AMD performance. If MSFS 2024 manages to introduce multi-threading optimization (like they say they are going to do) this is going to put a lot more pressure on Laminar to also improve their performance and the quality of their stock scenery, which right now is very poor imho.
Excellent comparison. This is just the base sim in a fairly average area. If, for example, you try to run a third party aircraft like Q4XP, in a dense area like EGLL, with some third party traffic (maybe Traffic Global) there does not currently exist a PC system that can run that at triple 1080p. There simply is no performance headroom in XP12 if you want triple screens.
Michael , Thank you for taking the time to compile all this data , It really helps us to make an informed decision as to what hardware benefits Xplane .It does show that the higher premium price on some high end hardware isn't always worth it for price to performance ratio when compared to last gen CPU's .
Before anyone goes and hurts themselves combing over benchmarks for all of these CPUs/GPUs, allow me to put in my two-cents: I have a 13th gen i5 CPU and a 3060 12GB GPU. Both XP12 and MSFS defaulted to ULTRA settings and I have no skipping, lagging, or other issues. I run both on a 50" 4K TV I got from Sam's and I have two Wimaxit touchscreens, a la Russ Barlow. Seriously, at what point do these numbers become meaningless? Is 100 MPH in a Yugo more exciting than in a Corvette? Well, actually yes it is, because there's a really good chance that Yugo is going to disintegrate, making the ride more fun! 👌😁
It would be very cool if you could share your benchmarks as a saved flight and settings for example , this way we can make a enourmous database with all our configs. (Just an idea )
Thank you so much for this informative video, Michael! This is very useful to understand the particular performance of multiple setups. Does anyone know where I can find the settings for the default xp12 performance tests?
Let me know if you can access this and also if you can change the contents. The goal is for everyone to be able to "see" it but not change it. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WBaaOKrBuVPck-SXyIezyfmXfbJ1kZr0FYeUXHNnS4E/edit?usp=sharing
This is a great video with useful information as others have stated. If you have the time or are willing to, could you do this for MSFS as well? There are a lot of benchmark videos out there for MSFS but nothing to this sort of depth.
@@caribbaviator7058 That's not what I was asking. If you're not understanding my original comment, I was requesting for benchmarks with different CPU's/GPU's for MSFS as similar to the one for XP12. I don't care what sim you like or don't like or what sim you think is better. Use the sim you're happy with
On what aircraft and over what areas did you test? I bought an i5-13500 and 32GB RAM 3200 MHz CL16. I'm planning to buy an RTX 4070. Will this set be suitable for maximum graphics settings at 1080p and for flights on Zibo and A330? I also have X-world 3.0, ortho4xp and Global Forests.
I have a 7700x and am planning to install a RTX4070 and I'd like to run 4k-high settings. What do you predict I'll get for frame rates? I did not see that CPU/GPU combo on your chart.
Did you do the fps test in xplane with any demanding Add on plane and some Scenery. Because it makes a diffderence if you have 70 fps in a C172 in a rural area or you load the flight factor A350 in Frankfurt with payware scenery and have 70 fps. Thank you for your answer in advance.
But isn't that the problem that X-Plane 12 is so CPU bound compared to being GPU bound? From this chart it would lead me to believe X-Plane 12 needs to make better use of the GPU. Am I wrong?
The game firstly generates a world on the CPU then sends that to the GPU for painting. when one frame is in painting the next frame is generated at the same time on the cpu. and today the CPU needs 20ms to generate a frame and a gpu like 4090 needs 2ms for painting. so the cpu works all the time 20ms/frame and gpu paints that frame in 2ms and 18ms do nothing (waits for the next frame). so gpu is unused that means we screw up the CPU work because it takes so long. You could add more graphics so GPU will need 20ms for painting but that also means that CPU needs more time for generate world so after that cpu don't need 20ms but 25-30ms and yes graphics will be awesome but framerate unplayable on todays mid-range PC.
@@bartoszskowronski To offset some work from the CPU, there's a Window's feature supported at the Windows driver model level called: Hardware Accelerated GPU Scheduling This allows certain tasks to be scheduled by the GPU instead. It is good to have this on for games that are CPU bound.
Nice vid.. Thanks! So if running Xplane and MSFS with AMD 7800x3d, why spend the money to go from a 40608gb to a 4090 if all I do is use it for a flight sim? Am I missing something? Thanks! Also rumor is MSFS 2024 will be making a leap at using multi cores for gaming which is a giant leap if they pull it off, what is Xplane doing on this front? Thanks
If you make a top end simulator setup only for Xplane, you are right. But is there anyone in this world who spends that much on computer and doesn't use it for something else?
@@bartoszskowronski Me, I only use my PC for flight training in MSFS and Xplane.. I don’t use it for anything else, still much cheaper than flight time these days at $200 hr wet. Pays for itself very quickly
@@pilotbsinthesky3443 then low-mid GPU is totally enough. I personally run three copies of xplane single PC 5monitors on 5800x3d with RX6700xt and 2x RX6600 and have ~60fps on front monitor and ~45 on side monitors. (one GPU connected through 80cm long riser pci-e 2.0 x4)
@@xforcepc half year ago has been shown that there is a huge potential, in multi monitor setups. Is today a problem with performance on single monitor setups? I don't think so. Is multi gpu required for even fps on all monitors? (because windows can't properly share one gpu between many programs/threads) let it be, that still will be better than multiPC setups. (3x 4060ti will be enough and faster and cheaper than one 4090). and still no statement from Laminar Research.
And I still waiting when Laminar Resarch, in multimonitor setup start running different copy of xplane, for every monitor. (in the background without any advance configuration from the user) And each copy/monitor will needs different 2 performance core, and 16GB of RAM. And option for running each copy on different GPU will be great! {krypto mining programs can do that, so is possible for program/game to choose on with GPU runs}(they are open source) to more option are almost always better, do you want one TopEnd GPU or just utilise your current GPU one from your second computer (if you love swaping GPUs) and buy third low-mid range GPU for third monitor. for each GPU graphics settings should be separate, as output framerate. still interested? search on UA-cam "Can running three copies of X-Plane be faster than one?" and check description.
![[UA] NAVI проти G2 Esports | Blast Premier Fall Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QWlIm4FGESQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Michael, thank you for taking the time to share this. Great information! You might not get enough positive feedback from the comments. I think this is very good for X-Force in terms of brand-building, and I encourage you to continue. Showing some comparisons to MSFS would be very popular with your viewership, as I'm sure a lot of people, like me, use both Sims from time-to-time. Best Regards,
That's precisely why I am using MSFS above XP12. The performance in MSFS is so much better than that of XP 12 with the same hardware. And MSFS looking so much better. Yes, I know XP 12 has the advantage of the flight model and physics. But I'm not a pilot and I do not care much about that features because for me it's meaningless. That count for 80% of flight simmers who will never be a pilot in their lives. That means if LR can't fix the performance issues and the horrible AA at the same time, there are problems for LR on the horizon. And please, I'm NOT trolling but stating the facts.
I'm a big fan of both sims but I gotta agree that XP12 has a lot of catching up to do in order to come close to the quality of MSFS, esp. in VR. One thing this test does not demonstrate is with streaming PCVR (Quest 2/Pro and Pico 4) the much faster encoders on nvidia gpu's would probably either equalize or surpass AMD performance. If MSFS 2024 manages to introduce multi-threading optimization (like they say they are going to do) this is going to put a lot more pressure on Laminar to also improve their performance and the quality of their stock scenery, which right now is very poor imho.
Excellent comparison. This is just the base sim in a fairly average area. If, for example, you try to run a third party aircraft like Q4XP, in a dense area like EGLL, with some third party traffic (maybe Traffic Global) there does not currently exist a PC system that can run that at triple 1080p. There simply is no performance headroom in XP12 if you want triple screens.
Michael , Thank you for taking the time to compile all this data , It really helps us to make an informed decision as to what hardware benefits Xplane .It does show that the higher premium price on some high end hardware isn't always worth it for price to performance ratio when compared to last gen CPU's .
thanks greatly for this. Just ordered a 7800X3d so this was very timely. Greatly appreciated
Very good comparison, and useful info.
Great info, thx
Great info. Thanks.
Let's see if laminar advances in the development of x-plane 12 sooner rather than later and we see improvements and optimizations.
Michael, thanks for sharing this information!
For XP12 better performance do you recommend Win10 or Win11?
Before anyone goes and hurts themselves combing over benchmarks for all of these CPUs/GPUs, allow me to put in my two-cents:
I have a 13th gen i5 CPU and a 3060 12GB GPU. Both XP12 and MSFS defaulted to ULTRA settings and I have no skipping, lagging, or other issues. I run both on a 50" 4K TV I got from Sam's and I have two Wimaxit touchscreens, a la Russ Barlow.
Seriously, at what point do these numbers become meaningless? Is 100 MPH in a Yugo more exciting than in a Corvette? Well, actually yes it is, because there's a really good chance that Yugo is going to disintegrate, making the ride more fun! 👌😁
It would be very cool if you could share your benchmarks as a saved flight and settings for example , this way we can make a enourmous database with all our configs. (Just an idea )
Thank you so much for this informative video, Michael! This is very useful to understand the particular performance of multiple setups. Does anyone know where I can find the settings for the default xp12 performance tests?
www.x-plane.com/kb/frame-rate-test/
Michael, do you mind posting the excel file here? thanks a lot.
Let me know if you can access this and also if you can change the contents. The goal is for everyone to be able to "see" it but not change it. docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WBaaOKrBuVPck-SXyIezyfmXfbJ1kZr0FYeUXHNnS4E/edit?usp=sharing
@@xforcepc yup, its "view only" mode, thanks!
This is a great video with useful information as others have stated. If you have the time or are willing to, could you do this for MSFS as well? There are a lot of benchmark videos out there for MSFS but nothing to this sort of depth.
I'll give you a hint msfs runs better than that pile of garbage. Forget about XP12
@@caribbaviator7058 That's not what I was asking. If you're not understanding my original comment, I was requesting for benchmarks with different CPU's/GPU's for MSFS as similar to the one for XP12. I don't care what sim you like or don't like or what sim you think is better. Use the sim you're happy with
Can you comment about VR 120 degree fov? would the H/W requirements be higher?
On what aircraft and over what areas did you test? I bought an i5-13500 and 32GB RAM 3200 MHz CL16. I'm planning to buy an RTX 4070. Will this set be suitable for maximum graphics settings at 1080p and for flights on Zibo and A330? I also have X-world 3.0, ortho4xp and Global Forests.
I have a 7700x and am planning to install a RTX4070 and I'd like to run 4k-high settings. What do you predict I'll get for frame rates? I did not see that CPU/GPU combo on your chart.
Did you do the fps test in xplane with any demanding Add on plane and some Scenery. Because it makes a diffderence if you have 70 fps in a C172 in a rural area or you load the flight factor A350 in Frankfurt with payware scenery and have 70 fps. Thank you for your answer in advance.
He probably did it on C172 and over the ocean in cloudless weather and got these results.
But isn't that the problem that X-Plane 12 is so CPU bound compared to being GPU bound? From this chart it would lead me to believe X-Plane 12 needs to make better use of the GPU. Am I wrong?
Actually quite the opposite. It needs to make better use of the CPU's multiple cores to stop it from being so CPU bound
The game firstly generates a world on the CPU then sends that to the GPU for painting. when one frame is in painting the next frame is generated at the same time on the cpu.
and today the CPU needs 20ms to generate a frame and a gpu like 4090 needs 2ms for painting.
so the cpu works all the time 20ms/frame and gpu paints that frame in 2ms and 18ms do nothing (waits for the next frame).
so gpu is unused that means we screw up the CPU work because it takes so long.
You could add more graphics so GPU will need 20ms for painting but that also means that CPU needs more time for generate world so after that cpu don't need 20ms but 25-30ms and yes graphics will be awesome but framerate unplayable on todays mid-range PC.
@@bartoszskowronski To offset some work from the CPU, there's a Window's feature supported at the Windows driver model level called: Hardware Accelerated GPU Scheduling
This allows certain tasks to be scheduled by the GPU instead. It is good to have this on for games that are CPU bound.
@@activex7327x for video rendering/encoding yes
but what possible in modern games, is executed by CPU when it's possible on GPU?
Nice vid.. Thanks! So if running Xplane and MSFS with AMD 7800x3d, why spend the money to go from a 40608gb to a 4090 if all I do is use it for a flight sim? Am I missing something? Thanks! Also rumor is MSFS 2024 will be making a leap at using multi cores for gaming which is a giant leap if they pull it off, what is Xplane doing on this front? Thanks
If you make a top end simulator setup only for Xplane, you are right.
But is there anyone in this world who spends that much on computer and doesn't use it for something else?
@@bartoszskowronski Me, I only use my PC for flight training in MSFS and Xplane.. I don’t use it for anything else, still much cheaper than flight time these days at $200 hr wet. Pays for itself very quickly
@@pilotbsinthesky3443 then low-mid GPU is totally enough. I personally run three copies of xplane single PC 5monitors on 5800x3d with RX6700xt and 2x RX6600 and have ~60fps on front monitor and ~45 on side monitors. (one GPU connected through 80cm long riser pci-e 2.0 x4)
They are supposed to be working on multi-CPU (core) support. Lord knows I have been all over them about it. They say is it "hard".
@@xforcepc half year ago has been shown that there is a huge potential, in multi monitor setups.
Is today a problem with performance on single monitor setups? I don't think so.
Is multi gpu required for even fps on all monitors?
(because windows can't properly share one gpu between many programs/threads)
let it be, that still will be better than multiPC setups. (3x 4060ti will be enough and faster and cheaper than one 4090).
and still no statement from Laminar Research.
And I still waiting when Laminar Resarch, in multimonitor setup start running different copy of xplane, for every monitor. (in the background without any advance configuration from the user)
And each copy/monitor will needs different 2 performance core, and 16GB of RAM. And option for running each copy on different GPU will be great! {krypto mining programs can do that, so is possible for program/game to choose on with GPU runs}(they are open source)
to more option are almost always better,
do you want one TopEnd GPU or just utilise your current GPU one from your second computer (if you love swaping GPUs) and buy third low-mid range GPU for third monitor.
for each GPU graphics settings should be separate, as output framerate.
still interested? search on UA-cam "Can running three copies of X-Plane be faster than one?" and check description.