The reviews I read including the one here said MSFS2020 benefits from the fastest ram possible... so that's what I went with. The fact they even mentioned it in the review got me to thinking.... why not? Even if it's only 1-2% faster as I said already it was literally a $30 difference between 64GB 3600 and 4000... so I went with the 4000.Anyway, if the performance gap is minimal between 3600 and 4000MHz (I understood it is), I doubt MSFS2020 will gain anything different.
Or maybe I'm missing something, there? =o
I'm one of those guys that puts value at the top... hence the ram choice... and CPU choice. I only considered 3600 and 4000 and the price difference really made it a no brainer. Same for the CPU.
You're pretty much spot on. I've had mine at 5.3 but temps were a bit much for my 360mm AIO... pushing 90C. Running it at 5.2 is 80-85C on stress tests so that's where I run it. Every day temps are much lower. I also run a -2 AVX offset. When using apps like Handbrake the difference between 5.2ghz and 5ghz when encoding 2 hour videos is literally 2-3 minutes... and temps are lower.It's true that the "silicon lottery" is a thing, when overclocking, but I believe 5.3GHz is perfectly within the capabilities of any i9 10900K. Unless you won the lottery of the opposite, and you got the worst possible, that is.
The issue with the temperatures becomes a thing when you pressure the CPU with Prime95 tests, and even then I doubt a good 360 AIO liquid cooling system wouldn't be able to handle the heat and avoid the down-throttling.
At least, this is what I've read around the Internet, by browsing through several overclocking articles featuring stability tests.
By all means feel free to correct any possible misconception.
Either way, I'm happy with how I did with the silicon lottery.
A 5.1ghz all core i9 10900k is worth 800$..
Value is a contest Intel wins hands down... at least in the USA.Dunno why that guy talks about how much of an AMD fanboy I am. I actually perfer intel, and am super pumped for 11th gen, but AMD is just better right now, no contest aside from the low end, where AMD doesn't have a zen 3 cpu.
My 10900k/3090 PC benchmarks in the top 1% on 3Dmark... and that would be the upper half of the top 1%. I say that because I've seen a lot of PCs that scored 3000-4000 pts lower than mine and were also in the top 1%. Links are in my sig... all for a $500 CPU... and got 79th in Unigen's Superposition 4K optimized. What would I have gained by getting a 5950x for $1300 from a scalper? Something like a 0.5% improvement and a few extra fps that you and I both would never notice?
Yeah, that sounds totally worth an extra $800. Anyway, I rest my case.
Good idea.Anyway, this discussion is done.