Important advice between the i7s 6700K or 5930K !

[westman 257]

G.Skill Trident-Z 4266mhz cl19

And corsair kingston gone follow, begining of next year mainstream Skylake memspeed ( as Haswell 2400 cl9-10) gone be 3600-3800 cl16-cl18

 

Dont buy mems like Ripjaws4 optimated for X99, skylake dont like 4x4 x99 mems

[Zoho30 7]

Some suggest 5930k, other suggest 6700k !!!!!

 

Really i'm get narrowed between them !!!!!

 

6 cores vs 4 cores, i think it will make a difference !!!!!!

 

I'm really confused !!!!

[HamSammich 17]

In my experience, the six-core helps.

 

I can set an affinity mask to rope-off an entire core, as well as half of the other five, which still allows P3D to have five HT cores to play on, and not get bogged down with overhead. It also gives my Majestic Q400 it's own full core-- along with any other ancillary stuff I'm running.

 

Bottom line, compared to the 4.8 4790K I also have: Roughly similar framerates, but a vastly smoother experience. I find the sim can load textures farther out, with less hitches and stutters. Less scenery popping. IOW, easier to forget it's a sim.

 

YMMV. Either way will be ample power. We're talking nitpicks here.

[Zoho30 7]

In my experience, the six-core helps.

 

I can set an affinity mask to rope-off an entire core, as well as half of the other five, which still allows P3D to have five HT cores to play on, and not get bogged down with overhead. It also gives my Majestic Q400 it's own full core-- along with any other ancillary stuff I'm running.

 

Bottom line, compared to the 4.8 4790K I also have: Roughly similar framerates, but a vastly smoother experience. I find the sim can load textures farther out, with less hitches and stutters. Less scenery popping. IOW, easier to forget it's a sim.

 

YMMV. Either way will be ample power. We're talking nitpicks here.

Yes, i need that kind of push,,, i thing i'm leaning toward the 5930k....

 

What about the advanteges of win 10 which 6700k utilize of ????

 

What about the DDR4 ???? does the 5930K support it????? If yes, so whats the maximum frequencies ?????

 

 

What about direct X12 which the 6700k waiting for ???

 

Also what kind of six core u have ????

 

What about 5820k ???? Or should i still on 5930K ????!!!!

[HamSammich 17]

Save the money and get a 5820K

 

They require DDR4, all of them

 

DX12 is not s factor. Neither FSX, P3D nor X-Plane uses it now or is likely to soon.

 

Above all-DO NOT WORRY TOO MUCH.

 

Just fly! We're talking about 10-percent differences here!

[Zoho30 7]

Look this Quote :

 

Good......

look; 4 cores never be like 6 cores, but when comes to P3D/FSX it depends on the 1 core speed/Clock....

This is why all suggestions turn to 6700K...

Take your time in researching, this will change you idea.

Quote :

 

 

The way you choose is Single Core performance. This will make the difference in both sims .

 

Chris.

 

 

 

!!!!!!!!!

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,

 

I run a full flight deck (FDS-737NG) and I run 4790K's, great CPU.  I'm not purchasing a skylake chip (no need with the 4790K) until they get to the Skylake K.  Save your cash, the difference between the chips and Flight Simulation is negligible. Get yourself a 4790K, a good SSD and fast RAM.

 

Some of my videos with the 4790K, Titan X and an SSD.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqTiCN9u_pvyU9NTqhtgJ9w

[Zoho30 7]

Also +interest mike.

 

Here is my home cockpit

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AGcAf6OZvA4

 

How many PC u use ????

 

 

Thats why i have idea of getting 6 cores cpu, need maximum performance with my home cockpit with all these monitors and USBs...also at high settings as can as possible.

 

Also as can as CPU can perform.

 

Its single PC, so i try to find the right choice (if 6 core cpu will).

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,

 

Right now I'm running three computers, computer one runs P3D with my exterior visual displays at (3840x1200). Computers two and three run the Sim-Avionics software package, if you're not familiar with Sim-Avionics... it's the hardware/Software interface program. My frames are over 100 away from third party airports, it drops into the 70's at third party airports like FSDreamteam, FSFlightBeam, Flytampa and Aerosoft.

 

But, more important than very nice FPS... The sim is smooth.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi,

 

The problem with the tests you show, don't include Flight Simulation which is an entirely different beast. Would be nice to see these side-by-side tests utilizing FSX and P3D.

 

Not sure if the 1% to 10% is actually true between the chips, but if it is. A 1% increase at 30 FPS is 0.3, at 10% increase its 3. Now if you're at 100 FPS with a 1% increase it's 1 and at 10% it's only 10 and at 100FPS 10 means nothing. Another thing, the 4700K RAM they use is 1600, why not use something closer to the 2133 that they are using in the 6700 setup?.

 

Why spend extra cash on a chip that offers so little performance boost.

 

 

 

 

In most situations, the i7 6700K should be anywhere from 1% to 10% faster than the i7 4790K. In some applications (like Linpack) we saw a significant decrease in performance but at the moment we believe that is an issue with the software rather than an actual performance problem.

We saw some of the most significant performance improvements in Lightroom and Photoshop. Most of the Lightroom actions we tested saw a small 1.5-3% increase in performance, but the 15% increase in performance when exporting images is very significant. In Photoshop, some of the effects we tested saw even greater performance improvements - up to 16.7 percent! Even better, the move to DDR4 RAM means that you do not need to use the slower (for Photoshop at least) socket 2011 CPUs if you need more than 32GB of system RAM since the Skylake-S platform supports up to 64GB of RAM.

Overall, Skylake-S as a platform is very, very good. Most of the specification changes are pretty subtle (with the exception of the move to DDR4) but we were impressed with the lower power draw and temperature of the i7 6700K compared to the i7 4790K. Unless you are a professional Photoshop or Lightroom user, the performance improvements likely won't merit upgrading from Haswell to Skylake-S, but if you are in the market for a new system we see little reason to not use Skylake-S.

[fppilot 4,371]

The problem with the tests you show, don't include Flight Simulation which is an entirely different beast. Would be nice to see these side-by-side tests utilizing FSX and P3D.

 

+1

 

 

Why spend extra cash on a chip that offers so little performance boost, again save your cash for other flight sim items.

 

+1 again

 

Michael, you are on a very good roll here. Don't stop..

 

Of course when it comes to gaming I am exclusively tied to flight sims. But honestly, I have never considered my flight sims as gaming!

[Slayer 190]

There is a big difference in the amount of cache in an extreme processor vs a budget chip + the amount of memory channels and PCIE lanes available. But if the net performance difference is 2 FPS take the extra $400 and buy some hardware like Mike said.

 

If you only use FSX/P3D then go the cheaper route but if you play the latest games as well then go higher end.

[Mike_CFII_MEL 789]

Hi Steve,

 

I've chased hardware update after hardware update all through the development of flight simulation. I started in 1985, the last Extreme Processor I purchased was the I7 980X at over $1,000.00 when new, I see it's still selling at over $300.00 on Amazon.  It was NOT worth the price in upgrade and I will NEVER again (unless something major happens in chip development) purchase an extreme processor for FS. The cost/benefit does not justify the purchase for flight simulation. This was a VERY costly (I was only purchasing extreme processors for F/S) lesson on my part.

 

I've wasted a tremendous amount of disposable cash on Extreme Processors, keep in mind I only run my desk top systems for Flight Simulation. I have a main computer I use for everything else.

 

 

There is a big difference in the amount of cache in an extreme processor vs a budget chip + the amount of memory channels and PCIE lanes available. But if the net performance difference is 2 FPS take the extra $400 and buy some hardware like Mike said.

 

If you only use FSX/P3D then go the cheaper route but if you play the latest games as well then go higher end.

[westman 257]

Flight sim is like all other apps or benchmarks you most tune your hardware to suit it.

Its all abaout effency of your system to the specific app.

 

The discuss of 4790k-6700k is in flight sim the 6700k is up to 10-12% faster than the fastest 4790k system

 

Haswell is Haswell 4790k or 4770k dosent matter basic the same CPU.

You get a 15% from gain from 4,4 to 5ghz on mems a gain of 10% from 1600-2800.

 

With fast mems on a 6700k the difference is approx 12% to the 4790k

 

I have a fligtsim based on Prosim , 737 cockpit

 

Quite experianced Overclocker, at Hwbot ranked 40 of 70k inkluded the RD guys from vendors.

In the Extreme no Pro,s number 12 worldwide

 

Have very good backup from some vendors RD- team

 

Today a prefer the 6700k for the sim , you can take 5960x , Fx8350,2700k , 4790k Its up to you.

 

If you not Overclock , the performance gain is free

[martin-w 3,235]

@Zoho30
 

Quote
Some suggest 5930k, other suggest 6700k !!!!!

Really i'm get narrowed between them !!!!!

6 cores vs 4 cores, i think it will make a difference !!!!!!

I'm really confused !!!!

Why don't you ask on the P3D forum? In regard to P3D they are the guys that know. The thread I saw advocated Skylake and played down any advantage of CPU's with more cores. But I'm no expert on P3D, so you must determine the veracity of that for yourself.
 

Mike_CFII_MEL, on 18 Sept 2015 - 11:44 PM, said:
Hi,

I'm not purchasing a skylake chip (no need with the 4790K) until they get to the Skylake K. Save your cash, the difference between the chips and Flight Simulation is negligible. Get yourself a 4790K, a good SSD and fast RAM.

Mike, the Skylake K is out now. That's the chip that's been released. Here in the UK there's a £60 difference between the 4790K and the 6700K. The decision is whether 10% extra performance, PLUS all of the other advantages of Skylake are worth it for you.

 

Quote
Why spend extra cash on a chip that offers so little performance boost.

You don't have to, it's your choice. For me, I have to build a new PC as my son is having my old machine. Spending an extra £60 for a Skylake CPU is a no brainer. If you have a relatively new system don't bother, if you are running an older rig and want to upgrade, seriously consider Skylake. If You NEED to build a new PC as I do, seriously consider Skylake.

And we may choose Skylake not just because it offers a performance boost "in some situations" that's modest, but because there are many other advantages to Skylake that might appeal. Like... faster RAM and higher RAM density, on-board M.2, U.2 capability, Qi Wireless Charging, NFC Express, M.2 Raid capability, USB 3.1 and more. It's not just about performance. If there's anything above that appeals to the potential purchaser, then maybe an extra 60 quid for Skylake is worth it.

It's worth remembering that not all of us are solely addicted to flight sim, many of us do much more with our PC's.

 

QuoteI will NEVER again (unless something major happens in chip development) purchase an extreme processor for FS. The cost/benefit does not justify the purchase for flight simulation. This was a VERY costly (I was only purchasing extreme processors for F/S) lesson on my part.

You can build a complete Skylake system for £1,139. You can buy motherboard 6600k CPU and ram for £474. 6700K ram and motherboard for £534. I'll leave you to convert to dollars. That's, not a fortune, and Skylake isn't an "extreme" processor.