![]() ![]() However, an additional 95GB of data gets downloaded when you launch the game the first time. (I know, most people only have one, but I ran the game on four different PCs for this article.) That's less than the size of the latest AMD and Nvidia drivers (combined), and I'm long since past the point of worrying about a 1GB download. The Store download is only about 1GB and needs to be installed from the Microsoft Store on each PC. Except, in the case of Microsoft Flight Simulator, there is. It's far more finicky about starting downloads, and there's no good way to transfer game downloads between PCs. In my opinion, the Microsoft Store remains one of the worst digital distribution platforms imaginable. We're skipping ahead, and you certainly don't need ultra settings (the high and even medium presets look quite good), but the point is that this is a game that will punish both CPUs and GPUs for years to come.īefore we get into the testing, let's again note that we're using the Microsoft Store version of the game, which Microsoft kindly provided to us for testing purposes. CPU bottlenecks are likely to keep you below 60 fps even at 1080p ultra, but at 4K ultra? The RTX 2080 Ti managed 33 fps. In a similar vein, you're not going to be running Microsoft Flight Simulator at 4K and maxed out settings with anything close to 60 fps - not on today's hardware. Take the following with a healthy dose of skepticism and a liberal sprinkling of salt, in other words, but it does contain a list of just about every major desktop GPU from the past 25 years.Intel Core i9-9900K, Core i5-9600K, Core i3-9100 ![]() As one recent example, AMD's new RX 7900 XTX/XT sit in spots two and three even though the RTX 4080 generally beats the 7900 XT. These results are, at best, merely theoretical and we don't have recent benchmarks for most of the GPUs. Comparing pre-2007 GPUs against each other should be relatively meaningful, but trying to compare those older GPUs against newer GPUs gets a bit convoluted. We've put an asterisk (*) next to the GPU names for those cards, and they comprise the latter part of the table. That's GeForce 7 and Radeon X1000 and earlier - basically anything from before 2007. We sorted the table by the theoretical GFLOPS, though on architectures that don't support unified shaders, we only have data for "Gops/s" (giga operations per second). The list below is mostly intended to show relative performance between architectures from a similar time period. ![]() Note that we also don't factor in memory bandwidth or features like AMD's Infinity Cache or Nvidia's larger L2 cache on Ada Lovelace. We have not tested most of these cards in many years, driver support has ended on most of these models, and the relative rankings are pretty coarse. You can use these older results to help inform your purchase decisions, if you don't typically run the latest games at maxed out settings.Ģ020–2021 GPU Hierarchy (No Longer Updated) Header Cell - Column 0īelow is our legacy desktop GPU hierarchy dating back to the late 1990s. We won't be adding future GPUs to this table, so there's no RTX 40-series, RX 7000-series, Arc, 3090 Ti, 6950 XT, 6750 XT, or 6650 XT, but it does help to provide a look at a slightly less demanding suite of games, where 6GB or more VRAM isn't generally required at 1080p ultra settings. These results have not been updated since early 2022, when we added the RTX 3050 and RX 6500 XT to the list. All of the scores are combined (via a geometric mean calculation) into a single overall result, which tends to penalize the fastest and slowest GPUs - CPU bottlenecks come into play at 1080p medium, while VRAM limitations can kill performance at 4K ultra. The results below are from our previous version of the GPU benchmarks hierarchy, using a different test suite and test PC (Core i9-9900K) and combining results from nine games with six resolution and setting combinations. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |