Is it worth upgrading from i7 2600k to i7 8700k?

[fr3dm 0]

Hi,

This is my first post on this forum. I have been doing flight sim for over 7 years now and I am becoming more and more dissatisfied with my PC's performance on Prepar3D V3 and V4. In 2010s I used to have AMD Phenom II X4 and it was a complete disaster for FSX so I upgraded to i7 2600k, 2600k was a massive improvement but now I think it has started showing it's age with all the ORBX, PMDG, Fslabs addons. My current PC specs are :

CPU - i7 2600k @ 4.4 GHz

RAM - 8GB DDR3 1333MHz

GPU - EVGA GTX 1070 SC 8GB

HDD - 500GB

I am planning to upgrade to i7 8700k. Actually I already have 8600k on order but I am planning to cancel it and go with 8700k for future proofing as I want it to last for as long as 2600k did. What I am planning to upgrade :

CPU - i7 8700k

Cooler - Corsair H80i V2

RAM - 16 GB DDR4 3000MHz

GPU - GTX 1070 (same as before)

SSHD - Seagate Firecuda 2TB (not going with SSD)

I am running a 1080p, 60Hz screen. Please tell me is this CPU upgrade worth it or not? And how much FPS improvement I can expect over 2600k on Prepar3D v4. Also is it worth getting i7 8700k over i5 8600k?

Thanks a lot. 

Happy flying!!

[ryanbatc 12,775]

That's pretty much what I'm going to do.  I've got a 2500K - I expect to see a massive gain in performance over the 4GHz I'm at now.

[NBouc 54]

Hi fr3dm,

2 years ago, I replaced my aging i5 2500K@4.5 GHz, 16GB DDR3-1600, GTX970 4GB VRAM with a i5 6600K@4.5 GHz, 16GB DDR4-3000, GTX 1070 8GB VRAM and saw a big big improvement. So I figure that going to a i7 8700K or even i5 8600K will be for you even better.

I cannot comment about the benefit of a i7 8700K over an i5 8600K for lack of knowledge of those new CPUs performance in regards to P3D, but the i7 will surely produce more heat than the i5 thus require better cooling. I've always use the i5 variant because they are easy to keep cool on air, even when overclocked (no water cooling required), and also because I am not convinced that P3D can properly use the additional logical cores of a HT CPU, but I might change my mind in the future if I see reports of the contrary. I've seen too many reports about people running their i7 with HT OFF for better performance/stability with FSX or P3D.

Disclaimer: My opinion of a i7 vs i5 is purely personal and I have no technical background to backup my point of view. I am not a CPU expert. I simply follow my guts feeling based on what I read.

I would recommend going the SSD route though. No need to buy the expensive M.2 drives, I have 2 Samsung 850 EVO SATA SSD drives (500GB for OS and 1 TB for P3D) and would never go back to mechanical drives. It does not make P3D perform better, but the shorter load time is well worth it.

Best regards,

[Neonx95 11]

1 hour ago, NBouc said:

I cannot comment about the benefit of a i7 8700K over an i5 8600K for lack of knowledge of those new CPUs performance in regards to P3D, but the i7 will surely produce more heat than the i5 thus require better cooling. I've always use the i5 variant because they are easy to keep cool on air, even when overclocked (no water cooling required), and also because I am not convinced that P3D can properly use the additional logical cores of a HT CPU, but I might change my mind in the future if I see reports of the contrary. I've seen too many reports about people running their i7 with HT OFF for better performance/stability with FSX or P3D.

For those reasons i will also upgrade to an i5 8600k. So far what i read on different hardware-forums does not sound to promising regarding the i7-8700k, it seems to have the same heat problems as the i7-7700k. Though my choice for the i5 is more a budget one i would at least wait a while before making the jump and more information is available. While the i7 is definitely more future proof with 6 extra threads at the moment i would not expect such a big difference between the i5 and i7 that justifies the price jump (only in regard to P3D obviously).

[fr3dm 0]

I am planning to go ahead with 8700k because of hyperthreading . When Sandybridge came out both i5 2500k and i7 2600k were neck to neck in gaming but after 6 years, 2600k came out to be significantly better. 

Also I am studying various research papers on thread level parallelism and I am finding that it won't be long before most of the softwares including games will start exploiting the full use of hyperthreading making an i7 a lot more future proof option. However as of now, 8600k will suffice but I think 8700k will age a lot better.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

I'm doing the exact same thing! Hahah I'm on a 2700k right now.

I just bought my mobo (gigabyte autos gaming 7)  last night because it was 50 bucks cheaper at microcenter.

I'm on a frenzy constantly shopping arou d seeing if my components drop in price.

Can't wait to see all of our improvements!

Wish we could get together for some beers and food as a party when it's all done. Oh well.

[NBouc 54]

52 minutes ago, fr3dm said:

I am planning to go ahead with 8700k because of hyperthreading . When Sandybridge came out both i5 2500k and i7 2600k were neck to neck in gaming but after 6 years, 2600k came out to be significantly better. 

Also I am studying various research papers on thread level parallelism and I am finding that it won't be long before most of the softwares including games will start exploiting the full use of hyperthreading making an i7 a lot more future proof option. However as of now, 8600k will suffice but I think 8700k will age a lot better.

For regular gaming, I agree. My son, who is a "gamer" and not a flight simmer, replaced his i5 2500K with a new system build around a i7 7700K (the 8700K was not yet available at the time) and for the type of games he plays, the additional threads seem to be utilized by most of his recent games. Performance wise, it was a huge leap forward for him. But despite a very good air flow with multiple fans well balanced and a good CPU Cooler, his CPU temperature is often in the 80°-85°C range (while my i5 6600K under stress never goes above 60°C).

[fr3dm 0]

3 hours ago, NBouc said:

For regular gaming, I agree. My son, who is a "gamer" and not a flight simmer, replaced his i5 2500K with a new system build around a i7 7700K (the 8700K was not yet available at the time) and for the type of games he plays, the additional threads seem to be utilized by most of his recent games. Performance wise, it was a huge leap forward for him. But despite a very good air flow with multiple fans well balanced and a good CPU Cooler, his CPU temperature is often in the 80°-85°C range (while my i5 6600K under stress never goes above 60°C).

An 8700k can be used as an 8600k by turning off HT. High temperatures are caused by HT for sure. Having HT is just making your CPU more future proof, as I have already found out that many more softwares would use HT in the coming future. However I have planned to delid the CPU in the future before overclocking and I think that would justify going with 8700k over 8600k.

[vortex681 806]

You should definitely look here before upgrading:

 

[fr3dm 0]

I found a review where they have compared 8700k with many previous gen Intel CPUs including the i7 2600k and results are obvious, the 8700k is more or less 2X i7 2600k or even better.

http://techreport.com/review/32642/intel-core-i7-8700k-cpu-reviewed

See the gaming benchmarks and the conclusion. That being said, if you remove the GPU bottleneck, I think upgrading to 8700k from 2600k is a quantum leap. And since Prepar3d is very CPU intensive, I think 8700k should give massive improvement over the 2600k. 

Patiently waiting for my 8700k to arrive.

[fr3dm 0]

6 hours ago, vortex681 said:

You should definitely look here before upgrading:

I have seen that video and it's because they are GPU bound. The 2600k can only match out GTX 1070 at the best and anything over, you are going to be CPU bound. And also Prepar3D is far more CPU intensive than those AAA titles. Hypothetically, if you compare 2600k to say Icelake or Tigerlake, you are going to see the same results with a 1070.

 

[SpiritFlyer 987]

With all the hardware changes needed to keep up with P3Dv4 and with the advent of the 8700K and 10 series Nvdia graphics cards, I thought it would be a good time to record a single slice in time with the flight sim computer I now use.

Processor: 2700K @ 4.938Ghz binned and de-lidded (as shown)
Motherboard: Asus P67 Deluxe (Revised and replaced by Asus)
Video Card: GTX1080 Overclocked with MSI Afterburner (as shown)...
RAM 16G at 2196 (as shown)
Primary Drive: 240G SSD
Flight Sim Drive: 480G SSD
Monitor: 4K 55inch curved screen Samsung Smart TV
Flight Simulator: P3Dv4.1 (over 340G installed)
Settings: (as shown)
Results: Entirely satisfactory

I intend to replace the CPU when appropriate perhaps in the New Year with Intel's newest releases. I do not think the newest CPU's are advanced enough in performance for me to replace system yet. Amazing that Sandy Bridge still remains (somewhat) competitive this many years later.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/156377156@N06/S536g0

I hope this link works. It is what I customarily run my simulator at. I use Saitek controls, Track IR, almost all ORBX Scenery, Active Sky, Ultimate Traffic (high settings) and complex aircraft.

Any number of newer rigs probably out perform this one, but probably not by a whole lot.

Overall it runs fast and smooth and worry free under a load of add-ons that would choke a horse!

Hopefully the next round of breakthroughs will produce the results needed for substantial change.

Kind regards,

[Ted Striker 338]

On 10/23/2017 at 0:41 PM, fr3dm said:

Patiently waiting for my 8700k to arrive.

So are we!  Please report back your test results.

Ted

[martin-w 3,234]

On 23/10/2017 at 2:12 AM, fr3dm said:

An 8700k can be used as an 8600k by turning off HT. High temperatures are caused by HT for sure. Having HT is just making your CPU more future proof, as I have already found out that many more softwares would use HT in the coming future. However I have planned to delid the CPU in the future before overclocking and I think that would justify going with 8700k over 8600k.

 

HT only adds ten degrees to temp.

[martin-w 3,234]

On 22/10/2017 at 10:33 PM, NBouc said:

For regular gaming, I agree. My son, who is a "gamer" and not a flight simmer, replaced his i5 2500K with a new system build around a i7 7700K (the 8700K was not yet available at the time) and for the type of games he plays, the additional threads seem to be utilized by most of his recent games. Performance wise, it was a huge leap forward for him. But despite a very good air flow with multiple fans well balanced and a good CPU Cooler, his CPU temperature is often in the 80°-85°C range (while my i5 6600K under stress never goes above 60°C).

 

Yeah, that doesn't sound right. What's his ambient temp? Which CPU cooler? Overclocking or not?

Just built a mini ITX for my daughter, 7600K so no HT, but HT on only makes 10 degrees difference. Prior to me delidding it she didn't see anything like those temps. At 85-90 degrees he would need to be at 4.9 GHz for most chips and a top notch cooler.