Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Noel

Haswell o'clock to 7.1Ghz...

Recommended Posts

Some of the comments from the full article are what have me excited...

 

 

 
As you can see from this slightly more in-depth article, 2.65v must have been a mistake as you can hit 6.2GHz on just 1.2v. The memory overclock is just as impressive.

Plus for those that were wondering this was gone on a ASUS Maximus VI*Extreme Edition.

Reply
3. 
Also, 5GHz on just 1.008v which is simply stunning!!

http://cdn2.wccftech.com/...oads/2013/05/4770K-5G.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, don't want to be a party pooper, but we got these reports running up to ivy-bridge as well...

 

http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-is-capable-of-100-overclock-to-7ghz-using-dry-ice/

 

And we all know how that worked out in reality.

We should get real word reports on how well Haswell overclocks in a regular FSX computer within a few weeks. Until then I won't get my hopes up too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be great if it would OC to 5.5 Ghz or 6.0. Perhaps one could reach 6.0 Ghz using a Phase Change cooling system. 6.0 Ghz and a Titan would be interesting for FSX. How well would FSX run at 6.0 Ghz and a Titan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, don't want to be a party pooper, but we got these reports running up to ivy-bridge as well...

 

http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-is-capable-of-100-overclock-to-7ghz-using-dry-ice/

 

And we all know how that worked out in reality.

We should get real word reports on how well Haswell overclocks in a regular FSX computer within a few weeks. Until then I won't get my hopes up too much.

 

Thanks for that reality check.   :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, don't want to be a party pooper, but we got these reports running up to ivy-bridge as well...

 

http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-is-capable-of-100-overclock-to-7ghz-using-dry-ice/

 

And we all know how that worked out in reality.

We should get real word reports on how well Haswell overclocks in a regular FSX computer within a few weeks. Until then I won't get my hopes up too much.

 

That was using dry ice.

 

There have been reports (amongst others) from Toms Hardware of stable 5Ghz on Air using the Noctura DH14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, don't want to be a party pooper, but we got these reports running up to ivy-bridge as well...

 

http://en.ocworkbench.com/tech/intel-ivy-bridge-core-i7-3770k-is-capable-of-100-overclock-to-7ghz-using-dry-ice/

 

And we all know how that worked out in reality.

We should get real word reports on how well Haswell overclocks in a regular FSX computer within a few weeks. Until then I won't get my hopes up too much.

 

I'd go a step further -- regilar FSX computer with a regular retail sample Haswell, not an engineering sample.

 

 

That was using dry ice.

 

There have been reports (amongst others) from Toms Hardware of stable 5Ghz on Air using the Noctura DH14

 

Who says these reports of high Haswell OC's aren't on liquid nitrogen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says these reports of high Haswell OC's aren't on liquid nitrogen?

 

I am sure that the overclock of 6GHz+ are on dry ice or liquid cooling of some description. 

 

I was far more exicited by the on air performance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some of the comments from the full article are what have me excited...

 

 

 
As you can see from this slightly more in-depth article, 2.65v must have been a mistake as you can hit 6.2GHz on just 1.2v. The memory overclock is just as impressive.

 

Plus for those that were wondering this was gone on a ASUS Maximus VI*Extreme Edition.

 

Reply

3. 
Also, 5GHz on just 1.008v which is simply stunning!!

 

http://cdn2.wccftech.com/...oads/2013/05/4770K-5G.png

 

Indeed this is looking promising!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May gain 7% gain in performance feels like diminishing returns to me. At 15% and 20% gain it all depends on the price. I5 k is about the set point terms of performance that i7 not worth it. Days of big performance gains are over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Days of big performance gains are over.

 

I tend to agree w/ that statement with the caveat that you're talking mainly about clock speed, which is why I'm intrigued by a new simulator (or improved XPlane 64) that can utilized more parallelism than FSX does.  I'd rather have a 16 core, duel CPU box that doesn't overclock and run software designed to exploit it maximally, than have a 4 core machine that has to have exotic cooling and overvolting to run well using FSX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Days of big performance gains are over.

 

I'm sure this is accurate in the context of FSX but is totally inaccurate with where hardware and software development is going.

 

 

 

 I'd rather have a 16 core, duel CPU box that doesn't overclock and run software designed to exploit it maximally, than have a 4 core machine that has to have exotic cooling and overvolting to run well using FSX.

 

Agreed. If FSX was written in the last 2 or even 3 years to take advantage of current processor technology as well as multi-core/multi-processor technology, we probably would not need to worry too much about overclocking. That being said, there are still those of us who want to max every setting and will probably overclock because they can.

 

A 12- or 16-core dual CPU setup would, indeed, be quite interesting. I suspect the GPU would, again, become the bottleneck.

 

I wonder of X-Plane could take advantage of a multi-processor environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you gauge performance gains in relation to a HIGH clock number, then ya, the days are probably over. But as the tech advances, HIGH oc numbers are not as needed, as they are making the chips more and more efficient with each round.

 

Dont look for huge numbers in the future, you will only be let down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I wonder of X-Plane could take advantage of a multi-processor environment?

 

From their site:

 

X-Plane will take advantage of as many cores or distinct processors as you can afford. Having 16 cores split among 4 CPUs is not required by any means, but Version 10 would be able to use every one. No more than 4 GB of RAM is necessary, but the more VRAM you have, the better–X-Plane 10 can easily use 1.5 GB of VRAM at the maximum settings.

 

The Xeon E5-2687W processor runs at 3.8Ghz and I would love to see if it can run FSX adequately.  I'd consider building a dual proc system (16 cores total), I'd pick up maybe 64Gb of DDR3 1600 ram.  And in terms of bottlenecks, I'm going for the GTX Titan w/ 384-bit memory interface w/ 6GB of GDDR-5 VRAM.  This system would cost a hefty $6500 but as I say if it could run FSX reasonably well, I'd be building on the come for XPlane or another multithreaded simulator to come.  The only thing that's keeping me (and many other users) from jumping on board w/ XPlane 64 is the lack of basic airports and poor 3rd party support.  Once that changes, I'm jumping in wholesale.  Methinks the above system will run XPlane quite well ;o)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


The only thing that's keeping me (and many other users) from jumping on board w/ XPlane 64 is the lack of basic airports and poor 3rd party support.

 

I've been saying that for 5 years. Any day now ...   :rolleyes:

 

I pretty much (98%) moved to Apple laptop 4 or 5 years ago. I thought, wow, there's finally a decent non-PC alternative to FSX (ie X-Plane, which you can run on an Apple). That fantasy lasted just a few days. The main reason I still put up with the endless headaches of the Windows world is FSX. As soon as somebody comes up with a viable (and afforable) alternative, I will be completely gone and won't look back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

foibles, on 06 May 2013 - 4:12 PM, said:

I've been saying that for 5 years. Any day now ...

I rest my case. It sure seems odd because from what I gather XPlane 10.10 is very decent in many ways, sans those two biggish areas. I say biggish because I'm not sure why either a 3rd party vendor or LR doesn't just address airports & their buildings the way FSX did from the beginning. This doesn't sound like a huge design nightmare, more of a mundane & tedious task done airport by airport. I think this likely could jettison XPlane to a considerably larger user base, and in turn would likely spawn more buy in from other 3rd party developers as the user base grows. Heck, it sounds like many airports have already been done by various hobby or commercial developers, so the task then is to compile them all into one installation, or better yet sell it to LR as a joint venture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, better single thread performance not so much cpu speed increases so much anymore. Aiports in X-plane will start to fill slowly not like Xplane has the team to build airports all day. Just hope they fix the autogen misplacement with better data information. X-plane not does overreach like fsx with software tech so much does. Xplane like open frontier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX without DX10 would still give us OOM error even with 10Ghz system.

 

Tsk Tsk! :) Sorry..couldn't resisit!

 

:P

 

I managed to get OOM even with DX10. I flew from KLAS to KLAX and right when I was over the LA City...Bam..OOM! Sigh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSX without DX10 would still give us OOM error even with 10Ghz system.

 

Tsk Tsk! :) Sorry..couldn't resisit!

 

:P

 

I managed to get OOM even with DX10. I flew from KLAS to KLAX and right when I was over the LA City...Bam..OOM! Sigh!

I have found up'ing MOBO north bridge IO  voltages helps decrease OOM, but north bridge gets hotter too, so got to keep an eye on temps as you tune

 

I got good air cooling so works ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree w/ that statement with the caveat that you're talking mainly about clock speed, which is why I'm intrigued by a new simulator (or improved XPlane 64) that can utilized more parallelism than FSX does.  I'd rather have a 16 core, duel CPU box that doesn't overclock and run software designed to exploit it maximally, than have a 4 core machine that has to have exotic cooling and overvolting to run well using FSX.

Parallelism is indeed the direction things have been going.

 

Intel is to be commended for providing 5+ generations (Pentium, Netburst, Core2, Nehalem, and most recently Sandy Bridge) of new architectures while maintaining the same thermal design point (TDP). On the server side, where I live and breath, this is 60W, 90W,and 130W of thermal loads. This consistency, despite going from single core (Pentium) to 8-core (Sandy Bridge) and now 12 core (Ivy Bridge), is remarkable and allows server vendors to maintain air cooling up to 95F ambient environments.

 

Remember, these are SERVER numbers, not PC numbers, where multiple cores have long been acknowledged as good, and have allowed Moore's Law to continue to progress with transistor density, which is basically the combination of cores and cache. The upcoming (again on the server side) jump from Sandy Bridge (the architecture, the 'toc' in Intel design cadence) to Ivy Bridge (the feature shrink, or the 'tic') is taking an architecture implemented on 28 nm technology and shrinking it to 22 nm technology, increasing the core counts (from 8 to 12) and the "last level cache" size (from 24MB to 30, perhaps larger).

 

I have a number of friends at Intel who have told me "yeah, we could have clocked NetBurst to 5+ GHz, but it would have required liquid cooling." In a server environment, this is not a good alternative, where hot-aisle/cold-aisle airflow is the dominant cooling model. 

 

Moving forward, I think that Intel will maintain their existing TDP, continue to increase the core density, and make multiprocessor design disciplines a moot point. I come from the age of absolutely EXQUISITE engineering required  to create multiprocessor systems (mainframes on down), and now? All on a single piece of silicon. 

 

So, parallelism is the new goal. That being said, there are very few applications that scale well with increased parallelism (HPC being an notable exception, but that is a very different discipline). Not to get too technical, there is a multi-processor curve that most applications hit and when it hits, gains in performance can turn to losses with increased core counts. That is why (again, on the server side) virtual machine technology is so pervasive: chop up all those big symmetrical multi-processing systems into discrete 1-2 core virtual machines where things run more efficiently.

 

When I record what FSX is doing on my system I see the primary CPU (1, in my case, as I have affinity mask set to 14) totally maxed, while the other two cores are dipping up and down in cadence. The "cadence" is what I find worrisome about FSX on multiprocessor systems. Cadence typically indicates that if core 2 is "bored" it will steal work from the process queues on core 3. Core 3, being bored, will steal them back from core 2, and the lockstep goes back and forth. All the while, core 1 is doing all the heavy lifting. This lack of intrinsic parallelism in FSX is the limiting factor going forward on new Intel designs, including Haswell (the new architecture, or "toc") and beyond.

 

Anyway, I hope I haven't stripped too many syncros here, and I welcome input from the "PC" side of the house. 

 

JKH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Anyway, I hope I haven't stripped too many syncros here, and I welcome input from the "PC" side of the house. 
 
JKH

 

Thank you for the detailed overview of the various issues surrounding multicore/multiprocessor.  I am not much of an engineer but I sense making software to optimize server functions to take better advantage of parallelism might be easier than optimizing for something like flight simulation, but I don't know enough to be sure.  Have you tried looking to see how your non-primary cores behave using XPlane 64 bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the detailed overview of the various issues surrounding multicore/multiprocessor.  I am not much of an engineer but I sense making software to optimize server functions to take better advantage of parallelism might be easier than optimizing for something like flight simulation, but I don't know enough to be sure.  Have you tried looking to see how your non-primary cores behave using XPlane 64 bit?

Heya Noel, 

 

   Um, no.

 

   I am afeared of trying XPlane - I finally got FSX to run right, and got the right airplanes, scenery, and utilities. I originally flew freeware aircraft, but the payware stuff is soooo nice, and made me aware of the concept of "flying an aircraft" - flight planning, starting cold and dark, and basically running a flight from takeoff to landing in real time. [Note: Mister Cattaneo, Craig Richardson, and other freeware aircraft are in a class by themselves]. And now I have UTX, and GEX, and REX, and a serious (I mean SERIOUS) addiction for Orbx stuff...  :)

 

   I can say that the crash analysis guys that created and perfected LSDyna (used by pretty much every auto manufacturer) and the HPC community have gotten multicore/multisystem parallel programming down cold, so maybe the folks at Prepar3D or Xplane can learn to exploit these new Haswell multicore systems (FSX, alas, is at a dead-end). The main challenge is realizing what can run in parallel (I would say weather and terrain, since that is well established in the scientific community), what is strictly scalar (the aircraft), and creating a good maitre'd to synchronize them all. 

 

   I am optimistic, and as people like Orbx and other sim vendors create Prepar3D offerings in parallel (pun totally intended), things will only get better.

 

JKH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haztronic, on 07 May 2013 - 03:26 AM, said:

What kind of fps could u get at 7.1ghz in fsx say in the ngx?

If, you are at 4.5 now, and get 30 frames per second.

 

7.1 would give you 48 frames per second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...