Rob,

I am an OC fan so I get your rant.

I suggested delid since it is my appreciation that with such quantity of cores (i9) the temps would get ridiculous over 4.8 Ghz and the stupid thermal paste provided by Intel. 

In any case, the market is going for more cores nothing we can do.

All the best,

Simbol 

 

16 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

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).

Good post Rob - I'm still running my "ancient" 6-core 5930K with HT enabled @4.6 Ghz day-in day-out...think I'll be sticking with this for while

https://ark.intel.com/compare/126684,82931

My 7900x can get to 4.5-4.6GHz with AIO (X62) but in P3Dv4 temperatures get high.. in 90s area or more (as said, for now for me the best compromise is core 0 at 4.6GHz and the other 9 at 4.4Ghz, temperatures till or around 80s on the P3D load).

With a custom water cooling loop will get higher, clearly, but my electricity bill is also a concern (especially for me here in Germany :D). I have no idea for now how many watts plug from my wall :D

I saw  the first 8700K reviews, it seems that 7700K still is a good option for P3Dv4 .. and cheaper.

4 minutes ago, Vali said:

My 7900x can get to 4.5-4.6GHz with AIO (X62) but in P3Dv4 temperatures get high.. in 90s area or more.

That temperature is way too high and outside of my confort zone.

Simbol

12 minutes ago, simbol said:

In any case, the market is going for more cores nothing we can do.

Sure there is, YouTube and other social media is a powerful weapon these days (look what it did for US elections) ... even when it comes with a lot of jibber jabber and false information, it's still a powerful tool to present Intel and AMD's profit philosophy and get word out to the buying public that more cores isn't doing any favors for gamers/simmers, it's only lining the pockets of Intel/AMD.

Get AMD/Intel to use more die space to resolve the issues of EM ... more space = less profit ... that's the issue, it's not a technical one, that can be solved.  Here is a quote about EM

Taken (2014) from: https://community.cadence.com/cadence_blogs_8/b/ii/archive/2014/09/01/electromigration-what-ic-designers-need-to-know

So, what can go wrong when metal atoms drift away from their intended positions? One problem is open circuits due to voids in wires or vias. Another problem is short circuits due to extrusions or "hillocks" on wires. Either can cause a system failure that is hard to diagnose.

Here are some other points about EM that emerged from my conversation with Gerousis:

At older process nodes people worried mostly about EM on power wires and clock wires. But now signal wires need to be considered as well. Therefore, both DC (power) and AC (signal) EM are problematic.

FinFETs have more current density than planar transistors, and thus make EM worse, especially in conjunction with narrow wires.

Copper interconnects worsen EM because the copper molecule moves faster.

The lower supply voltages you get with scaling help reduce EM, but not enough to offset all the other causes that amplify it.

EM is worse at higher temperatures.

EM mitigation techniques, such as widening wires, can not only increase area - they can cause timing violations. EM fixing needs to be timing-driven.

Fortunately, there are well-known ways to reduce current density and mitigate electromigration. Unfortunately, they all have area or performance tradeoffs. They are:

Widen the wire to reduce current density

Reduce the frequency

Lower the supply voltage

Keep the wire length short

Reduce buffer size in clock lines

To control EM, foundries define current limits for each wire. Gerousis noted that a lot goes into this calculation, including wire width, layer, activity, frequency, and temperature. The width and length of the wires then becomes part of the design rule set. But it's not a simple matter of just following the rules. "If you increase the width you change the spacing," Gerousis noted. "You need to take care of not just the width, but also the spacing of neighboring wires."

Cheers, Rob.

People have been complaining to Intel about their stupid DIE and thermal paste all over the place and what have they done? errr nothing, Intel is famous for ignoring their customers.

S.

And Intel will continue to do nothing for 200Mhz difference.  However, going from 4.5Ghz boost to 6Ghz boost frequency is 1.5Ghz, that's significant and that's the message that needs to be sent ... the problem is that voting with our wallets (not buying new CPUs) makes Intel seem to think the desktop PC is dead and they focus on mobile computing.  We need to get the message out that desktop PCs are NOT dead (Intel need to stop reading sales numbers that consist of only Dell, Acer, HP since these vendors do NOT represent the mainstream PC market), we're just not buying what Intel/AMD are selling because they aren't delivering "useful" performance to gamers/simmers. 

Although I found an 85% FPS increase going from a 5960X @ 4.6Ghz to a 7900X @ 5.0Ghz in P3D with my graphics settings and add-ons (that was probably mostly attributed to changes in L2/L3 cache sizes, X299 chipset, and slightly higher CPU frequency), I should be looking at 1.5X to 2X performance improvement.

And yes, 90C is hot for the 7900X at 4.6Ghz.  I'm 5Ghz water cooled and typical temps are 50-60C range with occasional spike to 76C worst case.  I run a dual loop water setup with large radiators but I keep my fan speed relatively low as I don't like a lot of fan noise (4 fans per radiator 480 x 60mm and a couple of larger internal case fans at low RPM).

Cheers, Rob.

8 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

I'm 5Ghz water cooled and typical temps are 50-60C range with occasional spike to 76C worst case.  I run a dual loop water setup with large radiators but I keep my fan speed relatively low as I don't like a lot of fan noise (4 fans per radiator 480 x 60mm and a couple of larger internal case fans at low RPM).

Cheers, Rob.

You water solution is similar to mine, so based on your information I might upgrade to 7900X next year, but I am sure I will delid it as I can't stand the crappy thermal paste Intel deliver new chips with .

Many thanks for all your useful information.

Best Regards,
Simbol

I would love a relative boost performance  I7@4770-4790K to newest I9. in P3Dv4.

:-)

Current running 4.7-4.7-4.5-4.5 HT ON and performance is okay (fall in Denmark meens 10c fall of outside temp)

Temp around 45-60c(747-777) but the NGX pumps it up to 80c for some how .

 

Thanks

Michael Moe

 

 

As Jayz says, CPU core speed rules for now, more than the core number. 

 

 

Very well said, Rob! Intel and AMD need to take a much needed reality check.

This is starting to get out of hand. In recent times Intel and AMD are taking their customers for a ride based on the illusion that more cores are better. My gut feeling is that these moves are commercial acts of desperation which are relying on a shaky (?false) premise. Unfortunately the buying gaming/simming public are falling for it and this is quite likely to continue until everyone wakes up to what is actually going on.

I can only speak for myself and you can see for yourselves that I am using the i7-5960X. Quite honestly this CPU overclocked to 4.7GHz (HT=ON, AM (for P3D) =21845, i.e. using 8 Physical Cores) is delivering all the performance I am ever likely to need in Prepar3D v4, with all the popular Addons, for the foreseeable future (obviously the 1080Ti is a significant factor in this scenario). Indeed, Prepar3D was, and continues to be the yardstick that has determined my choice of hardware. Gaming software is really an irrelevance as they all, without exception, perform extremely well using high-max settings. My only fear is if chip failure should occur after my extended 3yr guarantee period has expired I may not be able to replace it. 8 cores may be overkill while, from what I've read about other user experiences, 6 cores may be sufficient.

Core Temperatures have never been an issue and rarely rise above 60C on water cooling under heavy load conditions. Case temps typically are around 25C at the top below the radiator and 19.5 - 20C for the middle (GPU) and lower (PSU) areas.

Mike

 

This is what I have this evening, on my 7900X (I am using NZXT X62, is set on Silent mode for the pump and fan).

 

And this shortly after takeoff:

4 minutes ago, Vali said:

This is what I have this evening, on my 7900X

 

I guess all you need is a better CPU cooler.
With my Thermaltake CL-W108-PL12SW-A Water 3.0 RGB 360 cooler, temps are always below 75, running at 4.8

7 minutes ago, Vali said:

This is what I have this evening, on my 7900X (I am using NZXT X62, is set on Silent mode for the pump and fan).

I bet that you haven't delid your CPU,correct? 70C is just on the line of my comfort zone, I would be more comfortable with 50C or 60C. What temps you get if you run Prime95?

S.

I thought X62 is pretty good (I just bought it).

Yes, my CPU is not delided, I avoid that as it is not quite cheap the CPU.

Just as a side question, what would be a recommendation for a custom water cooling loop only for the CPU? I saw that something from EKWB costs around 400 euros for this CPU (configured as silence &performance).

And perhaps I should reapply new thermal paste, maybe first time I did not put enough.