My 2013 build with 2020 bottleneck challenge: I need your help!

[kraft_mk]

Hello everyone.

Over the years I've relied on this forum for great information from the vast pool of knowledge here.

My 2013 >Micro-ATX< build at Micro-ATX Aerocool DS Cube (265x411x381mm) case:

0. 750W PSU ENERMAX REVOLUTION 87+
https://www.enermax.com/en/products/revolution-d.f.-750w

1. Intel Core i7-4770K Processor (8M Cache, up to 3.90 GHz)
https://intel.ly/3A22dS1

2. ASUS Maximus VI Gene Gaming MB
https://bit.ly/3tpYrkb

3. 16GB (2x8GB) Corsair Vengeance Pro DDR3 DRAM 1866MHz C9 Memory Kit CMY16GX3M2A1866C9R
https://bit.ly/3KaATpA

4. ASUS GeForce GTX770-DC2OC-2GD5
https://bit.ly/3quXRjw

5. Samsung SSD 840 Pro Series 256GB+512GB
Seq Read Speed Up to 540MB/s Sequential Write Speed Up to 520MB/s

6. Cooler Master Hyper 212 Evo
7. Pioneer BDR-208EBK

I originally built this Micro-ATX "cat" back in 2013 and for almost 10 years she handled everything (gaming) with ease.

2020/21 tipping point and first bottleneck challenge: "Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020".

The GTX 770 was a pretty decent graphics card, but sadly its Achilles Heel is the 2GB of VRAM. That just will not cut it with FS2020. The problem with FS2020 (and what makes it so awesome) is that all terrain data is unique. All the buildings you see in the game actually exist in real life. So no two are exactly the same. Trees, water and grass are generic and rendered to approximate the real thing, but the uniqueness means that fewer texture files can be re-used over and over again as is the case in video games.

*FS2020> with GTX770 i5 4460K @ 8GB RAM>



*FS2020> with GTX1070 and i7 2600K @ 12GB RAM>



I don't know if I've reached the limits and before I start thinking about my new rig, will you please be so kind to suggest the best directions to upgrade my build? I would gladly take your suggestions for GPU and maybe add something at M2 (M-Key 2242, PCI-E 2.0 x1, SATA3) slot.

My questions:
1. How would you upgrade to maximize the performance, having in mind FS2020?
2. How would you upgrade to maximize the performance, overall?

- I don`t plan to upgrade my MB or CPU in the near future. Yes, I will create a new build, from scratch but thats a diferent storry.
- For the time being I want to maximize the performance of my current build within reasonable (300-400eur) budget and my first problem is to identify the best GPU for my MB and CPU. GPU that will deliver best performance boost with the same ASUS MAX VI Gene and i7-4770K.

Upgradable parts:
a. GPU (clearance for 320mm or 350mm if I remove the front fan.)
https://aerocool.io/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/DS-CUBE-EOL-min.pdf

b. Monitor DEll U2412M 1920 x 1200 at 60 Hz (optional upgrade)
https://www.dell.com/en-is/work/shop/cty/pdp/spd/dell-u2412m

c. M.2? (optional upgrade)

d. RAM (optional upgrade)

Budget is not an issue as long as there there is reasonable improvement.
Possible shopping site: https://shorturl.at/diBPQ

Thank You!
2013 vs 2022

 

[pendragon1]

without replacing the whole thing all you can do is get the best used gpu you can find for that money, it wont get you much new.

 

[auntjemima]

without replacing the whole thing all you can do is get the best used gpu you can find for that money, it wont get you much new.

The machine is fine. Without getting into the HEDT market, the Haswell chips did plenty of work.

I would say, for that price, find a 2060. That 700 series card is your issue. 2gb is dreadful and that series was a rebranded 600 series.

The card is most definitely holding you back.

 

[kraft_mk]

The machine is fine. Without getting into the HEDT market, the Haswell chips did plenty of work.

I would say, for that price, find a 2060. That 700 series card is your issue. 2gb is dreadful and that series was a rebranded 600 series.

The card is most definitely holding you back.

Thank You for your reply, its really apriciated.

Yes, Haswel is 200% overloaded and GTX700 is old as dirt but honestly I did not had too many reasons for earlier upgrade.
That is also one reason why I don`t wont to push for unreasonable 4K monitor upgrade.
(Skyrim, FC3,4,5, Witcher, X-Plane-11. Almost all of those were working fine on *high* settings.)

MS-FS2020 is new milestone but new GPU should provide more than enough breathing space and upgrade time until my next new build.
- I am not sure about this but my concern is my ROG Max VI MB compatibility with the latest GPU`s data transfers and possible downgrade.

250-300€ 4GB GTX 1050 Ti (ASUS, GB)
290-330€ 4GB GTX1650 (ASUS, GB. Zotac etc.)
490-510€ 6GB GTX1660Ti (Gainward, Palit, Zotac.)
330-420€ 8GB GTX1070 Asus GB (used <-> new)
500-600€ 8GB RTX 2060 Palit (used <-> new)

Thank You again, your suggestions are most welcomed!

 

[zandor]

- I am not sure about this but my concern is my ROG Max VI MB compatibility with the latest GPU`s data transfers and possible downgrade.

All the ones you listed will be fine. As a general rule PCI-e cards and CPUs/boards are backwards compatible plus the NV 600-2000 series and Ivy Bridge (3xxx) - Comet Lake (10xxx) are all PCI-e 3.0. I checked your board and it has a UEFI bios, so that'll be fine. The only things you might need to worry about are physical card size and PSU if you find something really power hungry (like a Titan) used.

I'd avoid 4GB cards if possible. They're starting to have performance issues in a lot of games, plus it sounds like MS Flight Simulator is a bit greedy for vram. Just look at some of the laptop RTX 3050 & 3050Ti reviews. They get beaten by 6GB 1660s in some games because they don't have enough VRAM. OTOH 4GB cards are much more available, probably because 4GB is not enough for Ethereum mining.

A 1050Ti would be a nearly useless upgrade aside from +2GB of vram. Your old 770/rebadged 680 is about as fast. On that note, the 1650 isn't much of an upgrade. A 1650 Super/RX 5500XT is about as low as I'd go.

A few more cards to consider:
RTX 2060 6GB (used/new) - The 8GB 2060 was the 2060 Super model. The original 6GB is still common in pre-builts.
GTX 1660 Super (used/new) - The 1660 Super more or less obsoleted the 1660Ti when it came out since it was about as fast and cost $50 or so less than the Ti. These are still common in pre-built computers and I see them in stock new once in a while albeit at a bloated price. Performance-wise the 1660Ti, 1660 Super and 1070 are all pretty close to each other.
Radeon RX 5600XT 6GB (used) - Similar to an RTX 2060 6GB in performance, but lacks raytracing.
Radeon RX 5500XT 8GB (used) - Similar in performance to a 1650 Super. Both 4GB and 8GB models were available.
GTX 1660 6GB (used) non-super/Ti original release version. Obsoleted by the Super. Slightly quicker than a 1650 Super/RX 5500XT.
GTX 3050 8GB (new) - Releases January 27. No benchmarks yet but should be similar to the 1660Ti/Super/1070 on performance based on the mobile version and won't have the 4GB problem like the mobile version.

Then some 4GB models that I wouldn't want to buy but should be easier to get:
GTX 1650 Super 4GB (used?) - Lands between the 1050Ti and 1660s in performance.
Radeon RX 6500XT 4GB (new) - Releases January 21. AMD's presentation suggests it'll be similar in performance to a 1650 Super.
Radeon RX 5500XT 4GB (used) - Similar in performance to a 1650 Super.

Of course that's all if you can find one. I suspect you'll be mostly looking at used cards. In that budget range I'd look for a used one and if you haven't found one by the 27th maybe try to get in on the RTX 3050 launch depending on pricing. US MSRP on these is $250, but the AIBs will ignore MSRP... so maybe 400€? I'd take a 3050 8GB over anything in the 1600 series or a 1070 if the price was ok.

 

[kraft_mk]

zandor, thank you for your response, much appreciated, you are scholar and a gentleman.

You nailed my concern and clarified my options in great details.

NV 600-2000 series and Ivy Bridge (3xxx) - Comet Lake (10xxx) are all PCI-e 3.0.
MB has a UEFI bios, so that'll be fine. Important - Physical card size and PSU.

- Avoid 4GB cards.
- 1050Ti is useless.
- Old 770 is rebadged 680.
- 1650 isn't much of an upgrade,
- 1650 Super/RX 5500XT is about as low as I'd go.

Cards to consider:
- RTX 2060 6GB (used/new) - The 8GB 2060 was the 2060 Super model.
- GTX 1660 Super (used/new) - The 1660 Super more or less obsoleted the 1660Ti.
- GTX 1660Ti, 1660 Super and 1070 are all pretty close to each other.
- Radeon RX 5600XT 6GB (used) - Similar to an RTX 2060 6GB, lacks raytracing.
- Radeon RX 5500XT 8GB (used) - Similar to 1650 Super. Both 4GB and 8GB were available.
- GTX 1660 6GB (used) non-super/Ti original release version. Obsoleted by the Super. Slightly quicker than a 1650 Super/RX 5500XT.
- GTX 3050 8GB (new Jan27) Similar to 1660Ti/Super/1070 and won't have the 4GB problem like the mobile version.

4GB models that I wouldn't want to buy but should be easier to get:
- GTX 1650 Super 4GB (used?) - Lands between the 1050Ti and 1660s.
- Radeon RX 6500XT 4GB (new Jan 21). AMD suggests - similar to 1650 Super.
- Radeon RX 5500XT 4GB (used) - Similar in performance to a 1650 Super.

In that budget range I'd look for a used one.
Try to get in on the RTX 3050 (27th launch) MSRP 250 so ~400€?
I'd take a 3050 8GB over anything in the 1600 series or a 1070 if the price was ok.

Should I consider monitor (resolution and Hz upgrade) or should I stop here and leave that part for my future build.

Again thank You!
KraFT

 

[Dreamerbydesign]

zandor, thank you for your response, much appreciated, you are scholar and a gentleman.

You nailed my concern and clarified my options in great details.


Should I consider monitor (resolution and Hz upgrade) or should I stop here and leave that part for my future build.

Again thank You!
KraFT

Higher resolutions and frame rates stress the cpu much more. I’d avoid doing that until you upgrade from that cpu/platform

 

[kraft_mk]

Higher resolutions and frame rates stress the cpu much more.

Thank You for your reply, my thoughts exactly. My already overloaded i7-4770K will be crippled and that`s that.
Thanks, again.

 

[3dprophet]

For Flight Simulator there isn't much benefit of a high Hz screen. The gameplay isn't fast paced and it's hard to even get 60 fps.

However, a larger monitor would help with immersion. For flight simulator 24 inch is a bit small. Having at least 27 inch would really help the experience IMO.

On a 4K monitor you could also use integer scaling and run at 1080p.

I don't know if FS2020 is an exception but generally higher resolutions stress the GPU more. That's why CPU benchmarks in games are done at 1080p or even 720p. At 1440p and 4k the GPU becomes the bottleneck.

Because of how absurd GPU prices are I would look at the price of pre-builts. New system + GPU vs GPU only. It might make more sense to just buy an entire system. lol

 

[kraft_mk]

Yes, totally true.
I have 50` - 8K Samsung q60a - 2.5 meters from my PC. I will def try something in that direction.
Currently considering - used 6GB version of:
a RTX 2060, GTX 1660 Super , GTX 1660Ti , GTX 1070, GTX 1660
b RX 5600XT , RX 5500XT 8GB (no tracing)
Availability is the trickier part and probably decision maker.

My next thing that i need to figure out: how to get the best use out of this slot?

M.2 Slots / M.2 Connections

Amount	Slot	Sizes	Speeds
1x	M-Key	2242,	PCI-E 2.0 x1, SATA3,

I am open to suggestions,
Thanks!

K

 

[BlueLineSwinger]

Yes, totally true.
I have 50` - 8K Samsung q60a - 2.5 meters from my PC. I will def try something in that direction.
Currently considering - used 6GB version of:
a RTX 2060, GTX 1660 Super , GTX 1660Ti , GTX 1070, GTX 1660
b RX 5600XT , RX 5500XT 8GB (no tracing)
Availability is the trickier part and probably decision maker.

My next thing that i need to figure out: how to get the best use out of this slot?

M.2 Slots / M.2 Connections

Amount	Slot	Sizes	Speeds
1x	M-Key	2242,	PCI-E 2.0 x1, SATA3,

View attachment 433435


I am open to suggestions,
Thanks!

K

Ignore it. On top of being very slow, it only supports a size that is not readily available (and is often more costly when it is).

f you're looking to add a m.2 NVMe SSD, a basic PCIe adapter card would be far better. Though it still wouldn't be bootable.

 

[kraft_mk]

Ignore it. To add a m.2 NVMe SSD, a basic PCIe adapter card would be far better.

Thanks, I will ignore it. I was afraid that I might miss some (hidden) performance opportunities.

My (boot) drive (Samsung SSD 840 PRO) works fine.
I need to replace (low space) my second *spin* drive. WDl 500GB 7.2K RPM SATA 9.5mm 2.5 (wd5000bpkt-75pk4t0) drive.
I was looking for 1 or 2TB Samsung SATA3 SSD and get additional overall performance.

You mentioned PCIe *adapter* for m.2 NVMe.
Please continue about my adapter options.

Thank You!

 

[zandor]

The 1x 2242 M.2 slot on your board is a WiFi card slot. That's a weird size and slow for an SSD, but it's totally standard for a WiFi card.

There are basically 3 types of PCI-e cards that allow you to add M.2 SSDs to a machine. 4x models that support 1 SSD, 8x and 16x models that support 2 or 4 SSDs in an 8x or 16x electrical slot and require PCI-e bifurcation support from the mainboard, and models with a bridge chip that support more than one SSD. PCI-e bifurcation allows splitting one slot into 2 or more smaller slots. I have no idea if your mainboard supports bifurcation. It may or may not support booting. Boards that don't have PCI-e M.2 slots usually don't, but yours advertises that WiFi card slot as usable for an SSD so maybe it can.

My view on the monitor upgrades is go ahead and do it if you want the screen for something other than gaming. If making games look better is the only reason you want it I'd wait until you do your new build and get a vid card that can handle it properly. I've run 4k and 2560x1440 screens off a 1660Ti with a CPU that was older than yours and with a shiny new processor. It works with both CPUs. It just doesn't look any better than 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 by the time you lower settings and/or enable some sort of scaling in newer games to get it to run at high res. Scaling isn't awful but it sure doesn't look better.

Resolution doesn't have much of an impact on CPU load. It's the GPU that'll choke on high res. You do need a bit more CPU for higher settings though, and a slow one can certainly hold back the vid card.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider has a nice little internal benchmark that reports CPU and GPU performance separately and tells you how GPU bound it is. Increasing detail level is an immediate hit to both CPU and GPU, but the CPU performance stays about the same as resolution increases until you start getting GPU bound. That's probably backpressure -- the CPU having to wait for a heavily loaded GPU. Running this on my workstation (i9-10980XE + 3090) isn't really the best demo particularly for the OP's situation with an older CPU, but at least it shows the lack of impact of resolution on the CPU.

I'm not sure if I faked a 2c4t i3 or a 4c4t i5, but limiting the game to 4 threads creates that slow CPU makes a game 20% faster at 4k on low (103fps) than 1366x768 on high settings (85fps) scenario. It's also a 40-50% performance hit. Same average FPS at 1366x768 and 4k on minimum settings and a 1fps difference between 1366x768 and 2560x1440 with maxed out settings (no RTX). 4k high starts getting GPU bound. Then if I turn on RT at 4k I'm only down 8% with the gimped CPU.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider RTX 3090 + i9-10980XE

	Average FPS	GPU Bound	GPU Avg	GPU Min	CPU Render Avg	CPU Render Min	CPU Game Avg	CPU Game Min
Lowest
1366x768	182	0%	516	397	390	254	182	127
1600x900	181	0%	490	374	390	253	181	127
1920x1080	181	0%	443	344	389	251	181	128
2560x1440	182	0%	351	278	386	249	182	126
3840x2160	173	26%	214	177	368	250	180	126
Medium
1366x768	179	0%	351	250	292	192	179	125
1600x900	178	0%	321	231	291	194	178	125
1920x1080	176	0%	281	210	289	196	176	125
2560x1440	169	30%	206	163	272	192	178	125
3840x2160	123	99%	126	102	245	163	180	136
Max no RT
1366x768	175	0%	293	205	274	187	175	121
1600x900	174	0%	265	192	274	188	174	123
1920x1080	173	20%	227	169	267	188	176	123
2560x1440	154	59%	163	123	242	162	179	125
3840x2160	94	100%	96	76	224	152	168	114
Max w/ RT
1366x768	160	25%	211	149	219	156	167	118
1600x900	155	28%	188	136	216	150	165	119
1920x1080	145	61%	160	114	206	144	169	122
2560x1440	114	97%	117	86	196	137	170	114
3840x2160	64	100%	65	51	178	129	156	95
Max, RT, DLSS
4k Ultra Perf.	133	75%	141	103	181	125	168	115
4k Performance	109	98%	112	83	176	125	163	107
4k Balanced	97	99%	99	71	173	122	160	104
4k Quality	87	99%	89	68	171	120	160	102
4 Threads
1366x768, Lowest	103	0%	340	198	124	63	131	66
4k Lowest	103	0%	211	141	119	64	138	69
1366x768 Max no RT	85	0%	238	121	92	44	126	57
1080p Max no RT	84	0%	211	116	94	45	117	58
1440p Max no RT	84	0%	172	116	93	45	118	55
4k Max no RT	76	46%	101	77	89	44	107	54
4k Max w/ RT	59	66%	67	51	73	39	116	73

 

[Zepher]

I ran FS2020 with my 4790k and 1080Ti at 3440x1440 and was severely CPU bottlenecked, CPU sat at 100% constantly and GPU was at 50%.
I upgraded to a Ryzen 5800X and CPU went down to 25% and GPU went up to 90-100%.

 

[kraft_mk]

zandor: Thank you for that m.2@max_gene explanation. I was worried that I was missing some (hidden) performance improvement opportunities.
zandor: Also thank you about *bifurcation* info. I will investigate further and probably get m.2 adapter for 970 EVO NVMe SSD, as a second drive if boot option is unavailable.

************
Zepher: Thank You for your metrics.
Zepher: imho, our 4 core CPU`s are bottlenecks for *high-end* experience.
Zepher: Maybe I am wrong but as far as I can understand, DX11 can use maximum 4 cores so all resources are 99% "overtaken". Ryzen 5800X is 8 core. There must be a significant change.
Zepher: imho, our old 4 core CPU`s are bottleneck(S) for high-end experience, but.
************

Those bottlenecks are critical for everyone at a very different level *if* we measure user experience.
Let me try to explain in a very short manner.

MS FS2020 is not a game.
MS FS2020 is *very* complex simulation. I will mention only *few* features that will kidnap most of the resources, immediately.

1. *Real-time* options like weather situations, real (live) flight traffic, live airports congestion, buildings, ground traffic.
2. There are huge differences where and how you want to fly. Busy airports or not? With small Cessna or Boeing that is full with passengers and cargo.
3. Are you beginner just learning the first steps or you are advances pilot - part of the real time (live) world air-traffic.
4. AI.
5. All terrain data is unique. All the buildings exist in real life. No two are exactly the same.

There are hundreds of other (very *CPU* demanding) features that I am not even mentioning here but I hope you catch my point.
- imho, I still think that I can have tailored and *very hq* user experience with GPU upgrade only.

This simulation is something that will stay here for the next ?? years.
Yes its time to star planning for my new PC but I think I can wait for a year or two with GPU upgrade only.

Also, this forum is still the best place to be.

 

[DanNeely]

The 1x 2242 M.2 slot on your board is a WiFi card slot. That's a weird size and slow for an SSD, but it's totally standard for a WiFi card.

No, a wifi card would be 2230. 2242 is a short SSD size used by some laptops. On newer boards the m2 slots typically can take 42/60/80mm (and maybe 110) SSDs; but only 2280 has seen widespread adoption in the DIY world.

OPs slot was a bad guess by the manufacturer and mostly useless now even ignoring being bandwidth starved. Either use an adapter to fit an 3.0 x4 m2 into a PCIe slot, or just get a cheapo cabled SATA drive and spent the difference on a faster GPU. I'd probably do the latter unless you're planning to build a new system in the next year or two (in which case the M2 might be worthwhile as a salvage part).

 

[MrGuvernment]

Higher resolutions and frame rates stress the cpu much more. I’d avoid doing that until you upgrade from that cpu/platform

Higher res stresses the GPU more - lower res = more cpu load.

Now can that CPU feed a newer GPU.

 

[MrGuvernment]

MS Flight sim has release after release been notoriously CPU bound, going back as far as I can recall, and 2020 made no change to that really. It just seem the team behind MS flight sim has real trouble optimizing anything..

 

[kraft_mk]

*Small update.

Later today I will test this beast.

Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB GDDR5X Founders Edition.

- Used for 410 EUR. (Almost same price with some other 1080/1070 models but with 8GB "only" : )
- Apparently used for gaming only.
- Should fit nicely.

[H] video:

 

[kraft_mk]

Some bragging rights and showing off : )

I upgraded my PC with:
- Founders Edition Nvidia Geforce GTX 1080 Ti 11GB GDDR5X - 410 euros - used for gaming since October 2019;
- Samsung 970 EVO NVMe® M.2 SSD 1TB - 120 eur - new;
- via ROLINE Ad PCIe3.0 x4 - NVMe M2 110mm SSD - 15.06.2193-10 adapter - 15 eur - new.

Well, I cant be more satisfied.

That 11GM monster revived everything that my micro ATX MB still holds.
Have in mind: everything above 25 FPS makes this simulation highly enjoyable.
It``s a flight simulator - not FPS game.

MSFS2020 @ dell U2412M 1920 x 1200 at 60 Hz
@ 1920x1200 I get 30-40 FPS on *crowded* airports but with everything maxed out, and I mean everything.
- Ultra settings with everything @ max
- AI, Live Traffic, Live weather, All online players: ON

MSFS2020 Samsung Q60A
@ 4K i get max 30FPS on *crowded* airports but with everything maxed out, and I mean everything.
- Ultra settings with everything @ Max.
- Live Traffic, Live weather, All online players: ON

-> Disabling Live features and other insignificant settings and staying inside the ultra range you get additional 10-20fps.

NVMe SSD
For other games, NVMe® M.2 vs regular SATA SSD won`t change a lot - maybe some faster loading times.

For MSFS2020 there is a significant boost but let me explain.

SIze of the game at this moment with all the updates: 170GB
Additionally, MSFS2020 creates local rolling cash file for storing your downloaded data for preventing additional data transfers from the cloud if you are flying in the same region.
The size of the file by default is (just) 8GB. I changed mine to 50GB. Total 230GB.

Rolling Cashe - Microsoft Flight Simulator displays a realistic graphics of the terrain based on satellite images downloaded from a large cloud of data which has several petabytes of size. The game collects a small fragment of this database in a specially created cache file on your computer, so you have to reckon with the fact that, in addition to the disk space the game requires, each gameplay session of Flight Simulator will take additional gigabytes of space due to the loaded data over which you are currently flying. This size is increasing especially in case of cities generated by photogrammetry.

Entire *simulation* experience depends on having reliable network data transfers and fast read/write speeds.
Slowly as you gradually build up your cash-file everything gets smoother and Samsung 970 EVO NVMe® M.2 SSD 1TB is the main ingredient for achieving perfection.
As I said, I cant be more satisfied.

Bonus: from my "decommissioned" old laptop I scavenged Qualcomm Atheros AR9285 Wireless Network Adapter and now it`s mounted on my m.2 slot. I don`t need PC with WI-Fi but now I have it just because it`s there so I can disable it.

Thank You for your help!

 

[DanNeely]

Start a new thread in the display forum.