Tanguy SEHA

Is Coffee lake worth the upgrade for flight sim?

Recommended Posts

Hello,

I was thinking about upgrade my mobo (that doesn't allow me to OC my CPU) but before doing that, I must choice between a 270 serie or a 370 (for an upgraade with a i7 8700k) but do you think that the i7 8700k will be better for the flight sim than what does the i7 7700K? 

I'm on P3D and X Plane 11 so both infos are welcome 

 

Thank you :) 

Share this post


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

I'd say so, it'll boost up to 4.6 on all cores which puts it higher than the 7700k. IPC will be improved and 2 extra cores will help with autogen loading in high density areas. All for the same price as a 7700k now, I'd say it's definitely worth it. It will require a Z370 board, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you :)

I don't know why but I though that for the flight sim, the matters was the perfs on single core

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will certainly go for it, I guess it will be a beast. Finally something worth replacing my aged i7-3770K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are planning to OC be aware these CPUS get very hot, I had to delid mine to keep temperatures down as Intel puts a very bad thermal compound on their processors since skylake.

Simbol 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep. Here in Germany you can buy them already delidded. Don’t know about other countries. 

Would go for a delidded 8700k or a 8 Core i9. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A core i9 would be pointless for flight sims at the moment, clock speed over cores. 8700k has both, perfect chip for the money. Coffee Lake shouldn't get too hot, i9s are a whole different story, as long as you have a fairly competent cooler (like not the stock one)  and don't push like 1.4v through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, I'm going to give the 8700k a go.  At least, when De8auer has s delid tool made up!  I'm still amazed that the 6700k dropped over 20c at stress load with conductonaut compound under the lid.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OneWhoKnocks53 said:

Agreed, I'm going to give the 8700k a go.  At least, when De8auer has s delid tool made up!  I'm still amazed that the 6700k dropped over 20c at stress load with conductonaut compound under the lid.  

Mine went from 92c at 4.6Ghz (with a custom loop water cooled PC) under load down to 46c, I used the De8auer to delid my 6700k and liquid metal under the lid as the thermal compound.

Unbelievable how bad Intel is delivering their ships.

Simbol 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Tanguy SEHA said:

Ok thank you :)

I don't know why but I though that for the flight sim, the matters was the perfs on single core

I read that the 8700K excels in single thread performance as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Milton Waddams said:

A core i9 would be pointless for flight sims at the moment, clock speed over cores.

The i9 is pretty good in overclocking ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 8700K is going to be the best CPU going forward. It just hits a perfect trifecta between price, single-core speed and the amount of cores. Though as a few people have mentioned, I would highly recommend getting it delidded, as that's its biggest weakness, like with all new Intel CPUs. Personally buying mine pre-delidded from Caseking, that also means you retain the 2 year warranty through them, instead of pissing it out the window and having to do the work yourself. 

As for your question about the 8700K being better than the 7700K? In terms of raw IPC numbers, probably not, as they about equally fast. In that scenario, the benefit come from either being able to offload running apps onto the other cores, generally more overhead for other tasks and just being that tad more future proof. Considering the 8700K will become the main consumer chip going forward, buying a 7700K now seems daft unless it gets thrown in your direction for practically no money.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as the default boost is 4.6GHz and it is delivered with this crappy default cooling solution, I do not think that there is any need for delidding the 8700K, irrespective from the temperature. This is anyway mainly a psychological thingy, it is completely irrelevant if your CPU runs at 60°C under full load or at 80°C, as long as you have a good air flow in your case. Of course, if you then overclock and reach 90°C or above, the story gets different...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

The 8700K is going to be the best CPU going forward. It just hits a perfect trifecta between price, single-core speed and the amount of cores. Though as a few people have mentioned, I would highly recommend getting it delidded, as that's its biggest weakness, like with all new Intel CPUs. Personally buying mine pre-delidded from Caseking, that also means you retain the 2 year warranty through them, instead of pissing it out the window and having to do the work yourself. 

As for your question about the 8700K being better than the 7700K? In terms of raw IPC numbers, probably not, as they about equally fast. In that scenario, the benefit come from either being able to offload running apps onto the other cores, generally more overhead for other tasks and just being that tad more future proof. Considering the 8700K will become the main consumer chip going forward, buying a 7700K now seems daft unless it gets thrown in your direction for practically no money.

Agree,  spot  on 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Well, as long as the default boost is 4.6GHz and it is delivered with this crappy default cooling solution, I do not think that there is any need for delidding the 8700K, irrespective from the temperature. This is anyway mainly a psychological thingy, it is completely irrelevant if your CPU runs at 60°C under full load or at 80°C, as long as you have a good air flow in your case. Of course, if you then overclock and reach 90°C or above, the story gets different...

Lower temperatures are very important for your CPU health, anything over 70c is outside of my confort zone as it means the cooling solution is not being efficient.

Heat is known to accelerate the depreciation of CPU life, so if your CPU is running at 80C you will start experiencing son or later instability on your system as the internal cores of the CPU will just be unable to cope eventually, also one particular problem with Intel new chips is that not all cores will keep the same temperature, so you think your CPU is running at 80 Celsius but some individual cores could be running hotter! 87C ++. this is due to faulty silicon sealant applications performed by Intel.

It is advisable to also monitor core temperatures instead of just the CPU pack main temperature which is a different temperature sensor inside the CPU ship.

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

This is also a good guide about OC: https://forums.evga.com/EVGA-Z170-Overclocking-Guide-m2395509.aspx 

All the best,

Simbol

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this myth about CPU degradation solely due to heat (thanks for the 5 year old forum post, extremly scientific source...) is something that keeps popping up from time to time, although even your link basically makes the relevant correlation of lifetime with voltage, not heat. Means: as long as you do not increase the CPU voltage (therefore: not the increased voltage leading to increased temperatures but "only" bad cooling), you might not see any effect at all. Furthermore, even if it might be still true in some cases, what does it mean? You might reduce the lifetime from 20 years down to 10 years, then what? I never ever heard of anything related to CPU degradation due to high temperatures, now think about the millions of computers being in service for more than 10 years in hot and humid countries only using the stock cooling and therefore most probably running 24/7 at temperatures above 70°C.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion is that previous processors were built better (the lid was welded) so temps were not a problem.

Since Skylake Intel don't weld anymore, so temps get out of control quite easily this of course don't affect normal users using just excel, browsing Internet , etc.

But gamers, overclokers and computer enthusiast users are seeing their CPU temps quite high, and I think we are the type of users that could see our CPUs damaged over time.

Lots of people see benefits from OC their CPUs for flights simulators, so I wanted them to be aware of temps.

Also remember the warranty period is 3years not 20, you know how technology is these days nothing last longer than the warranty period 😉.

All the best 

Simbol 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also lower temps mean less noise for cooling etc. So delidding is the way to go when one has an Intel CPU these days and wants to overclock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is ludicrous. By now I should be able to OC a new CPU to 5gz with the press of a button and not have to worry about temps. I'm still stuck in the Sandy Bridge world and I can't get out. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, swiesma said:

The i9 is pretty good in overclocking ;)

Plus it's much larger CPU cache size (than 8700k's) may have played the main role in 85% FPS increase that Rob reported here recently in the neighbouring thread. And most probably due to the cache size in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Plus it's much larger CPU cache size (than 8700k's) may have played the main role in 85% FPS increase that Rob reported here recently in the neighbouring thread. And most probably due to the cache size in the first place.

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. A larger cache will not give you an 85% boost.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. 

+1. That claim of a 85% increase in fps was ridiculous. There is absolutely no way to explain that, therefore I would highly recommend considering it to be another one of those "hey, my fps have trippled" stories...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sethos1988 said:

or maybe people just need to take that number with a truckload of salt. 

Unlike many, Rob always gives proof for his findings and conclusions. And also unlike many, he has a reputation for that. Based on my experience I have no reason to doubt them, unlike your assumptions, Sethos ))

 

Dirk

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Dirk98 said:

Unlike many, Rob always gives proof for his findings and reports. And also unlike many, he has a reputation for that. Based on my experience I have no reason doubt them, unlike your assumptions, Sethos ))

 

Dirk

Yes, we're all very impressed with your hero worshipping of Rob and never questioning anything he does or any of his results. However, we're some who are hardware literate enough to question dubious results and know enough about hardware to understand why the results are questionable. The flight sim community have had hundreds, if not thousands of these magical episodes over its many years of people seeing huge, unexplained boost because they did a marginal upgrade, deleted their holiday photo album or turned the simulator volume down to 85% instead of 87. 

And it sounds like you aren't even sure of your own argument, you are blindly trying to find a reason, a theory that would explain such a magic boost in performance and you've now concluded it must be the cache. You find it highly probable the CPU cache is responsible for a 85% boost? It would have been funny if it wasn't for the fact that you genuinely believe it.

Luckily a lot of people here have enough common sense to question these 'fantastic' results it seems.

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