On 08/11/2017 at 8:49 PM, ahsmatt7 said:

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.

 

Have you seen this Stephen? Would seem to be diametrically opposed to your opinion.

 

 

Someone above me quoted what I had said in an earlier thread.

I stand my my subjective opinion.

To be fair, I decided to build a whole brand new system.

Here's some food for thought.

I play ghost recon wildlands quite a bit. I played it with my 1080ti at 4k on my 2700k at 4.8ghz. I played it last night on my 1080 ti at 4k on my 8700k at 5.0ghz.

I saw no increase in performance whatsoever. The cpu utilization topped out at 30%.

Hardware canucks used games like wildlands to shape that a new CPU is not going to do anything. They are right!!! For games like wildlands.....which is how most games use the gpu and cpu today.

Now for p3d v4. I saw doubled performance figures in EVERY scenario except when dynamic lighting was activated and ON for both the airport and airplane.

My cpu utilization for p3d v4 was around 70 to 85%. Meaning that p3d is not like most games these days and the hardware canucks video is irrelevant to p3d.

Say what you will but the fact that your comfortable with 22-30fps just means thst you are so used to it thst you have settled.

When someone like me who upgraded their machine to the 8700k see those fps as unacceptable because I'm getting 40-60 fps in most situations.

If dynamic lighting would be more efficient, I woukd consider my new set up the perfect p3d set up.

Obviously some will disagree....

Hell!

I noticed a significant improvement in Train Sim world because of the new processor.

I remember a scenario thst once I hooked up my locomotive to a set of about 50 or so cars, my fps yanked with my 2700k because did all the physics computations it had to do. Now, there is not a drop in fps which means the 8700k is a much different beast.

 

I wish you could come over to my place and see for yourself!!!!

Anywho, go enjoy flying. It seems most of us get caught up in the nitty gritty these days and forget while we are in this hobby.

All of these gamer and hardware reviewers should get a dose of reality that not every game is an apples to apples comparison. Not even other simulations. Even though they might not be a flight sim fan, it would be interesting to see someone who gloats about their killer system getting 200fps 4k in XYZ 2017 edition, and then run P3D and see how that gloating goes.  While P3D has been going on massive overhaul over the years since V1 which would be the closest to FSX, it still doesnt take much to burden the most powerful systems. But its simple in my eyes. There is so much going on in flight simulation it doesnt even come close to the next advanced game out there simply because the world is so confined. Draw distances are out at least 90 miles for weather and scenery rendering albeit less detailed obviously to the horizon. Next to all the computations of whats going on in the VC itself,  the physics of the aircraft , interaction with weather, AI physics, ground and ramp movements, detailed airport rendering, and then all sorts of communicating with external hooks and programs to feed data back and forth.  The tasks are monstrous. 

Even Xplane is around the same ballpark in performance with the same specs depending whats loaded. Its all going to be hard pressed to go north of 40s-60s unless you really reduce settings, and or addons. The newer sims on the market have great performance so far from the videos Ive seen, but it also hasnt matured to the point of hundreds of addons to enhance it further and make it sweat. 

Hardware is definitely far more efficient then say 5 years ago but for something like P3D we see marginal- modest gains only realizing, that addons have also advanced and pushed the workload of hardware.  I went from a 2500k to a 6700k and a GTX1070 and while I dont see outstanding jaw dropping performance gains, or a big jump in fps, and it wasnt expected, but I do see a more robust experience because I can push settings up a little, and fly into major hubs without the computer dying of exhaustion.  Its not all about FPS for we will very unlikely be anywhere the mainstream games anytime soon.  Minimum 3 generations of CPU or GPU would be a good time to upgrade to take advantage of better efficiency and features in todays CPUs. 

I stand to gain enough right now I feel to make it worthwhile, at least when I'm forced to because of failed key hardware.  My guess is in pure CPU-related work I should see 25-30% increase in performance which would be good enough to justify it for sure.  I'm going on 6 years now on [email protected] and GTX Titan which has be great, but I don't get the benefit of higher overclocks people are reporting beyond the 4.42Ghz at 1.32v I have now.   I could start pushing it and if it fails or dies outright I think I should be able to get to 4.8Ghz+ on a 7820X or 8700K or hope so--my problem is I don't like the hot temps coming out of these things!  My 3930K w/ HT enabled only runs now in the 40-50C range.  I guess I could push it up to what, a vCore of 1.34 and have little added concern for further longevity?

20 hours ago, GHarrall said:

All I can say is my jump from 2600k at 4.6 ghz to a stock speed 6700k was very noticeable, even more so when the overclock to 4.5 ghz went on. 

Obviously the switch to 3200 MHz DDR4 helped as well, but it’s clear that the IPC on the 6700k was far superior to the 2600k.

 

This was my experience as well going from a 3570K to a 7700K. Increase in FPS for similar settings was substantial. 

19 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

 

Now for p3d v4. I saw doubled performance figures in EVERY scenario except when dynamic lighting was activated and ON for both the airport and airplane.

My cpu utilization for p3d v4 was around 70 to 85%. Meaning that p3d is not like most games these days and the hardware canucks video is irrelevant to p3d.

Say what you will but the fact that your comfortable with 22-30fps just means thst you are so used to it thst you have settled.

 

 

 

Wow! Very impressive. I see Stephan hasn't responded. I wonder if your experience has made him reconsider his opinion?

13 hours ago, odourboy said:

This was my experience as well going from a 3570K to a 7700K. Increase in FPS for similar settings was substantial. 

 

Yep, as I said earlier, even when I made a one architecture jump I noticed a small improvement. And of course, as mentioned in the Hardware Canuks article, even in games which are GPU biased, the jump to an 8700K resulted in greater smoothness. So it's not just about "average" frame rate.

 

Quote

Another interesting thing that came up was performance beyond averages. Based on 99th percentile results it looks like the Sandy Bridge system just can’t deliver as consistently smooth gameplay, or at least not as smooth as Coffee Lake. This proves that you can’t always rely on average framerates to determine overall performance. 

 

 

 

Like I said GPU could be the next big thing in sims.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/samsung-gddr6-memory-announcement-spotted-going-for-16-gbps.html

10 hours ago, rjfry said:

Like I said GPU could be the next big thing in sims.

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/samsung-gddr6-memory-announcement-spotted-going-for-16-gbps.html

 

 

Well that's something we've hoped for, for a long while. Seems Lockheed Martin are doing what they can to edge the sim in that direction, but seems to me their endeavours are very incremental. In fact I'm not sure if it's possible or not to convert an ancient engine from CPU biased to very GPU biased. I wonder if it would take a complete re-coding to achieve that. 

It may be better to try to move more to the GPU than trying to move to multi core CPU, the CPU single clock speed was reached some time ago the GPU is still largely underused in flight sim, speaking to one of the dev`s at flight sim show cosford from DTG that's what there aiming for.  

And if the rumoured double the GPU performance from wait we have this year that's some power, I have some headroom on my PSU I may need it .

On 9.11.2017 at 6:44 PM, Anxu00 said:

1.32 v I think.  Very stable for almost 6 years now.  If you want exact number, I will have to boot to BIOS to know it (or may be looking into CPU-Z) as it has been a while. From which GPU did you go from to get to 1070Ti?  I am interested also to know that experience too.

Then you are a very lucky man... I need to be much nearer to 1.4 to get the 4.8GHz, though it is exceptionally stable at that and has been running at that speed since I bought it...

I upgraded from a GTX670, so the jump was rather large. I haven't had the time to review the change to the 1070Ti much and am currently very seriously contemplating the switch to P3D4 and removing FSX for good. I see no point in buying an extra SSD for this mainboard and setup, when I may be considering a new CPU/mainboard combination in due course that supports M2 and so on with NVMe. So that inevitably forces me to dump FSX, as it resides on my 750Gb SSD...

A