i9 7900X vs. i7 5960X - P3D V4 performance results 85% FPS increase

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

Uh, yes it is. 1.4v and you are far into silicone degradation territory.

I've been running my 5960X at 1.5-1.52v @4.61 GHz for almost exactly 3 years now without any issues.  Material fatigue usually comes about from heat cycles (hot/cold/hot/cold/hot/cold).  Material failure will either happen or not (aka no longer boots).

40 minutes ago, adyfoot said:

I have purchased the Intel over locking warranty just to be on the safe side!

CPU should be fine so long as you keep thermal limits in place, it's the heat that kills them, manage the heat and you should be fine ... but if you're going to go very high voltage then you'll need more than ambient based water cooling.

I agree with Mike, 4-6 real cores at higher frequency works better than 10-18 real cores at lower frequency for P3D.  But the equation isn't that simple, there are other optimizations that go into the CPU, the chipsets, the memory channel, memory timings, cache sizes, the motherboard design, etc.

I gave up trying to make one PC do all task, right now I use 4 PC's:

6900K for "work" duty
7700K for FS network PC
7900X for main FS/game PC
5960X for video editing/audio creation workstation

I am curious on what AMD's 1950X and 1920X will be able to do ... I've seen considerable hype for AMD but no one seems to be talking much about it's single core performance which is critical for how P3D works and it's main synchronization thread.  But even if AMD's single thread performance isn't that good, it would probably make for a good replacement of my 5960X and video editing duties.  So I'm keeping a close eye on AMD but ignoring the hype and hopefully when released in August I can find some actual performance results.  It would be nice to see Intel get some competition.

Cheers, Rob.

[adyfoot 19]

34 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

The 6950X, like the 5960x and many others like it, are only recommended to be run at 1.3v, roughly, for every day usage.

Well, good news, I managed to get 4.4GHz at 1.35v which is, "roughly" what you said is recommended 

4.5GHz, whilst great, didn't appear to make much, if any, difference to P3D's performance.  But, in Seattle, using Rob's GA City Day graphic settings, I hit 100% cpu usage across all 10 cores at times! 

[adyfoot 19]

10 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

CPU should be fine so long as you keep thermal limits in place, it's the heat that kills them, manage the heat and you should be fine ... but if you're going to go very high voltage then you'll need more than ambient based water cooling.

Hi Rob,

Yeah I have a custom loop that is keeping temps at about 70 on 4.4GHz at 1.35v.  So I think that's well within acceptable limits to not be of any concern whatsoever.  Seems I have a really good chip here.  It's only 2 of the 10 cores that go hot too....most hover around 55-60 during stress tests!

Regards,

Ady

[Sethos 4,335]

26 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I've been running my 5960X at 1.5-1.52v @4.61 GHz for almost exactly 3 years now without any issues.  Material fatigue usually comes about from heat cycles (hot/cold/hot/cold/hot/cold).  Material failure will either happen or not (aka no longer boots).

You are just lucky, nothing else. Silicone degradation from high voltage is a real thing, not "material degredation from heat cycles". Here's the ASUS Community Manager saying he managed to kill not one but two 5960x by just going past 1.3v; https://hardforum.com/threads/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread.1831922/page-19#post-1041586993 -- He also says there's a variance but there's absolutely numbers you tend to stick to. Go to any forum with actual hardware literate people and tell them you are planning on running 1.4v+ on a day to day basis, every single one of them will just shake their head. 

You can kill a CPU with 1.4v and not overclocking it at all. This is not about hot and cold cycles. 

[adyfoot 19]

12 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

You are just lucky, nothing else. Silicone degradation from high voltage is a real thing, not "material degredation from heat cycles". Here's the ASUS Community Manager saying he managed to kill not one but two 5960x by just going past 1.3v; https://hardforum.com/threads/asus-x99-motherboard-series-official-support-thread.1831922/page-19#post-1041586993 -- He also says there's a variance but there's absolutely numbers you tend to stick to. Go to any forum with actual hardware literate people and tell them you are planning on running 1.4v+ on a day to day basis, every single one of them will just shake their head. 

You can kill a CPU with 1.4v and not overclocking it at all. This is not about hot and cold cycles. 

http://www.overclockers.com/forums/showthread.php/723980-Truth-about-CPU-degradation 

[Sethos 4,335]

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/30836-what-actually-degradesshortens-a-cpu-life/

"Heat damages silicon is a common misconception. It is voltage and voltage alone that does it (not voltage causes heat and heat degrades silicon)."

 

 

[Guest]

20 hours ago, adyfoot said:

But, in Seattle

Yes, CPU usage is very dependent on location ... KSEA, EGLL, Orbx SoCal/NorCal KSFO/KLAX, and a few other population density hot spots will swing processing limits to the CPU side so and this is where OC will help, but same with DL as it will 100% Util the GPU and so GPU OC will help "some".  For those density hot spots you might want to use one my Commercial settings regardless of aircraft choice.

Interesting link that I'll disagree with and without actual data sources other than just a picture of a chart, I'll note it, but I'd need to see actual data overtime and how it's measured.  But the statement "think of heat as increasing friction in a engine, so gears grinds out faster" is simply not correct.  First of a CPU is not a engine, and gears are not part of an engine, they're part of a transmission.  Cold starts are the highest degradation of engine life ... that's why engines have thermostats (both in water and oil lines) to reduce the time it takes to get the water/oil up to optimal operating temps.  

I'd take that link with a big grain of salt, not much science there.  I'll admit I've never had any "single" CPU more than 5 years so I don't have any data beyond that, but I can't make any assumptions because I have no data.

Cheers, Rob.

[Guest]

20 hours ago, Sethos1988 said:

It is voltage and voltage alone that does it

Great video which I've seen it before (but Prof Morello doesn't suggest voltage causes CPU damage) ... electromigration doesn't damage a CPU, the voltage is not damaging the CPU, the voltage AND frequency is the source that introduces heat which can actually physically damage the transistor(s).

However, very important to discuss resistance, because as heat increases so does resistance ... the cooler you can keep your transistors the less resistance, this a good thing.

Anyway, to OC or not to OC, go with whatever frequency/voltage you're comfortable with ... I never saw that much of a gain going from 4.8Ghz to 5.0Ghz on my 7900X and I didn't seem much of a gain going from 4.5Ghz to 4.6Ghz on my 5960X ... but I did see a gain going from "stock" frequencies to my OC frequencies. 

But just to be clear to my original start of this post, I can still bring my system down to 15 FPS given the right set of add-ons and graphics settings.  So if there is anyone out there that is unrealistically thinking this 7900X (or any current CPU/GPU) can run at 60 FPS with every add-on and every graphics setting maxed out, that is NOT the case, so don't buy this 7900X thinking it's "the FPS solution" ... it's just another step forward in a very large football field :)

Cheers, Rob.

[jay281 33]

@Rob Ainscough Rob hope your well and thank you for the contribution to this hobby. Looking at this thread, am i correct in saying the 7820x would be a worthy upgrade from a 7700k? i would be aiming for 4.9 HT off OC. I currently run my 7700k with HT off @ 5. Just asking for thoughts. Im running a Titan Xp as my GPU. 

Regards James

[Guest]

I don't have a 7820X so I can't confirm, but from what I've seen in the past, 6 cores seems to be the "sweet spot" of Performance, OC Potential, Price (on the flight sim/gaming front).  I would "think" you should be able to run the 7820X 8 core at 5 Ghz since I can run the 7900X 10 core at 5Ghz (but hot) ... the 7820X would produce slightly less heat and be easier to cool.

The 7700K (4.8Ghz HT ON) I have performs about the same (within 1-2 FPS) as my 5960X @ 4.6Ghz HT OFF.  So if you extrapolate my 7900X performance over my 5960X performance to the 7700K, I would think you'll see similar improvements with the 7820X.  But like I said, if your test is max every graphics setting with DL, go to FB KLAX with Orbx SoCal in a PMDG 777 then you'll NOT be happy.  We're still several generations of CPU/GPUs away from making that a reality unless P3D moves to DX12 EMA with SFR support (multi-GPU) and I'm NOT going to predict that will or will not happen.

But like I've suggested before, it's pretty easy to shift the balance of power from CPU to GPU and/or from GPU to CPU by location, add-ons, DL, and AA settings ... the goal should be to balance CPU and GPU as that should provide the most fluid flight experience.

Cheers, Rob.

[jay281 33]

@Rob Ainscough thank you for this, to be honest im not going for raw fps but more smoothness. I lock my fps to 37 as this is half my refresh rate on my x34 currently. So the aim for me is to smooth out frame times and push more fps to give me better headroom to adjust my sliders. I have notice that my last 2 cores 2-3 on 7700k are really being pushed by the texture loading. Im hoping a bigger cache combined with more cores helps me out. 

Cheers, Jay

[AlphaInfinity 13]

@Rob Ainscough

 

What are your thoughts on the x299 Prime? I just received my 7820x and I am on the fence about these motherboards. I am trying to decide between moving forward and buying the prime or waiting on more ROG boards from Asus to hit the market. What do you think?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, AlphaInfinity said:

I am trying to decide between moving forward and buying the prime or waiting on more ROG boards from Asus to hit the market. What do you think?

I'm not having any issues with the X299 other than that bizarre Turbo Boost Max 3.0 technology driver from Intel (I just disable it).  The 7900X does require some good cooling options, the standard all-in-on water coolers with thin radiators probably isn't sufficient for very high OCs.

What specifically is in the ROG version that you want/need?  From my limited information on the ROG Extreme there seems to be fewer PCIe slots and fewer SATA ports and color differences ... not sure why less IO, perhaps to save on power consumption and reduce board complexity for better OC?  I know EK plan to do a monoblock for the ROG Extreme VI which is a nice to have.  I have seen many videos calling the X299 junk, but I honestly don't know why ... some suggest only 8 pin power, which isn't the case with my X299 board, I'm 8 pin + 4 pin.  I saw one web site showing CinebenchR15 scores for the 7900X that were considerably lower than the scores I reached on CinebenchR15 ... but this appeared to be an AMD-centric site.

So all I can advise is wade your way carefully and ask questions ... if your questions get diverted into something totally unrelated then it's probably safe to say that source isn't a viable source of information.

Cheers, Rob.

[aledero 1]

Hi everyone, this is my first time posting here. I m a Rob Ainscough follower (youtube and he's own website). I just want to share my experience about this topic (Prepar3d and X299). Also sorry for my english, isn't my native language.

Recently I upgraded my RIG From a i7 4790K to i7 7820X. My Computer parts are:

- i7 7820X @ 4.8Ghz, 1.230v, no HT. Max temp full load no more 45 C

- Asus x299 TUF Mark 1

- G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB 3600Mhz CL16

- Corsair iH115 with four fan in push/pull configuration

- EVGA GTX1080 FTW Hybrid with two fan in the radiator push/pull also.

- Intel 750 NMVe SSD ( Flight sim  softwares installed, like X-plane 11 and Prepar3d v4)

- WD Velociraptor ( Mesh, X-plane scenery, REX and My Traffic)

- Samsung 850 pro (Windows 7 pro)

- Corsair 540 case

- Acer Predartor 34" with G-sync

 

First, I got my CPU from Silicon Lottery. They delidded it and put a best Thermal compound. Silicon Lottery certified the CPU to 4.6 GHz @ 1.200v, but I push it a little bit to 4.8 GHz without the HT. I can post pictures of my BIOS setting, if someone is interesting.

Ok, on Prepar3d v4, I can see in the loading process that use 7 cores. Only the core number 2 is in low use. After loading, in the airport just the core 1 is in 100 %, then when I start to fly the 7 cores start to work almost 100%.

My Add-ons are ORBX Global, all the ORBX west coast, ORBX LC, ORBX Vector, FS pIlot mesh (North America), REX soft cloud, A2A aircrafts, PMDG 737, Alabeo, My traffic and now VOXATC 7.4. I have Active Sky for V4 but I m waiting for Mr. Rob to post on he's website some configurations to test.

With Rob GA Rural Day configuration (From P3Dwiki.com), I can get between 25 - 32 FPS. and for Big city, like Rob said sometime drop to 15 FPS. What I did was to reduce one notch the Autogen slides, water slide notch less and keep the rest at the same GA Rural configuration. and now I can get between 30 - 38 FPS with PMDG or GA.

With X-plane still the issue that I can't run at full blast the sim. The new version 11.02 improve only in the loading that use all the cores, but after that just only use one. According with X-plane staff, 11.10 will come with Vulkan technology and keep the sim at 60 FPS, let see is that is true.

Any question will try to have the answer.

 

And always, Thanks to Rob for all the supports that he give to this hobby.

 

Cheers

[swiesma 625]

@Rob Ainscough I think the X299 plattform is pretty good. The only bad thing I was reading about it were the VRM temperatures. The new motherboards (like the Apex VI) now come with VRM coolers instead of plastic fancy looking caps.

 

Enjoy your machine from hell! :-)