http://www.ocaholic.ch/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1123&page=14

 

Quote :

"Having a closer look at the results we gathered while testing eight different games and two different benchmarks with two different presets, we see that the Core i7-4770K, with our "low-preset" is on average 6.4 percent faster than the Core i7-2600K.

Switching to our "high-preset" makes the Core i7-4770K's become 1.1 percent quicker than the Core i7-2600K.

Overclocking the Core i7-4770K to 4.5 GHz makes the performance with our "low-preset" go up by 11 percent but when it comes to the high-preset the increase in performance is only 1 percent.

 

Regarding the Core i7-2600K the situation is similar: 8.5 percent gain with "low-preset" and 1.3 percent with "high-preset".

 

What's quite interesting to see is how the wattage of our test system increased while maintaining 4.5 GHz stably.

The 4770K needed 40 percent more power and in case of the 2600K the increase was "only" 17 percent.

 

If you bought a Core i7-2600K a while back, then we can tell you without the shadow of a doubt, that there is absolutely no need to get rid of it and replace it with a Core i7-4770K.

 

From a gaming performance point of view it really doesn't matter which of the two CPU's you have in your system. Should you actually want to upgrade your gaming PC, then don't go for a new CPU in this case, you should rather choose a new graphics card."

 

 

 

 

If you bought a Core i7-2600K a while back, then we can tell you without the shadow of a doubt, that there is absolutely no need to get rid of it and replace it with a Core i7-4770K.

 

Still use my 2600K. Works great. Not planning to upgrade for another couple years (Skylake, next major architecture after Haswell). 

2700K is even a hair better!

I used to build new computers every 2 years, but this time, I went with doing little upgrades more frequently, over big upgrades every couple years. Skylake should have a much bigger reason to upgrade. Least for me:

 

Sandy Bridge: PCIe 2.0, DDR3, SATA 3/6Gbps

 

Skylake: PCIe 4.0, DDR4, SATA Express (16 Gbps, I think), much improved IPC, as well as do more work with less cores (eg. the work of a 8 core Haswell-E (non-HT) could be done with a 4-6 core Skylake system. Similar performance. Just an analogy) 

For the hard core twitch master gamer, it's the GPU that make the difference, which is something that the linked article points out indirectly: as you increase eye-candy the CPU matters less and less.  Can or should this be applied to FSX?  IMHO spending a little time browsing the FSXMark11 topic will yield a far more FSX relevant 2600k/4770k comparison.

For the hard core twitch master gamer, it's the GPU that make the difference, which is something that the linked article points out indirectly: as you increase eye-candy the CPU matters less and less. Can or should this be applied to FSX? IMHO spending a little time browsing the FSXMark11 topic will yield a far more FSX relevant 2600k/4770k comparison.

In FXSMark11 topic pc's with a 2500/2600/2700k already running FSX for years are being compared to updated pc's running FSX just for a few days/weeks/months.

 

Every time you reinstall FSX it runs smoother because less addons are installed in the beginning. Over the time being extra addons for FSX and mostly also other software is being installed and bit by bit the performance drops...

In FXSMark11 topic pc's with a 2500/2600/2700k already running FSX for years are being compared to updated pc's running FSX just for a few days/weeks/months.

 

Every time you reinstall FSX it runs smoother because less addons are installed in the beginning. Over the time being extra addons for FSX and mostly also other software is being installed and bit by bit the performance drops...

Sorry but that's actually incorrect so long as FSXMark 11 is run properly as per the instructions. It should be done on a fresh install of FSX with identical settings used across systems.

 

Mine was run on fresh installs with instructions followed to the T for both my 2600K and 4770K. My 4.5Ghz 4770K outperforms my 4.9Ghz 2600K.

If both are tested on a fresh install than indeed it is correct.

 

But who would reinstall Windows , needed programs , then FSX and then test it with FSXMark11 on a system already running FSX ....and then start rebuilding a newer system and do all that work all over again... ? ? ...

 

If the 4770k in 8 games is only 1-2% faster than the 2600k than suddenly in FSX you will not get a lot of fps extra...

 

 

Still use my 2600K. Works great. Not planning to upgrade for another couple years (Skylake, next major architecture after Haswell). 

 

I just built a 2700K machine about 5 months ago and have just about wrapped up my full re-install with all addons and it performs beautifully. I haven't even overclocked it and have no problems getting 25+ FPS in most of the bad areas like JFK, SEA, etc, with heavy weather, AI and addon airports with birds like the T7 and NGX. I can only imagine how much better it will get when I finally get to the overclock phase and go from the stock speed to over 4ghz.

 

The only thing I may change in the future is my GTX670 FTW if I go to P3D since it apparently makes better use of a higher end GPU, but for FSX the 670 cuts it fine.

De best I did since years : 3 weeks ago I added an extra GTX680 to my sytem and put the cards in SLI.

 

In cockpitview en 2d cockpit ( without instruments ) my fps went up a whopping 40% !

 

( I have a 737 home cockpit, so no need for the VC ).

If both are tested on a fresh install than indeed it is correct.

 

But who would reinstall Windows , needed programs , then FSX and then test it with FSXMark11 on a system already running FSX ....and then start rebuilding a newer system and do all that work all over again... ? ? ...

 

If the 4770k in 8 games is only 1-2% faster than the 2600k than suddenly in FSX you will not get a lot of fps extra...

 

Well for me testing was completed straight after new builds/fresh windows install etc and 4770K comes out on top without a doubt.

 

Other games are not as CPU hungry as FSX and depend more on the GPU, this is the reason you don't see much difference in other games as it's more about the GPU there.

I remember reading a thread where a guy proved that having more PCIe bandwidth was able to increase his FPS by at least 20, when combined with a GTX 780, PCIe 3.0, as well as certain BufferPool settings. I don't have the page bookmarked, but it was on this forum. 

Well for me testing was completed straight after new builds/fresh windows install etc and 4770K comes out on top without a doubt.

 

Other games are not as CPU hungry as FSX and depend more on the GPU, this is the reason you don't see much difference in other games as it's more about the GPU there.

That is not correct.

As I wrote above adding a second GTX680 to my current system and using them in SLI gave me 40% more fps in the 2d cockpit and in spotplane view.

 

Also the extra performance gain with a 4770k compared to a 2600k is minimal.

Did you use the same type / speed of memory ?

Were the mobo's the same quality ?

Tweaks ? Etc.

That is not correct.

As I wrote above adding a second GTX680 to my current system and using them in SLI gave me 40% more fps in the 2d cockpit and in spotplane view.

Also the extra performance gain with a 4770k compared to a 2600k is minimal.

Did you use the same type / speed of memory ?

Were the mobo's the same quality ?

Tweaks ? Etc.

In the CPU bound parts of fsx you get nada fps with sli or titans 780ti x2 you name it.

You only gain fps with raw CPU power .

I tested 2700k, 3770k,4670k, 4770k, 4930k , fastest in fsx 4770k.

Gpu 670 680 690 titan 780 in CPU bound parts of fsx i have the same fps with a 670 as with titan in sli .

In the GPU bound part ( clouds) the titans in sli shine.

In the CPU bound parts of fsx you get nada fps with sli or titans 780ti x2 you name it.

You only gain fps with raw CPU power .

I tested 2700k, 3770k,4670k, 4770k, 4930k , fastest in fsx 4770k.

Gpu 670 680 690 titan 780 in CPU bound parts of fsx i have the same fps with a 670 as with titan in sli .

In the GPU bound part ( clouds) the titans in sli shine.

I do not agree. Just tested with Aerosoft Schiphol and my fps went up almost 42% using SLI compared to a single card.

Clear skies...And if one scenery is cpu bound then it's Schiphol...

 

A year ago Word Not Allowed published simular results when using SLI.

Keep in mind I did not use the VC so SLI is not broken then..

For me using SLI was the best upgrade since years.

 

In the end for me it is not worth updating my system. Perhaps when Broadwell comes out..