dommel1234

CPU or GPU? my upgrade suggestion

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow simmers ,

I have a recomendation to make for those willing to upgrade based on my own experience. If you own a I7 2XXX you may consider if its worth going for a skylake or babylake or a new gpu. Well, i had recently this dilemma i had an i7 2600 coupled with a Gtx 780 and after a lot of research i decided to upgrade my gpu intead of the cpu And i bought a gtx 1070.  Well i think i made the right choice, big improvement on fps and smoothness, and the I72600 still cope very well and do not bottleneck the gtx1070.  Why buying  a cpu that according to tests beats the i7 sandybridge only by 10 % and with also the heating problems the 7700k exhibits (see the latest intel warning on overclocking). That way  i have decent prformance and i can reserve the cpu upgrade in a future chip much better than the babylake.

Ps: all these are valid only if you overclock your i72XX of cource mine working steadily in 4,4 GHz

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Thanks for sharing your experience.  At the end of the day, all that really matters is how you like the performance of your simulator.  This community is made up of all types, those that are very satisfied with medium to low sliders and minimal eye candy, all the way up to those who live on the bleeding edge and feverishly seek the highest FPS money can buy, and of course, all the unwashed masses in between.  Sit back and enjoy our hobby... it really is an amazing community and a ton of fun simulating an exciting slice of our world.

I'm happy for you that you were able to improve your experience with a new GPU.  Your next upgrade will target the CPU, and the upcoming Coffee Lake might just fit the bill.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dommel1234 said:

Hello fellow simmers ,

I have a recomendation to make for those willing to upgrade based on my own experience. If you own a I7 2XXX you may consider if its worth going for a skylake or babylake or a new gpu. Well, i had recently this dilemma i had an i7 2600 coupled with a Gtx 780 and after a lot of research i decided to upgrade my gpu intead of the cpu And i bought a gtx 1070.  Well i think i made the right choice, big improvement on fps and smoothness, and the I72600 still cope very well and do not bottleneck the gtx1070.  Why buying  a cpu that according to tests beats the i7 sandybridge only by 10 % and with also the heating problems the 7700k exhibits (see the latest intel warning on overclocking). That way  i have decent prformance and i can reserve the cpu upgrade in a future chip much better than the babylake.

Ps: all these are valid only if you overclock your i72XX of cource mine working steadily in 4,4 GHz

A 7700k will slaughter a 2600k hands down in P3d.  

Share this post


Link to post

Hello all,

The only comment I feel qualified to make is that a GPU upgrade is far cheaper in that it is a one off purchase.

The CPU on the other hand involves CPU, Motherboard, RAM and then you still have a substandard GPU to replace at a later date.  Granted a full upgrade will still involve al of these but as an interim, the GPU, I feel, is the way to go and has the potential to greatly improve performance of your chosen sim..

I think that we would all love to have the "top of the woz" system but a lot of us are financially constrained and that includes mine own good self. This will always leave us with an incremental approach to upgrades and my suggestion is for the GPU first.

For me, I am upgrading very soon to a 1080ti and a 1050ti to drive my system. I therefore, very much hope that what I have said above is actually correct LOL

Regards to all

Tony Chilcott

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, dommel1234 said:

Why buying  a cpu that according to tests beats the i7 sandybridge only by 10 % and with also the heating problems the 7700k exhibits (see the latest intel warning on overclocking).

There's also some DRM that comes with the Kaby Lake CPUs that doesn't come with the Skylake ones. If you want to watch Netflix on your PC. If that doesn't apply to you, then go ahead. I don't use Netflix personally. I bought Skylake (i7 6700K) mainly due to less heat being generated over Kaby Lake.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

A 7700k will slaughter a 2600k hands down in P3d.  

I used to have a 2600K running at 4.4 Ghz and recently upgraded to a 7700K at 4.9 Ghz.

Is it faster?  Yes, but not that much. Its a lot of money (considering also a new motherboard is needed) for little gain in speed/fps

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Willy, are you really comparing the correct things here? Or do you compare the v3.4 performance with the 2600K@4.4GHz with the v4 performance of the 7700K@4.9GHz ? Fact: your 7700K has 11% higher clock speeds, so at least those 11% you should see. Otherwise, something goes wrong. Honestly, it might also be the case that your 970 is a limiting factor here.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, that's why I thought maybe this 970 is the limiting factor. As the 7700K should be faster than the 2600K in any case even at the same clock speeds (add the DDR4 memory to the equation and it should be even faster), he even does not see the 11% performance increase he should have simply due to the fact that he uses the 7700K at 11% higher clock rates.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, probably the GTX 970 is a bottleneck there, having only 3,5 GB of available VRAM...

Share this post


Link to post
On 26/7/2017 at 11:14 AM, enek0id said:

For your information between Sandy Bridge and Kaby Lake i7s there is also a substantial improvement in IPC (+30% avg), therefore you don't have to look only at the frequency. Even at the same frequency a 7700K is much faster than a 2600K.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Review-Kaby-Lake-and-14nm/Clock-Clock-Kaby-Lake-Skylake-Broad

 

The improvement is less in higher resolution when the GPU takes charge. But even this is not worth the money to buy an essentialy not overclockable overheating chip like the 7700k. Surely there is much better cpus to come soon

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, dommel1234 said:

...an essentialy not overclockable overheating chip like the 7700k.

Not overclockable?  Hmmm, lots of folks have pushed that chip to 5Ghz and beyond.  It's proven itself to be overclockable.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
50 minutes ago, lownslo said:

Not overclockable?  Hmmm, lots of folks have pushed that chip to 5Ghz and beyond.  It's proven itself to be overclockable.

Greg

I said essentialy, of cource it is, if you delid it and loose your guarantee can reach some 5 Ghz and beyond. The point is that they dont represent the technological revolution to make worth the investment especially when the 2XXX performance is comparable or a bit inferior

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2017 at 0:38 AM, willy647 said:

I used to have a 2600K running at 4.4 Ghz and recently upgraded to a 7700K at 4.9 Ghz.

Is it faster?  Yes, but not that much. Its a lot of money (considering also a new motherboard is needed) for little gain in speed/fps

Single core performance gains have been so paltry over the past 5y that my next build, when my 3930K@4.4Ghz finally gives up the ghost, will seem like a lot of expense for very little real improvement.  And that's a real first for me.   If only we could put all of Threadripper's 16-core model to work full time.  That is the unfortunate part you have an excellent multicore processor and only a one core gets fully utilized.    Fortunately there are useful gains in the GPU domain.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Noel said:

Single core performance gains have been so paltry over the past 5y that my next build, when my 3930K@4.4Ghz finally gives up the ghost, will seem like a lot of expense for very little real improvement.  And that's a real first for me.   If only we could put all of Threadripper's 16-core model to work full time.  That is the unfortunate part you have an excellent multicore processor and only a one core gets fully utilized.  

I run a 3930K at the same speed, I am perplexed and must say that I am more than happy with its all core performance in v4. I do run it with HT on as turning it off was a negative for me. My best tune up was using Multicore Next to move the addons TrackIR, Chaseplane etc to the top cores.

This is a recent process explorer snapshot of my 3930K with NGX over ORBX Australia ( note CPU says 26.2% because I paused for the screen shot it was 78% avg in sim just before pause) covers around 2.5 minutes of activity over Sydney City at Terrain level9 (cant do L10 at 4k until I get a 1080Ti.)

ZyZQCVsNum.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
On 28/7/2017 at 5:10 AM, dommel1234 said:

I said essentialy, of cource it is, if you delid it and loose your guarantee can reach some 5 Ghz and beyond. The point is that they dont represent the technological revolution to make worth the investment especially when the 2XXX performance is comparable or a bit inferior

Mine is not delidded and rock stable at 4,9 GHz - 1,25 V. 

Besides, between 2xxx generation (Sandy Bridge) and 7xxx (Kaby Lake) there is a 30% average IPC improvement.

https://www.pcper.com/reviews/Processors/Intel-Core-i7-7700K-Review-Kaby-Lake-and-14nm/Clock-Clock-Kaby-Lake-Skylake-Broad

Therefore a 5 GHz 7700K is about 50% faster than a 2600K @ 4,4 GHz.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, enek0id said:

On the last page of the second link you posted, it says:

On the desktop gaming front in terms of benchmarks, we have seen Kaby Lake pull a general 20% advantage. Keep in mind these are comparing Kaby Lake and Sandy Bridge at identical clocks. But I will suggest that when we go back and test real-world gaming, that delta will get a lot more narrow...

If you own a highly clocked 2600K/2500K Sandy Bridge processor and it is still giving you stable performance, it is hard for me to make the argument that it is time for you to upgrade

The comparison was with both CPUs running at the same clock speed of 4.5GHz. If you assume that increasing the clock speed will have a linear effect on performance (as the IPC remains the same), then increasing the 7700K to 5Ghz would result in an extra 10% improvement, which gets you nowhere near the total of 50% you claimed!

If you look at page 2, the single thread performance of the two CPUs is very similar. Bearing in mind that P3D still tends to use one core more than the others, this would result in an even smaller performance gap between the 2 CPUs

Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sx1kLGVAF0&feature=youtu.be. Although it uses a 6700K, there's virtually no difference in IPC between the 6700K and the 7700K. As you go further through the video (in different games), the 2600K gets much closer to the 6700K.

There's no doubt that the 7700K will be the faster CPU and will overclock higher, but the difference for gaming will not be as massive as you claim.

Share this post


Link to post

I was talking about the overall IPC increment indeed, which is highlighted by synthetic benchmarks.

Of course +50% * IPC is very different from +50% * fps in gaming!

From a 2600K at 4.4 GHz to a 7700K at 5 GHz I would expect +10-15 fps in Prepar3D. If it's worth the upgrade, it only depends on the OP pockets :)

 

Share this post


Link to post

Please guys, stay closer to P3D CPU behaviour and P3D fps, not just CPU abstract reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, enek0id said:

From a 2600K at 4.4 GHz to a 7700K at 5 GHz I would expect +10-15 fps in Prepar3D. 

I think you have to express change as a percentage.  IOW, if you're flying thru ultra dense scenery in the NGX and have gone down to a frame rate of 18 on the 2600K at 4.4 you are going to see 28-33 frames per second on your 7700K.   You might if baseline is 60 frames and you go to 70-75.  In the first example you're seeing a frame rate increase of 55%, whereas in the latter only 14%.  It would be useful to have frames jump to 30 from 18, but I don't think you're going to see that whatsoever, it will be more like the 14% increase, or moving from 18 to 21, which is absolutely hardly worth noting.  Therein lies the issue w/ paltry improvements in single-core performance.
 

Share this post


Link to post

Yes you are correct, my estimation of 10-15 fps is based on his configuration (i7 2600K @ 4,4 GHz + GTX 1070) at 1080p though. If he has an average of 40-45 fps now, with a 7700K @ 4,8 GHz (easily achievable even with an air cooler) he would get 50-55. CPU is the bottleneck at 1080p, and +40-50% IPC would give +20-25% fps IMHO.

There are too many parameters, including P3D internal settings, it's very difficult even to give a rough estimation actually. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/30/2017 at 10:07 PM, enek0id said:

OMG

That website is well known to be rubbish, it's just self-generated numbers based on an algorithm, please! :biggrin:

Check the link I provided and the following:

http://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2867-intel-i7-2600k-2017-benchmark-vs-7700k-1700-more/page-2

https://www.hardocp.com/article/2017/01/13/kaby_lake_7700k_vs_sandy_bridge_2600k_ipc_review/4

 

OMG, from your second link!  Please!  Here, from old Sandy Bridge to new Kaby Lake, both overclocked to 4.5Ghz:

  1. In this gaming engine we see a 19.868% increase with the 7700K
  2. Heaven comes in very close to what we saw above with the Kaby Lake providing a 20.755% increase.
  3. The 7700K drops a bit with a 17.927% increase in frame rate.
  4. Metro is certainly our most graphic-intensive benchmark, and we see the 7700K provide a 14.907% increase in frames.
  5. Back on track with AotS we see the 7700K give us an increase of 20.588% increase in frame rates.

I rest my case!  Wake me up when LM makes P3D use all of those sleepy cores!

Share this post


Link to post
On ‎7‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 6:54 PM, dommel1234 said:

The improvement is less in higher resolution when the GPU takes charge. But even this is not worth the money to buy an essentialy not overclockable overheating chip like the 7700k. Surely there is much better cpus to come soon

I ran my 7700k up to 4.8 on air and the max. temp was 80.  I've backed it off to 4.5 and the max temp is 70C.

blaustern

Share this post


Link to post

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