From a 6700K to 7700K and... Surprise !

[joemiller 269]

Declaimer:  The following is a true experience and Not just an opinion.  If anyone would like to respond and/ or provide any advise, feedback, or suggestions.... I will gladly listen and try.

         Having build my last 3 computers with Intel's latest enthusiast CPUs, and noticing no improvement from 4.5Ghz to 5.0Ghz, I was adamant about jumping from 6700K to the latest 7700K. However, after reading tons of  " guys you need to get this chip, this will change your life forever" from our P3D community, I thought: "Damn, am I being left behind if I don't make the move.. everyone else is doing it- Everyone... well almost" 

AMD:

      With ADM's recent Ryzen line of chips released, I contested in several posts that according to online reviews and people's experience, they were/are about the same, with each other excelling in some areas against each other. But, again, since our P3D community claimed that Intel's 7700k is the "best the world has seen," well I decided to build a new system with an Intel's 7700K.. and guess what happened ?  (Surprise Surprise) 

And What happened (Please tell us) 

         Well, guess what? ......... Nothing!   Nothing, nothing, nothing better happened going from 6700K to 7700K. After all this time, money, and delidding the darn chip, no significant improvement noticed on P3D. I took it all the way to 5.1Ghz with an MSI 270 Gamming board M-7, and 16Gb of RAM @ 2800Mhz Latency 14, and an EGVA 1070 Graphics Card.

 I measure (test) how well things have improved by using P3D in the following manner: All graphic settings at 85%-95%, except traffic at 30% Hyperthreading= On (and Off), Sit at payware KSFO runway in VC PMDG 777 and/ or Aerosoft A321, ORBX N. CA, Aerosoft San Francisco, same weather (light winds, light clouds), at noon, (So, I use the exact same settings on both chips).

Results: (1) Intel 6700K with the above settings and conditions= 21fps (fluidity a bit lagging , but not terrible)

                (2) Intel  7700K  with the exact settings as above=   22-23fps (fluidity slightly, very slightly improved under a microscope)  (in fact betweeen 4.5Ghz and 5.1Ghz.. no improvement- Nada!)  (P.S, I have also tried many other payware airports and scenery-  and no significant improvement noticed between 6700k and 7700K @ similar clock speeds. 

 

So, ladies and gentlemen:  - Does this proves Intel has been- and continues- playing games by bringing  us just  a very minute improvement in every chip then lies to us that it's "the greatest the world has ever seen"  garbage-of-story Or,

                                               - Does this means I need a faster RAM than my current  CAS 14, 2800Mhz ?  Or,

                                               -  Does this means that we need (as I've stated 1,385 times before) at east a 6.5Ghz and above to finally see a significant improvement in P3D?  Or,

                                               - Does this means we can only wait and pray that AMD or another company comes along and bring us a true high performance affordable chip of maybe 6.0Ghz- 6.5Ghz?

                                               - Or, does  this means I need to lower my P3D settings at near FS2004 settings to see 30fps and no lagging (smooth fluidity) ? 

 

I repeat: "If anyone wants to provide any relevant helpful ideas, or advice, I will gladly listen and try. (Keep in mind, I don't fly default  a/c nor in default scenery-- only high quality add-ons) 

 

Joe

 

 

 

[strider1 575]

22 fps 

4K ? 1080P ?

What kind of frames do you get in XPX ?

[joemiller 269]

2 minutes ago, strider1 said:

22 fps 

4K ? 1080P ?

What kind of frames do you get in XPX ?

I use a 55 inch monitor @ 4K.  Resizing screen at lower resolution (1080P) and/ or screen size only saves a bit of VAS and gives me around 2 more fps. I moved completely  to P3D and lfet FSX behind-  no X-Plane.  No Invidia Inspector, and for AA I use P3d @ 4X  

[strider1 575]

I am using 43" 4k monitor. 30FPS locked in XPX in Los Angeles aria, high settings. 40+ in other arias ! My video cards is seeing it's age, 780GTX. Should see some improvements with a 1080 or a Vega ! You should give XPX a shot ! Demo is free ! A bit of a learning curve and it's different in a good way ! Lots of free stuff that rivals paid ADD-ONS in P3D.

 

[JamesIceland 14]

Hey Joe,

The FPS difference (1-2 FPS) between the 6700k and 7700k looks to be what would be expected as 5-10% (max) improvement - from the research I did before I upgraded I'm not sure that anyone (from YouTube to AVSim) said it was worth it to upgrade from a 6700k to 7700k - the difference is really marginal (and I wholeheartedly agree that Intel didn't exactly go all-out to improve their products).

There was even some discussion about whether it was worth it for me going from a 3930k to a 7700k - I think the main argument people have is that for today, as things stand, the 7700k is the best CPU to buy for P3D and FSX. Whether it is massively better than last years or those 5 years ago is a good point and one that can be answered with a "not really" - the developments in CPU technology have clearly been slow since my last upgrade which means that my 3930k could still perform pretty admirably in all the sims. I would say that if I had a CPU any later than a 3930k I would have been less inclined to upgrade as I have. I may even have taken the plunge with a Ryzen i.e. a 6-8 core jump.

I think the optimisations required are going to have to come from Lockheed Martin, whether that be them developing the platform so that it is really multi-core effective or otherwise. Maybe in a year or two, Ryzen 8 core CPU's will be the best options if more developers optimise for more cores. 

I am yet to test P3D on the new system. I'm likely waiting for v4. In general use though, with an NVME drive and fast RAM I'm noticing that the system is noticeably quicker in other tasks and games - and that's with using the same GPU from before (a GTX 780Ti) - I'll have the Gigabyte Aorus 1080 Ti by this evening so I look forward to seeing how it all performs from then. I have found that I can get to 5.1 Ghz after delidding with temps only at a max of 69c. That's with bench marking too - generally the temps are in the late 50's to early 60's when using the CPU and late 20's when not. That improvement alone over my old 3930k is massive - no more actively having to watch the temps at 4.3 Ghz! 

As Eric has pointed out above, it may be worth trying out X Plane too - I think 11 was released today. I have a spare SSD which I may put it onto until P3D v4 comes out and see how it compares to my old system. I would expect to see much better performance from a 7700k and GTX 1080 Ti vs my old 3930k and GTX 780 Ti.

James

[joemiller 269]

1 hour ago, strider1 said:

I am using 43" 4k monitor. 30FPS locked in XPX in Los Angeles aria, high settings. 40+ in other arias ! My video cards is seeing it's age, 780GTX. Should see some improvements with a 1080 or a Vega ! You should give XPX a shot ! Demo is free ! A bit of a learning curve and it's different in a good way ! Lots of free stuff that rivals paid ADD-ONS in P3D.

 

 

 

Those screen-shots look nice. I have not tried X-Plane. And, honestly I have such a large (and I mean large) amount of payware on P3D, that I enjoy a lot. If I were to move to another sim, I would devote 100% of my time, money, and efforts on it. I'm not currently ready to do that.  I have managed to configure and use P3D nicely; however, the biggest set back is VAS. What I do is I fly on the limit of performance settings which stills look very good... but again on the limit. Was hoping for a significant improvement from 7700K , but my goodness what a mess- what a waste of time and money!  I'm not a newbie at flight sim.. I know the tweaks and tricks of our hobby, but was really hoping for a  much better experience. 

Having said this.. I appreciate your input... Let's see where Lockheed Martin takes us... or else.... well... might need to try another sim some day.

[joemiller 269]

46 minutes ago, JamesHongKong said:

Hey Joe,

The FPS difference (1-2 FPS) between the 6700k and 7700k looks to be what would be expected as 5-10% (max) improvement - from the research I did before I upgraded I'm not sure that anyone (from YouTube to AVSim) said it was worth it to upgrade from a 6700k to 7700k - the difference is really marginal (and I wholeheartedly agree that Intel didn't exactly go all-out to improve their products).

There was even some discussion about whether it was worth it for me going from a 3930k to a 7700k - I think the main argument people have is that for today, as things stand, the 7700k is the best CPU to buy for P3D and FSX. Whether it is massively better than last years or those 5 years ago is a good point and one that can be answered with a "not really" - the developments in CPU technology have clearly been slow since my last upgrade which means that my 3930k could still perform pretty admirably in all the sims. I would say that if I had a CPU any later than a 3930k I would have been less inclined to upgrade as I have. I may even have taken the plunge with a Ryzen i.e. a 6-8 core jump.

I think the optimisations required are going to have to come from Lockheed Martin, whether that be them developing the platform so that it is really multi-core effective or otherwise. Maybe in a year or two, Ryzen 8 core CPU's will be the best options if more developers optimise for more cores. 

I am yet to test P3D on the new system. I'm likely waiting for v4. In general use though, with an NVME drive and fast RAM I'm noticing that the system is noticeably quicker in other tasks and games - and that's with using the same GPU from before (a GTX 780Ti) - I'll have the Gigabyte Aorus 1080 Ti by this evening so I look forward to seeing how it all performs from then. I have found that I can get to 5.1 Ghz after delidding with temps only at a max of 69c. That's with bench marking too - generally the temps are in the late 50's to early 60's when using the CPU and late 20's when not. That improvement alone over my old 3930k is massive - no more actively having to watch the temps at 4.3 Ghz! 

As Eric has pointed out above, it may be worth trying out X Plane too - I think 11 was released today. I have a spare SSD which I may put it onto until P3D v4 comes out and see how it compares to my old system. I would expect to see much better performance from a 7700k and GTX 1080 Ti vs my old 3930k and GTX 780 Ti.

James

James.. I totally agree with you. You have made some very intelligent points, as well. I'm sure you will enjoy your new system. Wish you the best.

As times passes,  we (the SIM community) have sub-consciously fall into a "let's build and tweak" hobby rather than flying most of the time. We seem to be more enticed at building a new system, and tweaking it, and see how it reacts.. rather than flying. Hence, so many people like myself look for every opportunity to go with the latest and "greatest" only to find out... IT IS NOT THAT GREAT! However, manufactures out there have noticed the trend and have taken full advantage ($$$$) of this. Let's hope some day a good chip comes out... will it be from AMD, Intel, or someone else? Well, only time will tell. 

[JamesIceland 14]

45 minutes ago, joemiller said:

James.. I totally agree with you. You have made some very intelligent points, as well. I'm sure you will enjoy your new system. Wish you the best.

As times passes,  we (the SIM community) have sub-consciously fall into a "let's build and tweak" hobby rather than flying most of the time. We seem to be more enticed at building a new system, and tweaking it, and see how it reacts.. rather than flying. Hence, so many people like myself look for every opportunity to go with the latest and "greatest" only to find out... IT IS NOT THAT GREAT! However, manufactures out there have noticed the trend and have taken full advantage ($$$$) of this. Let's hope some day a good chip comes out... will it be from AMD, Intel, or someone else? Well, only time will tell. 

I think we are quite unique as a community that's for sure - I mean we are asking desktop computers to simulate an entire planet, often detailed to the street level, with dynamic lighting and weather, AI air traffic and complex airport and aircraft add ons AND effects and so on and so on. Current hardware is optimised for, and capable of rendering and generating a "large" world (e.g. GTA 5) but it's nothing compared to what we are asking our P3D's and X Planes to do. That is why I expect to get 120FPS in GTA 5 vs 30 smooth in P3D. The only similarity I found with gaming was when I installed LSPDFR into GTA 5 - it was a world of add ons and modding that was worse than FSX! You think we have issues with stability? Try putting some of those mods together and then try to get smooth performance and no crashes! At least with VAS we know when a crash is coming!

One thing I have never been though in all my time in P3D and FSX is an FPS watcher. I have always looked  at the smoothness of the sim and been looking to avoid the stutters. I remember one bit of experimenting that I did in P3D v2 where I had everything running really smoothly and I thought my FPS must be amazing - I went and checked FPS and it was 20-25! Yet there have been times in v3 when I have had 40-50 FPS it hasn't been as smooth. For me, that is the key for immersion in our sims - if we can get them looking nice and running smoothly then all is good. It is possible for us to do that with our hardware albeit we don't see the performance level of the top games released.

It sounds like that's changing with the likes of Aerofly but my understanding is that compared to the simulation levels we are asking for from P3D, X Plane or FSX (i.e. the amount of add ons etc) it is a much more streamlined sim. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with developing a sim that is really good out of the box so that add ons have some space to work in!

[joemiller 269]

26 minutes ago, JamesHongKong said:

I think we are quite unique as a community that's for sure - I mean we are asking desktop computers to simulate an entire planet, often detailed to the street level, with dynamic lighting and weather, AI air traffic and complex airport and aircraft add ons AND effects and so on and so on. Current hardware is optimised for, and capable of rendering and generating a "large" world (e.g. GTA 5) but it's nothing compared to what we are asking our P3D's and X Planes to do. That is why I expect to get 120FPS in GTA 5 vs 30 smooth in P3D. The only similarity I found with gaming was when I installed LSPDFR into GTA 5 - it was a world of add ons and modding that was worse than FSX! You think we have issues with stability? Try putting some of those mods together and then try to get smooth performance and no crashes! At least with VAS we know when a crash is coming!

One thing I have never been though in all my time in P3D and FSX is an FPS watcher. I have always looked  at the smoothness of the sim and been looking to avoid the stutters. I remember one bit of experimenting that I did in P3D v2 where I had everything running really smoothly and I thought my FPS must be amazing - I went and checked FPS and it was 20-25! Yet there have been times in v3 when I have had 40-50 FPS it hasn't been as smooth. For me, that is the key for immersion in our sims - if we can get them looking nice and running smoothly then all is good. It is possible for us to do that with our hardware albeit we don't see the performance level of the top games released.

It sounds like that's changing with the likes of Aerofly but my understanding is that compared to the simulation levels we are asking for from P3D, X Plane or FSX (i.e. the amount of add ons etc) it is a much more streamlined sim. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with developing a sim that is really good out of the box so that add ons have some space to work in!

Yes, very true.. I used to chase FPS back with FS2004 and FSX.. Came P3D that changed. Yes, I still use it as a reference point; however, even at "low"  frames like 25, P3D can be very smooth in most areas. Going back to your analogy, I guess this is why we don't consider this a "game" but rather a simulation of flying surrounded by millions of variables that compose the entire experience... And, for this we spend literally thousands of dollars to make it work. 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

Joe, I'm sorry to say that your expectations going into this endeavor were unrealistic.  You had a fast chip before, you upgraded to one that is only slightly faster.  I'm not sure who gave you the impression that a 7700k is light years beyond a 6700k, it's rather silly considering they're the same micro-architecture.  Kaby Lake is Skylake that's been optimized for clockspeeds and that is the *only* difference between them.  Going from 4.5GHz to 5.1GHz should've netted you some frame rate gain, although nothing miraculous as let's be honest it's only a 13% difference so you really only could've seen at most a 13% gain in performance.  

I notice you're only running 2800MHz RAM though, you're definitely leaving some performance on the table by doing that but just like the CPU upgrade you've just done, don't expect miracles.  Another 10% perhaps.  It's possible that you haven't noticed any gains because the CPU is already memory-starved by using slower memory than it really wants.  I run 3600MHz RAM on my 5.2GHz 7700k and it definitely is faster than any chip I've owned previously when it comes to flight sim.  

[martin-w 3,234]

Quote

"after reading tons of  " guys you need to get this chip, this will change your life forever"

 

Who on Earth told you that. Max is absolutely right. No one in their right mind would claim that an upgrade from a 6700K to a 7700K would result in miraculous improvements. The only reason I can think of to upgrade from a 6700K to a 7700K is if you happen to be desperate to obtain all the other features that came with the new platform, for example Optane. Or perhaps you have tons of money and like testing new kit.

To be honest, if you had scanned this forum after Kaby Lake was released, you would have found a plethora of posts with all the information you needed to determine that.

In fact, I don't recall any new platform that has been so incredible as to justify and upgrade from the previous platform. Don't know if Max does.

[TechguyMaxC 516]

53 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

Who on Earth told you that. Max is absolutely right. No one in their right mind would claim that an upgrade from a 6700K to a 7700K would result in miraculous improvements. The only reason I can think of to upgrade from a 6700K to a 7700K is if you happen to be desperate to obtain all the other features that came with the new platform, for example Optane. Or perhaps you have tons of money and like testing new kit.

To be honest, if you had scanned this forum after Kaby Lake was released, you would have found a plethora of posts with all the information you needed to determine that.

In fact, I don't recall any new platform that has been so incredible as to justify and upgrade from the previous platform. Don't know if Max does.

It hasn't occurred on the Intel side since 2011 when they introduced Sandy Bridge to replace Nehalem.  On the AMD side it just happened with Ryzen, though.  

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Now im worried because I planned on upgrading from my current i7 2700k to the 7700k. Am I correct in thinking that I won't get any performance boosts at all?

1 hour ago, TechguyMaxC said:

It hasn't occurred on the Intel side since 2011 when they introduced Sandy Bridge to replace Nehalem.  On the AMD side it just happened with Ryzen, though.  

 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

5 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Now im worried because I planned on upgrading from my current i7 2700k to the 7700k. Am I correct in thinking that I won't get any performance boosts at all?

 

There's a misunderstanding here, so I'll straighten it out as quickly as possible.

The 7700k is undoubtedly faster than a 2700k, a chip that was released in late 2011 and based on a design first released in early 2011.  It's true that no individual chip released since Sandy Bridge has been significantly faster than the immediately previous generation, we are now 5 product generations on from Sandy Bridge so it's all added up to a noticeably faster chip.  

The problem is the OP thought a 7700k would be faster than a 6700k which is only a little over a year old.  That is an unrealistic expectation.

Bottom line: 7700k is a major upgrade for you, but not for joemiller.  

[torque2 24]

I recently upgraded (after 5 years, I figured it was time) from an i7 2600K to the 6700K, along with a video card upgrade from a 560ti to a 1060.  At close to the same processor speeds (4400GHz) I have roughly a 20% improvement in performance.  Noticeable for sure but not earth-shattering.