New rig - RTX5090 or AMD 9070?

[SharpeXB]

23 minutes ago, niru27 said:

You're the one not understanding the topic: between 5090 and 9070, only one can run at max settings in (almost?) all scenarios. OP is not asking your help to adjust their settings to achieve stable fps.

It's ironic that someone who has a 4090 is asking others to dial down settings, instead of demanding module optimization. You are blind to the vast chasm that exists between GPUs that can run Low Textures vs High textures.

And if you're gonna dial down settings, something like a 3070ti can comfortably run at low textures, why spend more at all...

Adjust the settings for your hardware. Welcome to PC gaming

I don’t think most people playing DCS have $$$ graphics cards so that must be a common solution. If there’s a better solution for the games design, great. But it doesn’t seem that way.

The OP did state that money was no object, so just get the 5090. 

[silverdevil]

On 11/27/2025 at 3:11 AM, Boberro said:

Money is not an issue I think, I want to have a setup for longer time - preferably for years as I don't like to buy it often.

hello

just something to consider. i bought a high end PC in 2021. it has a 3090 and and 11th gen i9. still playing with the following settings with no issues.

    ['volumetricLights'] = 1;
    ['AA'] = 'DLAA';
    ['forestDetailsFactor'] = 1;
    ['rainDroplets'] = true;
    ['LensEffects'] = 2;
    ['box_mouse_cursor'] = false;
    ['anisotropy'] = 4;
    ['water'] = 2;
    ['motionBlurAmount'] = 1;
    ['BlurFlatShadows'] = 0;
    ['outputGamma'] = 1.9;
    ['aspect'] = 2.3888888888889;
    ['lights'] = 2;
    ['LODmult'] = 1;
    ['MSAA'] = 1;
    ['statsColor'] = 
    {
        [1] = 250;
        [2] = 250;
        [3] = 250;
    };
    ['messagesFontScale'] = 2;
    ['canopyReflections'] = 1;
    ['width'] = 3440;
    ['visibRange'] = 'Extreme';
    ['DLSS_PerfQuality'] = 1;
    ['useDeferredShading'] = 1;
    ['clutterMaxDistance'] = 0;
    ['textures'] = 2;
    ['cockpitGI'] = 0;
    ['terrainTextures'] = 'max';
    ['height'] = 1440;
    ['multiMonitorSetup'] = '1camera';
    ['shadows'] = 1;
    ['defaultFOV'] = 78;
    ['shadowTree'] = false;
    ['chimneySmokeDensity'] = 1;
    ['secondaryShadows'] = 0;
    ['SSS'] = 0;
    ['fullScreen'] = true;
    ['preloadRadius'] = 50000;
    ['scaleGui'] = 1;
    ['Scaling'] = 0.66;
    ['DOF'] = 0;
    ['clouds'] = 3;
    ['sceneryDetailsFactor'] = 1;
    ['Upscaling'] = 'OFF';
    ['Sharpening'] = 0;
    ['motionBlur'] = 0;
    ['ColorGradingLUT'] = 0;
    ['SSLR'] = 0;
    ['effects'] = 3;
    ['SSAO'] = 0;
    ['maxFPS'] = 180;
    ['sync'] = false;
    ['heatBlr'] = 0;
    ['forestDistanceFactor'] = 0.5;
    ['flatTerrainShadows'] = 0;
    ['civTraffic'] = '';
    ['ScreenshotExt'] = 'jpg';

i am quite happy with the views and performance. i do not experience any of the BS that others with better systems report.
 

[MAXsenna]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

The thread seems to be veering in the direction of saying that it’s impossible to build a machine that will run DCS well. Or that’s it’s not possible to simply adjust settings to optimize performance. Neither of those is true. 

I never said that. I just can't fathom why we need to run extra scripts to manually resize the textures ourselves to get better performance, when I can't even spot the difference. This is the type of optimisation I'm talking about. I get the code is old and could probably be better. But that will be a huge costly task. But textures that eat all your VRAM? Common!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

11 minutes ago, silverdevil said:

i am quite happy with the views and performance. i do not experience any of the BS that others with better systems report.

I could run everything maxed out, even with Ultra shadows and longer view distance, both that don't exist in the vanilla game, over the Marianas. But the Chinook? Forget it, unless I resized the textures.

That was on a CPU from 2013 and a second hand 2080Ti. I only got 40FPS, but that was fine for me. 

(BTW, I'll reply to your DM, just haven't gotten around it yet).  

Edited 14 hours ago by MAXsenna

[SharpeXB]

32 minutes ago, MAXsenna said:

I just can't fathom why we need to run extra scripts to manually resize the textures ourselves to get better performance, when I can't even spot the difference. This is the type of optimisation I'm talking about.

Probably because it’s more optimal for the game to have three texture levels instead of four? But if the script creates a Med-High level you like then just use it. That the difference isn’t noticeable on some hardware doesn’t mean that’s true for everyone. Clearly ED doesn’t think so. The textures on some older models are awful. 
None of this matters to the OP though. 

Edited 14 hours ago by SharpeXB

[MAXsenna]

34 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

Probably because it’s more optimal for the game to have three texture levels instead of four?

Don't be silly. One can't have too many choices.

35 minutes ago, SharpeXB said:

None of this matters to the OP though. 

Fair enough. 

[Boberro]

Guys I fully agree DCS should be optimized. It was slow 15 years ago when it was memed that no computer was manufactured yet to run all maxed out, and unfortunately in terms of the game itself there is not much room for the player - either stronger hardware or lower fps. Mods can save it partially.
It is what it is.

Yes I can get 5090, but this is some kind of melt gamble which I rather wouldn't go for after unless it was fixed.
9070XT is not on the 5090 level, 5080 is not great either with only 16 GB VRAM. 7900XTX has good VRAM amount but is old and still quite expensive when we take into account it is already 3 years old.
Literally no good solution here, only less evil one.

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, Boberro said:

Guys I fully agree DCS should be optimized. It was slow 15 years ago when it was memed that no computer was manufactured yet to run all maxed out, and unfortunately in terms of the game itself there is not much room for the player - either stronger hardware or lower fps. Mods can save it partially.
It is what it is.

Yes I can get 5090, but this is some kind of melt gamble which I rather wouldn't go for after unless it was fixed.
9070XT is not on the 5090 level, 5080 is not great either with only 16 GB VRAM. 7900XTX has good VRAM amount but is old and still quite expensive when we take into account it is already 3 years old.
Literally no good solution here, only less evil one.

Quite true, there is no single good solution.

The thing is, you mentioned VR may be in the plans somewhere down the line.... DCS + VR screams Nvidia (it is what it is).
Yes, Nvidia is quite more expensive but, if DCS (+ VR) is of importance to you, there will be moments you find yourself with an AMD GPU thinking"should have gone Nvidia".

For DCS, I'd only suggest the AMD RX 9070XT if you know you won't be doing VR. Or maybe if going with a Linux distro for the OS (instead of Windows), where AMD runs better.

I suggest an RTX5070Ti or RTX5080 that is a good model (not necessarily the dearest, biggest or fastest).
Use it with a TG WireView to have the 12V-2x6 power plug on the GPU at an angle (no longer forcing it or the cables from the PSU), and real-time monitoring of GPU power.  

That, and a good PSU that is 1000W or 1200W ATX 3.1 and PCIE 5.1 (80+Gold is plenty good), you should be fine. 
If confused which to get, there are two PSU tierlists:

• https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1akCHL7Vhzk_EhrpIGkz8zTEvYfLDcaSpZRB6Xt6JWkc/edit?gid=1719706335#gid=1719706335
• https://cultists.network/140/psu-tier-list/

Generally you want to buy A or B tier, with ATX 3.1 and PCIE 5.1 standards. For such higher-end GPUs, definitely avoid any PSU that isn't A or B tier.

BTW, and on the CPU.
AMD seems to be launching the Ryzen 9850X3D and the 9950X3D2 - a 400MHz clock increase is nothing to be sniffed at.  
They should be announced in CES2006 (end of January) - the 9850X3D should be launched right after that, and later the 9950X3D2.
If this is a gaming rig for the long run, maybe you should wait a little longer on the CPU purchase (doesn't mean that you can't advance with other parts if the right deals appear).
 

Edited 2 hours ago by LucShep

[niru27]

10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

The OP did state that money was no object, so just get the 5090. 

I see you've finally mastered the art of reading

10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Adjust the settings for your hardware. Welcome to PC gaming

Next step: logic.

If all modules work fine in a game at a certain setting, except for a couple of modules, then the problem is:

A) The base game
B) Mercury in retrograde
C) User error
D) Those specific modules are unoptimized

 

38 minutes ago, LucShep said:

...if DCS (+ VR) is of importance to you, there will be moments you find yourself with an AMD GPU thinking"should have gone Nvidia".

While NVidia arguably has better upscaling with minimal ghosting, the limit is still the VRAM. Check out the F10 map stuttering thread for more info. Basically what I'm trying to say is, it won't matter how powerful the GPU is, if it has <24GB VRAM and a Chinook/Apache is around you, or you want to look at the F10 map, it's gonna stutter to hell. In that case, why do you want to pay more for a 9070 vs 5080? A stable fps on a 24GB XTX is noticeably better than occasional stutters on any 16 gig card. DLSS won't help you in this regard. And if you're willing to drop cockpit textures and settle for blurry text labels/instruments, you might as well drop a couple more settings and go with a cheaper GPU.

Also optiscaler can enable FSR3 on 7000 series cards and FSR4 on 9000, which is WAY better than FSR 1 that DCS ships with. This combined with the HUD/MFD upscaling bypass, reduces the advantage that DLSS has over FSR. So the 24GB XTX is arguable more stable than a 16GB 4080/5080.

Now if the Super versions of the 5080 comes out with 24GB, then I will gladly start suggesting that. Ever since the 2000 series, NVidia are intentionally crippling their cards by limiting VRAM in an effort to upsell.

[TheBiggerBass]

I'd be concerned of the stabilty of the 5090. Atm it's granted peak level performance but I've seen a lot of user concerns about weak power supply connectors getting hot and starting to melt. 650w @ 12V seems like an insane design to me. I also doubt that you will see such a significant performance boost compared to a 9070xt that it's worth spending almost two grands on top. I get a stable >85fps @ 5140x1440 with my 16GB 4070TiS without any stutters. Even a super fast GPU will be bottlenecked by a slow CPU or motherboard, too slow or small RAM size, small SSD ect. Since my DCS setup runs on it's own 8TB SSD, no pagefile, core parking off performance was boosted by approx. 10-15%. I guess I wouldn't notice to get 105fps instead. But I will definetely notice if all cooling fans are running maxxed out for hours.

Edited 3 hours ago by TheBiggerBass

[SharpeXB]

5 hours ago, Boberro said:

Guys I fully agree DCS should be optimized. It was slow 15 years ago when it was memed that no computer was manufactured yet to run all maxed out, and unfortunately in terms of the game itself there is not much room for the player.

That’s not the case today (only with VR), probably wasn’t true back then either. A strong system can run DCS maxed out. The one below can run it in 4K at 60-120FPS. And that’s without DLSS or mods.

5 hours ago, Boberro said:

either stronger hardware or lower fps.

That’s true for all games. And there are plenty which are harder to run than DCS

Edited 19 minutes ago by SharpeXB