Here comes the new flight sim power CPU :D

 

 

Till 7890XE I got my 7900X.

It took me 7-8 hours to re-build my system (it was like I did it for the first time.. the NZXT case, H440, does not like the combination of the NZXT X62 and Asus x299 Prime Deluxe, was way to tight to mount it on the top because of the plastic of the motherboard and 4 PIN top connector, in front was not quite a good placing..). Then I was confused about the 2066 Kraken mount, as it was not described in the manual, but it was in the end easy. Cable management also takes a lot of time.

Just before going to sleep I managed to start it, set in BIOS only the XMP profile and the Raid for Win 10 Pro and took it for  a spin in P3D. It clearly runs smoother than my 4790K, at the exactly same settings of P3D, the CPU was at 4Ghz, maximum 60 degrees.

On the ground, first core was 100%, the other, barely used. After takeoff (autogen), all the other cores had load, about 50-60% if I remember, first core still 100%.

So yes, as Rob mentioned, P3D is (probably will) based primary on one core so the CPUs which are good at this will help.

Now I need to check which BIOS version I had, if HT was ON or OFF and to perform other settings in the BIOS.

But for me was nice that as I run the P3D, I can run pretty OK other tasks and applications in parallel, quite fast and smooth.

Funny thing was that after first CPU benchmark run, the result was that it is below the expectation , 37% less performance regarding similar  tests with the 7900X :)

 

But 7700K and 8700K are good ways to go for P3D I think.

9 minutes ago, Vali said:

Till 7890XE I got my 7900X.

It took me 7-8 hours to re-build my system...

Pls keep posting your results and findings with the new system, interesting.

Thanks

12 minutes ago, Vali said:

But 7700K and 8700K are good ways to go for P3D I think.

Except for L2 cache size, which might be the winning factor in 7900X from Rob's reports of 85% FPS increase.

Thanks

@Dirk98,

        I think you are on to something with the L2 cache size! When I was helping to develop the 777 engineering simulation for Boeing Seattle, we could see that the total memory size was many megabytes ( then approaching 500 mb or so ), but the "working set" - the inner loop of executable code (not data) that formed the frame by frame execution - was much smaller and now with a lot of the graphics code on the GPU now, maybe a lot of our P3Dv4 working set is close to fitting inside a larger L2 cache. Memory speed is everything since we can't seem to get much more than 5 Ghz from our CPU.

 

Dave W.

After some BIOS settings and tests, with these settings, I have 30 fps pretty stable (ocassionaly 26 fps), at night, at Aerosoft EDDF with the CRJ 900, all lights on except taxi LTS and wing insp. (AS16, ASCA, FTX Global&Europe, Envtex, no AI).

7900X CPU cores settings: Core 0 @4.6GHz, other cores @4.4GHz. HT is off. Cooler X62 NZXT.

EVGA 1080TI FTW3: GPU clock 1936MHz, memory clock 5005 MHz (no over-clock done by me).

Monitor is set at 30Hz.

Nvidia settings, only change, set to Maximum performance.

prepar3d.cfg: added TEXTURE_SIZE_EXP=10.

P3D settings: COM City Night (Rob), with these exceptions:

- AA: using 8XMSAA instead of 2XSSAA.

- Autogen vegetation density: using Dense instead of Normal

- Cloud draw distance: using 90mi instead of 110mi.

CPU and GPU temps vary between 60 and 70, CPU usage till ~90% (average is around 60% in the air), GPU usage till ~99% (average also around 60% in the air). These are hard to get them properly.

With my actual setup and settings, the AA I can not match, 2xSSAA keeps my GPU at 100% while the CPU is much much lower used. My GPU clock and memory clock are lower than in the Rob's video (1911 MHz vs 2088 MHz, 5006 MHz vs 5103 MHz if I have seen correctly).

 

1 hour ago, Vali said:

7900X CPU cores settings: Core 0 @4.6GHz, other cores @4.4GHz. HT is off. Cooler X62 NZXT.

You might be able to get more CPU frequency if you lower you DDR4 frequency setting.  From the testing I've done (so long as I don't go below 2133Mhz for RAM frequency) my actually memory performance is about the same with only minor variants from 62-71GB/sec ... currently set to 3800Mhz (at 4000+, I believe my RAM is rated to 4267 at CL19, stability was a problem at 4000+).  I did considerable SiSoftware Sandra Memory bandwidth, latency, and cache to memory performance going from 3000 to 4000 with results being very similar.  There isn't any noticeable difference in P3D V4 or XP11 or FSW or AF2 in terms of FPS with lower RAM frequency settings.  Quad channel operation.  CPU frequency seems to see more of a benefit, so maybe try lowering RAM frequency, but don't go below 2133Mhz.  I haven't experimented much with Cache frequency.

I'm hoping the next gen GPUs will allow me to settle on 4XSSAA even with DL enabled.

Cheers, Rob.

1 minute ago, Rob Ainscough said:

There isn't any noticeable difference in P3D V4 or XP11 or FSW or AF2 in terms of FPS with lower RAM frequency settings.

I believe you but I find this surprising since I got a significant single-threaded CPU performance increase in Passmark going from 2133 to 3000MHz.

I would do an 8700k

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-kaby-lake,35549.html

Regards

bs

33 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

You might be able to get more CPU frequency if you lower you DDR4 frequency setting.  From the testing I've done (so long as I don't go below 2133Mhz for RAM frequency) my actually memory performance is about the same with only minor variants from 62-71GB/sec ... currently set to 3800Mhz (at 4000+, I believe my RAM is rated to 4267 at CL19, stability was a problem at 4000+).  I did considerable SiSoftware Sandra Memory bandwidth, latency, and cache to memory performance going from 3000 to 4000 with results being very similar.  There isn't any noticeable difference in P3D V4 or XP11 or FSW or AF2 in terms of FPS with lower RAM frequency settings.  Quad channel operation.  CPU frequency seems to see more of a benefit, so maybe try lowering RAM frequency, but don't go below 2133Mhz.  I haven't experimented much with Cache frequency.

I'm hoping the next gen GPUs will allow me to settle on 4XSSAA even with DL enabled.

Cheers, Rob.

I increased the frequencies by one, 4.7 GHz for core 0, 4.5GHz for the other, runs clearly smoother, seems stable. Temperatures now are around 70-80 degrees Celsius (according to CPUID HW monitor) but is still fine (I do not want to know how much power takes at the wall overclocked..).

For the memory, I keep it at XMP-3200 (using F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR, 1600MHz, 1.350V I think).

On ‎28‎.‎09‎.‎2017 at 11:24 PM, Vali said:

For the memory, I keep it at XMP-3200 (using F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR, 1600MHz, 1.350V I think).

Yep, is a good choice - it´s simply math:
- 14 : 3200 * 2000 = 8,75ns access time
...i use a slower Corsair Dominator RAM: 3200c16 1,35V ....means:
- 16 : 3200 * 2000 = 10ns access time
-------------------
For CPU - Questions:
Last year i use a 5960X with P3D V3.4 & Change to 6950X with a big Performance boost.
This week i´ve changed from 6950X to a delidded 7900X with a moderate Performance boost!
The 7900x is the best choice between Cores & Speed. ;)
--------------------------------
Rob: i saw a Nvidia - V100 - over 5500 Cuda Cores and the Card is a "Performance-Monster" so i think,
we "Gamer" see a Titan "Xv" (?!?) with 4300 to 4500 Cuda  Cores and GDDR6 ....a Gaming-Monster. ;)
See Spec´s here:
https://www.tweaktown.com/image.php?image=imagescdn.tweaktown.com/news/5/9/59155_04_nvidia-tesla-v100-tested-near-unbelievable-gpu-power.jpg

On 26/09/2017 at 1:58 PM, swiesma said:

Here comes the new flight sim power CPU :D

 

 

Well this is totally unpractical!! I cannot use Liquid Nitrogen in order to super cool my CPU and OC it to 6GHZ in order to use it for flight simulation, I am interested in real practical scenarios with either air cooling or water cooling.

I imagine 5GHZ would be the achievable under such circunstancies providing that you delid your CPU..

Resgards,
Simbol

9 minutes ago, simbol said:

Well this is totally unpractical!! I cannot use Liquid Nitrogen in order to super cool my CPU and OC it to 6GHZ in order to use it for flight simulation, I am interested in real practical scenarios with either air cooling or water cooling.

I imagine 5GHZ would be the achievable under such circunstancies providing that you delid your CPU..

Resgards,
Simbol

Why would you take this video for your cooling solution?? 

Liquid Nitrogen cooling is just record proof of concept in case you didn't know it.

Dirk

Because they posted it here saying it is the future of fly sim? 

I guess I could trick my wife to think I am actually refuelling the plane by using liquid nitrogen 

S

2 hours ago, simbol said:

I imagine 5GHZ would be the achievable under such circunstancies providing that you delid your CPU..

I have no problems running my 7900X at 5Ghz on water and I didn't have to replacing Intel's thermal paste with different thermal paste (aka delid).  But there is now an sales industry around "delid" - the marketing initiative ;)

Outside of "delid" on the other side of the heat transfer with the IHS ... here is Intel's application recommendations: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/processors/000005576.html

I would recommend going to phase change rather than LN, phase change still requires considerable "prep" but is "maintainable" and more practical.  6Ghz and LN is effective for seconds to a few minutes before it crashes and burns (literally) ... for maintainable frequency solutions 5.2 to 5.3Ghz range you're looking at a huge investment in cooling equipment, time, and power consumption all for 200-300Mhz increase (which in P3D would equate to about 2 FPS increase).

I've said this before, petition Intel to stop increasing core counts and lowering frequency (we don't need this) ... what is needed is larger die, less cores (4-6 is plenty), larger caches, higher frequency ... that's what will help simmers and gamers ... the more core philosophy only helps video rendering, 3D animation, and other tasks that are easy to split up in a non-real time dependent processes (i.e. can be assembled independent of each other).  Sadly AMD are going the same route as Intel, more and more and more cores ... not everyone that owns a desktop PC is doing video rendering or 3D Animation.  I was really hoping AMD would shake up Intel with their latest processors, but it's clear to me AMD are following the "profit margin" and so long as they keep telling everyone more cores is better (partial truth based on application used) people will keep believing more cores are good for their and gaming/simming.  Intel has been banging the more cores drum for many years and years, the design paradigm of games/sims does NOT benefit from excessive number of cores (there is only so much that can be threaded out and there will always be a single synchronization process) ... but Intel keep banging the more core drum for the past decade ... we haven't hit Moore's law, we've Intel's "more" profit law.

It would be of far more value if these many OC web sites and OC YouTubers would stop obsessing with thermal paste material choices by Intel (for 200-300Mhz gains) and focus on the real problem of new CPUs being released with more cores at lower frequency ... send a message to Intel/AMD that we don't want more cores at lower frequency.  I'd take 4-6 cores at 6Ghz (default clocks) vs. 10 cores with a delid process OC'd to 5.2Ghz.

And before anyone starts the debate about P3D or XP11 or FSW or AF2 not coded correctly to take advantage of more cores ... P3D V4 will have no problems using up all those cores and it doesn't make a bit of difference in performance beyond 6 cores.  My 7700K @ 4.2GHz (4 core HT on) performed about the same as my 5960X @ 4.6Ghz (8 core HT off ... I had to turn HT off in order to get better performance out of the 5960X).

Higher frequency
Larger Caches

That's the message all these OC forums/websites/youtubers should be sending Intel/AMD, not "please use different thermal paste".

Ok, rant over, sorry ... 

Cheers, Rob.