Sign in to follow this  
MarkW

Intel CPU's for 2016

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

It all looks very interesting. Difficult to say though at this stage which processor if any would be a good option for FSX/P3D.

 

I assume Skylake S will be the same socket as current Skylake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 10ghz cpu with the architecture of skylake is what Flight Sim needs

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Kaby Lake is not to end of year and Broardwell E, expensive and does FSX/P3D really use more than four cores? :sad:

 

gb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel playing games with its customers, just like thousands of corporations out there- ie, The Iphone! Every 6 to 9 months heres comes the next big thing, yeah right! Intel knows very well how far their technology can push a processor. However, to keep making millions of $$$ for the executives' and their buddies' luxury, they keep bring out their "discoveries" little by little, making the people think "Oh, my a new chip, a new version with never before seen power." Aha, sure.

 

Or, do you really think Intel is not able to build an 8ghz or 15ghz CPU? OF COURSE THEY CAN!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err... okay then.

 

No such thing as technological advancement... they can just do it all now.

 

If you say so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel playing games with its customers, just like thousands of corporations out there- ie, The Iphone! Every 6 to 9 months heres comes the next big thing, yeah right! Intel knows very well how far their technology can push a processor. However, to keep making millions of $$$ for the executives' and their buddies' luxury, they keep bring out their "discoveries" little by little, making the people think "Oh, my a new chip, a new version with never before seen power." Aha, sure.

Or, do you really think Intel is not able to build an 8ghz or 15ghz CPU? OF COURSE THEY CAN!!!

Honestly I don't think they can,the issue facing CPU speed today is heat and voltage. In order to get your cpu running faster you have to pump in for voltage that voltage creates heat,which breaks the chip down. Even with liquid nitrogen cooling the fastest CPUs are maxing out at around 8ghz. You also have the voltage wall because pushing a chip above 1.5v for extended periods of time will cause degradation. This electrical and thermal wall is why CPU speeds haven't increased for about 10 years instead we add more cores and make refinements on architecture to make them better as processing information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upgrade every couple years is good rule, but Intel only thing I pay attnetion too what performance the cpu gives me. The CEO could be Brenie Madoff or Gordon Gecko long as technology advances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Performance and features. Sometimes performance only increases a tad, but the platform offers other benefits that are useful.

 

But no, manufactures can't at all suddenly give us 15GHz and awesome IPC if they want to, that suggestion is just plain wrong I'm afraid and smacks of a conspiracy theory, and I hate conspiracy theory.

 

There are numerous technical hurdles that make that rather hard. Heat and voltage is one of them as David said, but the other is transistor size, the transistors that make up the CPU need to shrink down in size in order to increase IPC. When that happens quantum mechanical effects take place and the signal jumps across the components of the chip when it shouldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intel playing games with its customers, just like thousands of corporations out there- ie, The Iphone! Every 6 to 9 months heres comes the next big thing, yeah right! Intel knows very well how far their technology can push a processor. However, to keep making millions of $$$ for the executives' and their buddies' luxury, they keep bring out their "discoveries" little by little, making the people think "Oh, my a new chip, a new version with never before seen power." Aha, sure.

Or, do you really think Intel is not able to build an 8ghz or 15ghz CPU? OF COURSE THEY CAN!!!

I suggest you take a physiscs 101 course...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or even cooking classes.

 

But, there is a valid point. Corporations know very well what they can develop without waiting.  But, remember $$$ is more important to them than providing a better product. Hence, the gradual release of "new versions."

 

Yes, there are technological advances, such as a Nokia 1200 vs a Samsung Galaxy. However, A Samsung Galaxy 2 vs a 6? No advancement, just  bit more icons, colors, a stronger processor. etc, etc. Same with the I-phone, cars, graphic cards. Or an F-15 vs an SU35.. or an F-16 vs an SU 27 etc. etc. etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My PC is 3 years old..i7-3770K OCed to 4.5Ghz. and its reasonably ok.. for P3D. with the recent improvements from LM 3.335 for cloud performance.. I am ok

 

 

With these small micro improvements from Intel.. I think I'll be ok to wait for another 2 years before upgrading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that single thread performance gains have not been that impressive. Since P3d loads one core heavily, every Intel tick or tock improves performance only slightly. I'm not saying that the Passmark benchmark is the be-all end-all word on CPU performance, but take a look at these single thread results:

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Kaby Lake is not to end of year and Broardwell E, expensive and does FSX/P3D really use more than four cores? :sad:

 

gb.

Heya Gboz,

 

When I am flying GA aircraft around PNW and similar on my OC 3770K with hyper-threading enabled, P3D v3.2, I see all eight threads running pretty much full tilt, with "system" busy in the 80+ percent busy range. It is the terrain processing that loads up the cores, and the terrain engine is definitely multi-threaded. You can see this yourself by turning on Task Manager, Performance, and setting refresh rate to Slow. Let everything settle. Start up P3D and what those cores/threads become saturated during terrain loading. I have P3D installed on an SSD, so that may allow better utilization/CPU saturation, but it is clear that terrain loading is multi-threaded.

 

JKH

 

JKH 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're correct John, P3d will use as many cores as available to load ground texture tiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still , there's only so much to load and you are limited to what your disk or SSD can feed it. Ive always thought there is a diminishing return with 8 or more core chips. Id rather have less cores and a faster mhz.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that for sure, Steve. I remember Rob Ainscough on his hyper-threaded 6 core/12 thread system running all those logical processors pretty hard!

 

That being said, I think the next system I put together will use the upcoming Broadwell 6900K with 8 cores, 16 threads. At roughly a thousand bucks, it is a LOT less expensive than the 10 core/20-thread version! And if I can get the same 4.2GHz that I am seeing today on the outdated 3770K I think it *should* be best of both worlds. 

 

A project for when I retire next Spring!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That being said, I think the next system I put together will use the upcoming Broadwell 6900K with 8 cores, 16 threads. At roughly a thousand bucks, it is a LOT less expensive than the 10 core/20-thread version! And if I can get the same 4.2GHz that I am seeing today on the outdated 3770K I think it *should* be best of both worlds. 

 

 

 

6900K = A massive £887.

6950X = An enormous £1398.

6700K = A very reasonable £259.

 

I would then ask myself a question. If Broadwell E and it's numerous cores is indeed advantageous in the sim [and I still doubt it] HOW advantageous is it?

 

Does it really make sense to spend a HUGE £798 more or an enormous £1139 more for subjective opinions like "oh that looks a bit smoother, or "guess what guys I get 3% more frames than with Skylake"? 

 

Is that good value for money, a decent bang for the buck? Is it really such a huge advantage to have more cores and a bigger cache? A big enough advantage that it's worth spending mega bucks?True, for some people money is no object, £1000, £2000, £3000 means nothing to them. But for 99.9% of us it would be a crazy investment. 

 

I'm playing devils advocate here to a degree, but the point is, that before those of us replete with cash spend tons of money on a hugely expensive CPU, for what most would deem very small gains, we first need to see REAL numbers. Real numbers generated by objective means. That means some kind of objective metric that definitively proves that there's a worthwhile gain. That means comparing systems with the proper utility [that I don't believe exists] and elimination all variables between the competing Skylake and Broadwell E systems. 

 

In another thread, someone posted that in another forum Broadwell E owners are posting "better numbers".This statement means nothing for the reasons above. Subjective opinion, no objective metric and failure to eliminate variables just isn't good enough when it comes to HUGE additional expenditure on an insanely expensive CPU.

 

Believe it or not, I could afford the 6950X. But no, I went for the 6700K. No way would I pay such a huge sum for, at this stage hypothetical, and ultimately if confirmed, small gains. Just my opinion, if others wish to spend their money that way, then of course they are free to do so. I'm just trying to apply a little perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


subjective opinions like "oh that looks a bit smoother, or "guess what guys I get 3% more frames than with Skylake"?

 

You do know your audience, yes?    

 

:lol:

 

Definitely agree that the two additional cores for the 6950 are not worth the uplift! That would be like buying a Koenigsegg Agera-RS instead of a Enzo Ferrari. Oh... wait... never mind... :Tounge:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know your audience, yes?

 

 

 

I do, and even for we crazy simmers, who spend a lot of dosh chasing performance that gamers would expect from their systems out of the box... 798 quid or 1139 EXTRA is a real eye opener for mediocre gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just dreaming here but it would be cool if AMD came out with a FSX specific CPU for us simmers that somehow fooled FSX that it was an equivalent to 7GHz.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the point is, that before those of us replete with cash spend tons of money on a hugely expensive CPU, for what most would deem very small gains, we first need to see REAL numbers. Real numbers generated by objective means. That means some kind of objective metric that definitively proves that there's a worthwhile gain.

 

 

Exactly, and I would even include (with a stretch) the continuing viability in FS of super fast Sandy Bridges, as being shown in other threads...

 

"Hyper-jumps" in CPU technology will come BUT insofar as flight driven performance in the past few years is concerned, it is pretty much "Impulse" driven.

 

It would be good to have "real change" (for a change) on the core clock count to equal the realized dramatic jumps on the GPU side.

 

Kind regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having a 7 GHz CPU only gets you so far. You still need a GPU that's fast enough to render all the stuff the CPU is sending it. As well as a PCIe bus that's fast enough to send things from the CPU to the GPU. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this