Well I knew it was going to be out soon, but I guess I wasn't on top of the release ... didn't realize Intel's latest CPU was out for the masses yet.

 

CPU

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=19-117-404

 

Motherboard with X99

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132260&nm_mc=KNC-GoogleAdwords&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-_-pla-_-Intel+Motherboards-_-N82E16813132260&gclid=Cj0KEQjw-dSgBRDb0oOl9MzxqMEBEiQAkHqy-ZwD7ABlHf0sk9oOI5uAucnqV06zGF1I_lY1J9hDZvAaAr048P8HAQ

 

DDR4 Memory

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233696

 

Who's going to be the first to report back on performance with this setup?

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Can't tell you Rob.

 

I am building a new rig with a 5820k , MSI X99 Gaming board , GSkill Ripjaws 2400 mhz ( 4x 4 gb ) and 2x Titan.

The 5930 I considered first but it's the same as the 5820. Slightly higher clocked and capable of 2x 16 pci3 vs 1x 16 and 1x 8 pci .

 

However with my liquid cooled case I must be able to reach 4.4-4.8 Ghz.

And the pci3 difference will be of no issue for FDX, P3D or XP.

 

So no, how a 4960x would run I can't tell you.

But how an oc 5820k will run I can within a week...

 

 

So no, how a 4960x would run I can't tell you.
But how an oc 5820k will run I can within a week...

 

I think you mean 5960X not 4960X?  But please do report back in a week.   The 3.0Ghz speed of the 5960X is a concern for me but it's an X so hopefully has plenty of overclocking potential.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Strewth, those X99 motherboards aren't cheap, are they?

 

gb.

My bad. Indeed I meant the 5960X.

 

As you know FSX and P3D need a fast main thread and it uses just 1 core for that.  All other cores are used for the terrain.

 

Imho the 5960X clocked at 4.6Ghz will not be much faster than a 5820K clocked at the same speed..

But the difference in price is a lot. 

Probably the 5820k can be clocked higher than the 5960X. 

 

The world record on the 5820k is 4.95 GHz on air. On nitrogen its  5.45 ghz.

If I can achieve 4.6-4.8  GHz with my liquid cooling system that would be good enough for me.

Best not to get an X99 board yet, as some are said to release smoke and burn the CPU.

Don't know about that.

It was reported about 1 Asus X99 mobo.

 

Mine is a MSI X99 Gaming 7..

Don't know about that.

It was reported about 1 Asus X99 mobo.

 

Mine is a MSI X99 Gaming 7..

 

MSI boards are affected as well.

 

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=msi_x99_fail&num=1

Thanks for the link.

I will contact the vendor.

 

However I do not have the X99 SLI mobo.

  The initial tests done by hardware canucks, of the 5960x show rather mediocre results, at least, in my opinion. 

   Quoted from HardwareCanucks.com

   "This program once again puts the onus on the GPU but it also gives higher marks to higher core count processors which is slightly erroneous. As can be seen by the actual in-game results, clock speeds have more to do with in-game performance than core count.

Speaking of clock speeds, they are what ultimately leaves the i7-5960X flat footed. Intel’s latest CPU just can’t compete with their own Haswell chips and Z97 motherboards when using a single GPU and this will likely carry over into multi GPU domains as well. The current crop of games doesn’t take advantage of more than six concurrent threads so most of the i7-5960X’s potential goes to waste."

 

  Jazz

Jazz , I know.

 

However I wanted 2600K performance on 6 cores ( see my topic )  

The 5820 is slightly faster with 1 core, but I will have 5 terrain threads, compared to 3 at the moment.  

I'll stick with my 4 core 4790K at 4.5ghz. I've went the 8 core route before with AMD and it didnt help performance any. Plus my whole build cost less than just the CPU listed above.

Peltier is the best way to really get a CPU cool ... but boy do they release A LOT of heat and you really need a separate PSU to run them.  I prefer water cooling because it keeps the PC quiet and is relatively easy to implement.

 

If an game/sim scales more than one core, it should scale X cores, it would not make sense for developers to cap the threading to just 6 cores when more are available.  So more cores will always help when it comes to P3D ... however I agree the main synchronization thread is the key to bringing it all together.  But CPU efficiency isn't entirely about clock cycles ... it's about how much it can it get done is those clock cycles ... be it cache efficiency, DDR4 efficiency, chipset efficiency, overall latency, etc. etc.

 

So no one with one yet using it with P3D?

 

Cheers, Rob.

I am also interested in the results, will a 5930k @ 4.4 w/ DDR4 outperform a 4790k @ 4.8 w/ DDR3?

Real question is can the DDR4 make up for the lower clocked speed difference?

Anyone have this new system yet to try.

I've got a 5960x, X99 board, and quad channel 16GB of DDR4 (2133) clocked at 4.5GHz turbo 4 cores and 4.4GHz turbo 8 cores (HT disabled).  Haven't had time to test in P3D yet but I expect average FPS to be down a bit compared to the 4.8GHz 4770k this setup replaces.  The benefit is the long-term usability, massive texture loading performance increase, and higher minimum FPS due to more cores to run other apps.