OzWhitey

Is the i7-7740X the new flightsim champion?

12 posts in this topic

Plenty of reviews out now.

This one compares the 7740X to the current Prepar3d gold standard, the 7700K.

https://www.vortez.net/articles_pages/intel_kabylake_x_core_i7_7740x_review_better_than_7700k,1.html

Main benfit I can see is the clock speed. I read in another review that an overclock to 5.1 was easy, and 5.5 should be no problem. The more expensive chips that have been announced have slower clocks, but more threads - so for P3D the cheaper 7740X sounds like the chip to get.

What do you guys think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Interesting read, for sure. I guess if these chips prove to reliably reach the 5.3 - 5.5 range, without the benefit of hitting the silicon lottery, it may drive a lot of folks to upgrade. I would certainly considering it strongly, if it was in fact a game changer for P3d V4.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBD. But, I'd say, No.

This chip is a Kaby Lake design. This means it will not have the features of the Skylake X variety; including 4 memory channels and improved PCI express lane count. These new features should improve throughput in both memory and storage.

In terms of raw cpu frequency, perhaps. But, I wonder if this is still ultimate metric with simulators like XP11 and P3Dv4. As more detailed scenery and aircraft become available it seems that bandwidth in memory, storage, graphics and CPU speed will all come into play in making for a smooth flight simming experience.

Time will tell as the brave early adopters test our beloved flight simulators using the new hardware and share their experiences. Exciting times, for sure.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks interesting until one reads the final paragraph of the review:

Intel’s modest Core i7-7740X may have some limitations placed on it, but it does offer up some decent performance especially in the thermals and overclocking departments. However, enthusiasts looking to get more ‘bang for their buck’ would be well-advised to either look at the 7900X or Z270/7700K.

The best thing I see in the early (non-sanctioned) tests of the CoreX cpu's is their overclocking strength.  The X299 system seems a bit goofy and certainly not at all mature... clearly rushed.  I'll watch what AMD continues to offer but for the time being I'll not be building a new box-o'-bits for myself anytime soon. 

Greg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7820X is an alternative, but it sounds like overclock will be limited by heat, plus it's quite a bit more expensive. On the plus side, it has most of the Skylake-X features. 

I wonder if 7740X will outperform it in P3D, given the higher overclock potential. CPU clock speed is still very important in v4, even with a great GPU.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If what I'm reading is correct, the 8th Gen 6-core Coffee Lake processors expected in the 2017 "holidays" time frame seem to be a much better choice than the stop-gap Kaby Lake-X chips, but not a lot of details yet.  You can use the less expensive LGA 1151 m/b with a revised Z370 chipset.  But you'll lose out on the expanded number of PCI-E lanes that come with the Core-X / X299 / Socket 2066 offerings, but likely save a ton of money in the process.  There always seems to be a compromise in the mix.  

Seems like the better cost/performance ratio will be with Coffee Lake vice Kaby Lake-X, but only time will tell.  I'll wait until sometime in the fall to decide on components for my new build.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-06-19 at 7:41 PM, lownslo said:

Looks interesting until one reads the final paragraph of the review:

Intel’s modest Core i7-7740X may have some limitations placed on it, but it does offer up some decent performance especially in the thermals and overclocking departments. However, enthusiasts looking to get more ‘bang for their buck’ would be well-advised to either look at the 7900X or Z270/7700K.

The best thing I see in the early (non-sanctioned) tests of the CoreX cpu's is their overclocking strength.  The X299 system seems a bit goofy and certainly not at all mature... clearly rushed.  I'll watch what AMD continues to offer but for the time being I'll not be building a new box-o'-bits for myself anytime soon. 

Greg

For most users, a 6 - 10 core X299-based system would get you more "bang for the buck" than a 7700K shoehorned onto the X299 platform. The 7740X only supports 16 PCI-E lanes and dual-channel memory (not to mention only being quad-core), while all X299 boards are designed to accommodate quad-channel and up to 44 PCI-E lanes and 18 cores. If you're going to spend a minimum of $350 on the motherboard, you'll want a CPU that can take advantage of all those features.

However flight sims are a special case, since none of them have embraced multi-core CPUs yet. FSX/P3D "kind of" use the extra cores to speed up scenery loading, but not for anything else. X-Plane is similar though there were some multi-core enhancements in the latest couple of betas. So if you're building a system purely, 100% for FSX or P3D, then that puts the 7740X in an interesting spot.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JimmiG said:

However flight sims are a special case, since none of them have embraced multi-core CPUs yet. FSX/P3D "kind of" use the extra cores to speed up scenery loading, but not for anything else. X-Plane is similar though there were some multi-core enhancements in the latest couple of betas. So if you're building a system purely, 100% for FSX or P3D, then that puts the 7740X in an interesting spot.

I agree, but will point out that while P3D doesn't "yet" fully embrace multi-core CPUs, who's to say (now that the 64-bit wall has been breached) that future development won't head in this direction.  After all, high levels of scenery detail, and advancing study-sim capabilities (like PMDG & A2A), will require more and more CPU (and GPU) power in the days to come.  This is probably the best time to hop on the X299 train so you're positioned well for the next 2-4 years.  While the 7740X gets you to the first step, being somewhat neutered, it will likely leave the user without adequate headroom and a bit disappointed.  But, we're all different.  Two people can look at precisely the same performance, and one says it's a slideshow and the other says it feels like a "like a hot knife through  butter".  Go figure.  These are definitely fun times for the flight sim community.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saying: With v4 I see all my 8 threads maxed out in some situations! Like it was said above, P3D is starting to use more cores for things like texture loading.

So I guess more cores will also be a good choice for P3D in the future :-) But for P3D we also need a good single core performance. Interesting times, a big thank you to P3Dv4 and AMD for giving heat to Intel :-)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, purchase of any and all of these CPUs imply that those of us tied to Win7 will eventually have to move to W10. Yuck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all confusing.

So why is skylake-x actually more capable when kaby lake-x is newer?

And given the specs of the 7700k, if the 7740x is indeed a better overclocker, doesn't it still have all the other features of the 7700k also built on kaby lake? And in the context of gaming, how important is four memory channels vs. two, the lower PCI-E 16x, etc.?

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2017 at 2:34 PM, JimmiG said:

For most users, a 6 - 10 core X299-based system would get you more "bang for the buck" than a 7700K shoehorned onto the X299 platform. The 7740X only supports 16 PCI-E lanes and dual-channel memory (not to mention only being quad-core), while all X299 boards are designed to accommodate quad-channel and up to 44 PCI-E lanes and 18 cores.

I'm curious as to the emphasis on PCIe bandwidth. FSX and P3D have never gotten close to being I/O limited. Seems like one is paying a significant premium for I/O (and memory) bandwidth that for this sim would be wasted.

Cheers!

Luke

0

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