Go to 1070 and 16 gig of ram, 32 if you think your going to run utlive (it uses almost 900 on mine) that's what I have and works for me.

I am also curious about this. Would be very interested in hearing the actual experience of someone going from 4790k system to 7700 or 7800K.

I upgraded from 1 year ago my gpu from a 980 to 1070, and that made a considerable difference in performance, and also important, enabled me to run at high AA settings. 

I am curious what kind of gains I would experience going from 4790K, GTX 1070, DDR3 and to a 7800K overclocked at 4,8 GHZ, GTX 1080TI and DDR4.

On 4/22/2018 at 11:41 AM, pred02 said:

Thanks everyone for the input.

 

1. Is 1080 GTX the go to card? It seems very expensive at $600+

2. Should I upgrade for 8GB to 16GB or 32GB?

3. I am on Win-7 64 bit, is there a benefit of upgrading to Win10? I like the old interface

 

 

 

 

1. Graphics cards have gotten very expensive due to the high demand. What's important is the resolution your looking for.

• AT 1080P, GTX1060 6GB should work fine with fairly high settings, A GTX1070 for max settings   
• AT 2k-4k or VR, GTX1070 should work fine with fairly high settings, A GTX1080 series for max settings 

2. Memory is still relatively cheap, get as much as you can fit on your motherboard. 

3. As long as you can get updated drivers for all your hardware Windows 7 is still ok. 

I'm happy with my processor, but since you can't find any Z97 boards around anymore, I'm not sure what to do if mine goes.

And thanks for reminding me I'm due for an GPU upgrade myself.

My 4790k at 4.6 runs noticeably slower than my 6700k at 4.4 in P3D4. I'd say 13-23fps on the 4790k in one scenario compared to 19-27fps for the 6700k. The 6700k was never a very good overclocker and I struggle to even get it to run at 4.4. Voltage and temps are also not the problem. The board just refuses to be stable past 4.4.  Bad motherboard or just luck of the silicon I don't know. I too am on the cusp of upgrading the 4790k to an 8700k for the same reason and am hoping to get 5.0 out of it. I assume that the 8700k will also be noticeably faster than the 6700k. I am hoping to see my minimum fps increase to a lot closer to 30 in the same scenario which would be ideal. It's a lot of work, time and money to spend for what could be minimal gains and I am still deciding if it is worth it.

Your Video card is what you should upgrade to no less than a 1070 a 1080Ti is best.  16G memory minimum. The gains of upgrading the processor and mother board wont be as great as upgrading your video card at this time. So I would get the video card now and wait a year or so on the rest. The 4790 is still one of the best chips out there.  Josh

On 5/10/2018 at 3:31 PM, j0nz said:

I assume that the 8700k will also be noticeably faster than the 6700k.

Perhaps, yes, because of the extra cores and higher turbo frequency. But for basic processing grunt, there's very little (<3%) between them, clock for clock: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i5_8600k_processor_review,26.html

 Its 15% to the 4790k and it Clock not as the 8600k ,30% is easy double gain. The 4790k is old and not one off the best nowdays 

1080ti with a 4790k att 4.6-4.7ghz you get cpu bound a 1070 or 1080 do the same work probaly even the 1060 6gb, you need +5ghz with a coffelake to match the 1080TI

Edited May 11, 20188 yr by westman

48 minutes ago, westman said:

Its 15% to the 4790k and it Clock not as the 8600k ,30% is easy double gain.

The link was to the 8600k review just because it had all three CPUs (4790k, 6700k and 8700k) in the IPC results. Note that the results in the linked table are all at the same clock speed to show comparative single thread measurements. I agree that the difference between the 4790k and 8700k is about 15% but j0nz was talking about the 6700k and the 8700k which is a much smaller difference for the same clock speed.

6 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

The link was to the 8600k review just because it had all three CPUs (4790k, 6700k and 8700k) in the IPC results. Note that the results in the linked table are all at the same clock speed to show comparative single thread measurements. I agree that the difference between the 4790k and 8700k is about 15% but j0nz was talking about the 6700k and the 8700k which is a much smaller difference for the same clock speed.

Yes , if any 

3 hours ago, westman said:

 Its 15% to the 4790k and it Clock not as the 8600k ,30% is easy double gain. The 4790k is old and not one off the best nowdays 

1080ti with a 4790k att 4.6-4.7ghz you get cpu bound a 1070 or 1080 do the same work probaly even the 1060 6gb, you need +5ghz with a coffelake to match the 1080TI

Remember we are talking about flight simulators here, not synthetic benchmarks.. 

I would support staying with the 4790 and getting a better video card (budget permitting)..

13 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Remember we are talking about flight simulators here, not synthetic benchmarks.. 

I would support staying with the 4790 and getting a better video card (budget permitting)..

Do, you think a Only run benchmarks, i test all my hardware with syntetic benchmarks  and in the sim.

Its not that easy to only swap gpu, that you know Bert.

You know that i test a lot of cpus in p3d the best today  is the 8700k my personal thougts , but you need 5,1ghz to match single 1080ti for SLI +5.4ghz.

I have the opportunity to get hardware to test.

My p3d v4 rig is that cpuz link in the bottom run it at 5.5ghz with lower vcore  , have not payed  full retail price  for the parts. 

I am i lucky one that can test the parts  before buying them 

 

I've spent damn near $3000 in hardware upgrades (upgraded from a 4.7 Haswell -with a 1070)) over the past couple months and would do it all over again if it all blew up tonite. And no, I'm not a millionaire.

My experience with the upgrade from the Haswell has been damn near intoxicating. The real mystery to me is why my experience is seemingly so different that that of others. At the very minimum I'm getting a 50% FPS increase under the most intensive cpu scenarios and as much as double the performance in specific gpu/cpu combination scenes.

Heck, I won't even get into the stuff that I can't measure in any meaningful way -other than describing it at as fill-rate. With my new rig every frame is rendered picture perfect, even in the most complex weather using the most complex aircraft with the heaviest of sceneries ....all with a smooth lag free feel through the controller. I can't and won't even pretend that was my experience with the Haswell.

And to the instruction per second dudes out there ....lets talk memory: going from 5.0 ghz 3200 c14  to 5.0 at 4133 c17  nets me a solid 10% fps performance boost under the most cpu intensive load e.g.,  short final into LAX.

 

One final thought on the video card. The 1070 is a great card but it is wasted on the Haswell.  Take that 1070 and drop it into a high powered Coffee with the exact same p3d settings and I'll guarantee you'll think you're flying a different sim.

 

Whats scary good about the Coffee is that p3D performance seems to scale clock for clock beyond 5.0.

 

Good to know, given that I've got a 1070 and a Haswell  CPU

I guess this goes to show that better hardware results in a better simming experience.. 

Edited May 12, 20188 yr by Bert Pieke

I would do the GPU upgrade AND ram to 16GB

I frequently use 11-12 GB of ram.  Only recently I had 8 and upgrading made a big difference as I was paging often.

12 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

and as much as double the performance in specific gpu/cpu combination scenes.

That claim is with the 1080ti/Coffee over the 1070/Haswell (dynamic lighting scenes).