F5F Stay Refreshed Hardware Desktop Cheapest processor with the most powerful clock speed in 2025

Cheapest processor with the most powerful clock speed in 2025

Cheapest processor with the most powerful clock speed in 2025

Pages (2): 1 2 Next
T
thibdu87
Member
229
05-27-2017, 05:53 PM
#1
Greetings team, I recently upgraded my setup for Microsoft Flight Simulator in stages, though by then it might have felt like a completely different build except for the tower case. These flight simulators, particularly the Microsoft ones, tend to perform better on faster CPU cores compared to slower ones. Their origins can be traced back to the NetBurst architecture era. Even with today’s hardware, the CPU still struggles to keep up, even when paired with a powerful GPU. I had to use Process Lasso to manage everything except MSFS, ensuring it didn’t exceed its limits.

I upgraded to a 5600G, which is my latest AMD chip—previously I used a Phenom X3. It offers high clock speed and efficiency, meeting expectations so far. Turning off SMT reduced power use by about 30W and lowered temperatures by 10-15°C with a Noctua NH-D14 cooler.

The previous models I ran included the 7700K (4.7GHz) and 3770K (4.8GHz), both of which were capable but not ideal for modern demands. The current 5600G runs at around 4.2-4.3GHz consistently, which is quite solid given how much time has passed since the 4.2GHz 10100 was seen as a solid budget choice.

Today I’m planning another build for a different location. After reviewing options, most mid-range chips have 10-12 cores and clock speeds between 2.8 to 3.0GHz. That’s not ideal for flight sims. MSFS still relies on older code and doesn’t fully leverage many cores. I’m looking for a processor that balances core count, speed, overclock potential, price under $200, and solid performance—without breaking the bank.
T
thibdu87
05-27-2017, 05:53 PM #1

Greetings team, I recently upgraded my setup for Microsoft Flight Simulator in stages, though by then it might have felt like a completely different build except for the tower case. These flight simulators, particularly the Microsoft ones, tend to perform better on faster CPU cores compared to slower ones. Their origins can be traced back to the NetBurst architecture era. Even with today’s hardware, the CPU still struggles to keep up, even when paired with a powerful GPU. I had to use Process Lasso to manage everything except MSFS, ensuring it didn’t exceed its limits.

I upgraded to a 5600G, which is my latest AMD chip—previously I used a Phenom X3. It offers high clock speed and efficiency, meeting expectations so far. Turning off SMT reduced power use by about 30W and lowered temperatures by 10-15°C with a Noctua NH-D14 cooler.

The previous models I ran included the 7700K (4.7GHz) and 3770K (4.8GHz), both of which were capable but not ideal for modern demands. The current 5600G runs at around 4.2-4.3GHz consistently, which is quite solid given how much time has passed since the 4.2GHz 10100 was seen as a solid budget choice.

Today I’m planning another build for a different location. After reviewing options, most mid-range chips have 10-12 cores and clock speeds between 2.8 to 3.0GHz. That’s not ideal for flight sims. MSFS still relies on older code and doesn’t fully leverage many cores. I’m looking for a processor that balances core count, speed, overclock potential, price under $200, and solid performance—without breaking the bank.

K
KermitTheCrab
Member
145
05-29-2017, 06:02 PM
#2
K
KermitTheCrab
05-29-2017, 06:02 PM #2

B
Bars_
Junior Member
23
05-30-2017, 05:16 PM
#3
Under $200 isn't feasible. You won't even reach the lowest specs like 225F and 9600X with that budget. Why bother with stock speed when you're planning to install a cooler? The most affordable overclockable CPU options are around 245K for nearly $300 or 9600X for $213. If you're okay with used parts, a 5800X3D could be a better fit if you can repurpose components from your existing 5600G setup.
B
Bars_
05-30-2017, 05:16 PM #3

Under $200 isn't feasible. You won't even reach the lowest specs like 225F and 9600X with that budget. Why bother with stock speed when you're planning to install a cooler? The most affordable overclockable CPU options are around 245K for nearly $300 or 9600X for $213. If you're okay with used parts, a 5800X3D could be a better fit if you can repurpose components from your existing 5600G setup.

T
TeeKay10
Member
51
05-31-2017, 12:29 AM
#4
They’ll include Turbo Boost and an AMD equivalent. Even in the optimal situation (large air cooler or water), maintaining all-core speeds will reach roughly another 1Ghz beyond the base rate. And for standard chips and boards, that’s about it. No extra overclocking needed. Keeping the stock speed matters most for budget chips with limited core counts, as those often can’t be boosted further. The 9600X looks perfect and stays within a reasonable price range. Thanks for the tip—exciting to test how fast it might run if I retrieve the old Alphacool board and pair it with a suitable AM4 socket.
T
TeeKay10
05-31-2017, 12:29 AM #4

They’ll include Turbo Boost and an AMD equivalent. Even in the optimal situation (large air cooler or water), maintaining all-core speeds will reach roughly another 1Ghz beyond the base rate. And for standard chips and boards, that’s about it. No extra overclocking needed. Keeping the stock speed matters most for budget chips with limited core counts, as those often can’t be boosted further. The 9600X looks perfect and stays within a reasonable price range. Thanks for the tip—exciting to test how fast it might run if I retrieve the old Alphacool board and pair it with a suitable AM4 socket.

X
xX_IceyWolf_Xx
Senior Member
629
06-05-2017, 03:14 AM
#5
No, X3D CPUs didn't show strong performance in MSFS.
X
xX_IceyWolf_Xx
06-05-2017, 03:14 AM #5

No, X3D CPUs didn't show strong performance in MSFS.

G
Gosuhunter
Member
57
06-25-2017, 08:53 AM
#6
Newer processors often support higher stable frequencies, but they tend to be pricier than expected. That’s what I also saw.
G
Gosuhunter
06-25-2017, 08:53 AM #6

Newer processors often support higher stable frequencies, but they tend to be pricier than expected. That’s what I also saw.

N
Needy_Kiwi
Junior Member
2
06-30-2017, 12:02 PM
#7
They achieved results in resolutions below 4K, yet at 4K the 13,900k gained a minor advantage.
N
Needy_Kiwi
06-30-2017, 12:02 PM #7

They achieved results in resolutions below 4K, yet at 4K the 13,900k gained a minor advantage.

X
xVeryn1337
Member
229
07-05-2017, 10:18 PM
#8
The optimal approach for achieving maximum performance is a 5700x3d ig(?)
X
xVeryn1337
07-05-2017, 10:18 PM #8

The optimal approach for achieving maximum performance is a 5700x3d ig(?)

G
GreenLightFabi
Senior Member
696
07-12-2017, 11:58 PM
#9
Hey everyone, thanks for your feedback and the clarification on my thoughts. I understand that a 13900K or 9800X3D would work well with MSFS, though you might still encounter some stutter from server or streaming issues. That’s essentially about investing heavily to solve any problem. This is just about the chip in question—you really need a substantial overclocking board to run it smoothly. All this is mainly to keep most of my 24 cores unused. In short, the best chip for a typical flight sim should be around 4 or 6 cores, matching the same performance levels. I’ve already reached 4.8GHz on Ivy Bridge with water, and ideally the new setup should maintain full overclocking across all cores at least up to 5GHz. The lowest-end K model in this range is the 13600K, which can boost to 5.1GHz. While impressive, it’s still a huge overkill and expensive. My upcoming build will use a 1080p projector for slower flights and a 1440p screen for faster IFR trips, so resolution needs are lower but compensated with higher detail settings. For MSFS, high TLOD really only affects the first few CPU cores, which is manageable.
G
GreenLightFabi
07-12-2017, 11:58 PM #9

Hey everyone, thanks for your feedback and the clarification on my thoughts. I understand that a 13900K or 9800X3D would work well with MSFS, though you might still encounter some stutter from server or streaming issues. That’s essentially about investing heavily to solve any problem. This is just about the chip in question—you really need a substantial overclocking board to run it smoothly. All this is mainly to keep most of my 24 cores unused. In short, the best chip for a typical flight sim should be around 4 or 6 cores, matching the same performance levels. I’ve already reached 4.8GHz on Ivy Bridge with water, and ideally the new setup should maintain full overclocking across all cores at least up to 5GHz. The lowest-end K model in this range is the 13600K, which can boost to 5.1GHz. While impressive, it’s still a huge overkill and expensive. My upcoming build will use a 1080p projector for slower flights and a 1440p screen for faster IFR trips, so resolution needs are lower but compensated with higher detail settings. For MSFS, high TLOD really only affects the first few CPU cores, which is manageable.

K
Katawina
Junior Member
16
07-13-2017, 08:56 AM
#10
You're certain? X3D chips perform better than quicker Intel chips in simulation games, and they work well without high-end hardware or cooling systems.
K
Katawina
07-13-2017, 08:56 AM #10

You're certain? X3D chips perform better than quicker Intel chips in simulation games, and they work well without high-end hardware or cooling systems.

Pages (2): 1 2 Next