9 hours ago, fr3dm said:

I would like to point out something about this comparison. The video is not at all legit. The benchmarks are surely manipulated.

What evidence do you have that it's not legitimate? Just because the comparison doesn't agree with what you think doesn't mean that it's been manipulated. HardwareCanucks is a well respected review site with an excellent reputation and has too much to lose by publishing falsified data. What have they got to gain? Significantly, they have previously reviewed the 8700k separately and considered it to be an "awesome processor". Surely if they were somehow trying to make it look bad they would have done so during that review. What the comparison shows is that most games don't really make use of the extra cores and processing power of the 8700k.

8 hours ago, fr3dm said:

6 generations later and still a very little performance difference is something I can't believe.

No one's saying that there's isn't a performance difference, just that it's not that significant in modern games. Remember that most games depend much more on the GPU than the CPU and gamers tend to play at 1920x1080 where the extra CPU power isn't really needed. If there was a massive amount to gain from using the latest processors I'm sure that hardcore gamers would be all over them, but that doesn't seem to be the case - the latest Steam survey shows that the majority of gamers still use CPUs with clock speeds below 3.3GHz (with only 5% of them above 3.7GHz). Outside of flight sims, graphics cards tend to be much more important for gaming.

3 hours ago, vortex681 said:

 

No one's saying that there's isn't a performance difference, just that it's not that significant in modern games. Remember that most games depend much more on the GPU than the CPU and gamers tend to play at 1920x1080 where the extra CPU power isn't really needed. 

when you test a CPU you always want to be CPU bound, how ? test with low resulution 1920x1080 or less to be sure you not ar GPU bound

if you not agree check how the big sites test CPU.s 

19 minutes ago, westman said:

when you test a CPU you always want to be CPU bound

Couldn't agree more. The HardwareCanucks site did just that - they tested at 1920x1080 using a 1080 Ti with each CPU.

Flightsims are still cpu bound so any jump in cpu performance is good for us 

22 hours ago, z06z33 said:

Flightsims are still cpu bound so any jump in cpu performance is good for us 

True.. however, Intel is not doing any significant improvement. They have simply been milking us for the past 15+ years.  And, will continue to. 

AMD isn't any better - the 7700K still beats out Ryzen most of the time.  I miss the old AMD days - like the 3700+!

5 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

AMD isn't any better - the 7700K still beats out Ryzen most of the time.  I miss the old AMD days - like the 3700+!

Fourteen years ago I had aan AMD 2400+ running at 3600 MHz 

45 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Fourteen years ago I had aan AMD 2400+ running at 3600 MHz 

The Golden Days, xp1800 2400 , AMD A64 +3200 +4000 FX55 FX57 FX60 , have one system runing today and 2 cpu +4000 and FX57 fs2004 installed on win XP32

14 hours ago, joemiller said:

True.. however, Intel is not doing any significant improvement. They have simply been milking us for the past 15+ years.  And, will continue to. 

 

"They have simply been milking us for the past 15+ years."

I would disagree with that.  Last year the brakes were put on More's law, but for most of that 15 years Intel have been following More's Law.

 

Quote

A forecast and a challenge

His forecast for the pace of silicon technology known as Moore's Law, essentially described the basic business model for the semiconductor industry. Intel, through investments in technology and manufacturing has made Moore’s Law a reality. As transistor scale gets ever smaller Intel expects to continue to deliver on Moore’s prediction well into the foreseeable future by using an entirely new transistor formula that alleviates wasteful electricity leaks creating more energy-efficient processors.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/history/museum-gordon-moore-law.html

 

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601102/intel-puts-the-brakes-on-moores-law/

 

I know many here would love a 10 GHz CPU that has mind blowing single core performance, but the laws of reality negate that. Such things as gate delays, heat, and such things as quantum effects resulting in leaky gates as the die shrinks are serious issues.  

6 hours ago, GSalden said:

Fourteen years ago I had aan AMD 2400+ running at 3600 MHz 

With a god awful IPC compared to modern chips. It's not just about frequency. 

Fsx will finally be able to get 60 fps when we switch to quantum computing lol

12 hours ago, z06z33 said:

Fsx will finally be able to get 60 fps when we switch to quantum computing lol

Fsx is from the time AMD XP processor period...

Ah, 2006 with my AMD 4200+ X2 running FSX at 15 fps, and how wonderful it all seemed.

NickN has announced that all CPUs since skylake are nothing more than clock bumps, so he's going to show the world on his simforums site that his upcoming delidded 6700k / 1070 gtx build, using a backdoor Win7 install, will be as "current" performance wise for FSX as anything a 8700k could accomplish with the same.  He's hellbent that Win10 is pure doom and gloom for the serious FS enthusiast, hence his justification for this build.

1 hour ago, TheFamilyMan said:

He's hellbent that Win10 is pure doom and gloom for the serious FS enthusiast

But only, it seems from what I've read of his posts, because he had problems installing and updating it. I can't find anything where he's actually run a side-by-side comparison with the same sim in W7 and W10. I think that most people who use Windows 10 regularly (me included) like it better than earlier OS versions - all of my sims seem to run equally as well (if not better) than they did for me in Windows 7.

I upgraded from a 2700k to an 8700k and the difference is mind blowing. I'll be doing a write up on my experience sometime today.