I'm currently running an Intel i7 7700K, o/c @ 4.9 GHz ( further hardware info in my signature), if I were to upgrade to i9-7980XE @ 2.6 GHz, would there be a fairly substantial improvement in performance, due to the "16" cores? I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area, but I would like to get an idea of what more I can do: to improve performance. 

1 hour ago, ssair1 said:

I'm currently running an Intel i7 7700K, o/c @ 4.9 GHz ( further hardware info in my signature), if I were to upgrade to i9-7980XE @ 2.6 GHz, would there be a fairly substantial improvement in performance, due to the "16" cores? I apologize for my lack of knowledge in this area, but I would like to get an idea of what more I can do: to improve performance. 

More then likely a decrease in performance due to lower clock speeds.  I can’t see your signature. What is your GPU?

My prediction:  No. 

You currently have the ideal CPU/GPU combination for P3D. 

Edited May 20, 20188 yr by Bert Pieke

Would be a substantial performance downgrade due to lower clocks / lower OC potential. Fast, single-threaded performance is still king when it comes to the ESP platform. While P3D does use additional cores for terrain / autogen rendering, the actual performance benefits are hard to spot.

I am quite happy with my overclocked 7820x (8 Core). You also have to consider RAM and GPU. My 1070GTX seems to be a little bit too weak for my CPU. You could go for a 7900x or maybe 7920x if they are o/c-able to at least 4.5-4.6 GHz., Though, I doubt that more than 12 cores allow enough o/c.

Here I am using a 7940x ( 14 cores ) @ 4.8 - 4.6 - 3x 4.3 - 3x 4.2 - 3x 4.1 and 3x 4.0. No HT , no custom AM. So the main P3D thread is running at 4.8 Ghz.

 Before I had a 6 cores 5820x @ 4.3 Ghz.

If your main thread core now is running at 4.9 Ghz and , with the correct cooling solution , you would have the main thread on the 7980x running at 4.9 Ghz there would be a some improvement as the L3 cache is much biggger .

Beside that all other cores will be used for terrain / Windows / addon programs. You will have better terrain loading and less “stutters” from addon programs.

Rob A has a 7900x at 5 Ghz and Hans “Hasse” Westman has a 7980x at 5 Ghz. Better than that it won’t get when using a multimonitor or 4K Config with heavy aircraft and heavy scenery.

Less expensive and also very good is a 8700k Config ( 6 cores ).  5 Ghz is very normal with a good cooling solution.

regards, Gerard

I also have a 7900X @5 Ghz without HT but still have small issiues with terrain loading, even with all my sceneries on a Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M2 SSD.  I´m using a watercooled titan xp @ 2 Ghz and a 32 inch 4 K G-sync monitor. 

I can maintain 27 - 30 FPS (locked)  most of the time the only place where i´m not able to do this is EGLL 🙂 But that`s known there i have only 15 - 17 FPS. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, 331BK said:

I also have a 7900X @5 Ghz without HT but still have small issiues with terrain loading, even with all my sceneries on a Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M2 SSD.

What cooler? I have all cores on my 7900X running at 4.8 GHz (no HT). I tried 5 GHz but it wasn't stable with P3D4. I did experiment with corres at different speeds, with core0 at 5 GHz, but couldn't really get any better performance.

2 hours ago, 331BK said:

I can maintain 27 - 30 FPS (locked)  most of the time the only place where i´m not able to do this is EGLL 🙂 But that`s known there i have only 15 - 17 FPS. 

Same here, except my EGLL (Aerosoft version at present, but UK2000 one is similar) does get to 19-21 fps after a little while.  FlyTampa EHAM is similar. This is with 3 scenery windows (no panels used) on 3 1080p Projectors (onto NatVis curved screen with 210 degree FOV). I am using SLI on 3 x 1080Ti GPUs, not overclocked.

I can get a little better performance with no AI Traffic -- I use a mixture of UTLive and MyTraffic, with the FSUIPC limiter set to 80 with a frame rate setting for that at 24.

I'd love to use 3x4k Projectors, but they aren't available (yet) with a sufficient short throw at an affordable price, and it think P3D would almost grind to a halt no matter what computer system is used.

Pete

 

2 hours ago, 331BK said:

I also have a 7900X @5 Ghz without HT but still have small issiues with terrain loading, even with all my sceneries on a Samsung 960 EVO 1 TB M2 SSD.  I´m using a watercooled titan xp @ 2 Ghz and a 32 inch 4 K G-sync monitor. 

I can maintain 27 - 30 FPS (locked)  most of the time the only place where i´m not able to do this is EGLL 🙂 But that`s known there i have only 15 - 17 FPS. 

 

 

 

Just built my new LCS into my case. I used slightly higher OC settings : 4.8 - 4.7 - 12x 4.4.  Max 75 degrees on Core 0. Already I ordered 2 extra radiator fans for a push/pull Config which cools all cores by 2-3 degrees extra.

Here the leaktest :

 

 

4 minutes ago, Pete Dowson said:

What cooler? I have all cores on my 7900X running at 4.8 GHz (no HT). I tried 5 GHz but it wasn't stable with P3D4. I did experiment with corres at different speeds, with core0 at 5 GHz, but couldn't really get any better performance.

Same here, except my EGLL (Aerosoft version at present, but UK2000 one is similar) does get to 19-21 fps after a little while.  FlyTampa EHAM is similar. This is with 3 scenery windows (no panels used) on 3 1080p Projectors (onto NatVis curved screen with 210 degree FOV). I am using SLI on 3 x 1080Ti GPUs, not overclocked.

I can get a little better performance with no AI Traffic -- I use a mixture of UTLive and MyTraffic, with the FSUIPC limiter set to 80 with a frame rate setting for that at 24.

I'd love to use 3x4k Projectors, but they aren't available (yet) with a sufficient short throw at an affordable price, and it think P3D would almost grind to a halt no matter what computer system is used.

Pete

 

Pete , only the main P3D core has to run as fast as possible . All terrain cores can run 4.3 - 4.5 as they won’t reach even 20% load . Windows will choose whatever it wants. To be sure I have core 1 running at 100 MHz slower than core 0 so Windows can start on a fast core too.

Regarding EGLL : I have my framerate locked at 22 for airports like EGLL and FT EHAM. Autogen trees : normal and autogen buildings : dense. No AI car traffic.

When doing sightseeing above True Earth Netherlands I set the framerate to 20 , no shadows , clouds distance : 50 , no AI Traffic .LOD radius minimum . 

What also helps is using Nico Kaans Live Traffic instead of MT / UT.  Everything is calculated outside of P3D and it gives way better fps.

Hey guys, 

i use custom watercooling loop with 1x 480 1x 380 and a aquacomputer kuplex kyros HF with .925 silver 

I think to purchase a new motherboard a evga x299 dark because it has perfect vrm cooling and 2x 8 pin connector for cpu. maybee i can then hold the 5 ghz with less v core. currently 1.29 V on a flight from FlyTampa Corfu to ORBX englad with Aerosoft EGLL the max CPU temprature is about 67-68 Degree Celsius (delided cpu). 

At flytampa EHAM or Aerosoft EDDF Professionall (with ORBX North and South Germany) i can get between 25 - 30 FPS only EGLL is heavy.  But i think the FSL A320 has also a big part on that. 

It`s interessting to see that with locked FPS the terrain loading seems to work better but with unlocked the flight is smoother but the terrain loading slower even with my monitor set to 30 hz.

 

I also allready thought about having the first core at 5 Ghz and the others at 4.8 or something like that. But i thougt steve w somewhere said that it`s not a good idea. 

Edited May 20, 20188 yr by 331BK

9 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

More then likely a decrease in performance due to lower clock speeds.  I can’t see your signature. What is your GPU?

 My GPU is the Aurous GeForce GTX 1080TI Xtreme Edition 11GB. I think you have hidden your display signatures preferences. 

Now knowing better jumping from   I 7 7700K @ 4.9 to I 7 8700 K @ 4.9 I find unnecessary spending $ 2,000 when my FPS gain was not more than 3. The only difference I can see is due to a higher core number my scenery textures are loading faster, unfortunately its not so much. The other issue I can see is that P3d core usage is not quite well balanced across the cores. I would wait for a new update version on P3D and make a decision based on what they fixed regarding performance, otherwise IMHO you burn money.

3 hours ago, GSalden said:

Pete , only the main P3D core has to run as fast as possible . All terrain cores can run 4.3 - 4.5 as they won’t reach even 20% load .

Actually I regularly get over 50% load on at least three others.

As I said, i did try different core speeds with only the mainone at 5 GHz, but i think it must have upset some other timing someplace (memory maybe?). It nearly worked, but P3D would crash occasionally. Going back to 4.8 fixed that. And really the difference in performance was negligible -- not really worth further hassle.

Pete

 

 

24 minutes ago, Pete Dowson said:

Actually I regularly get over 50% load on at least three others.

As I said, i did try different core speeds with only the mainone at 5 GHz, but i think it must have upset some other timing someplace (memory maybe?). It nearly worked, but P3D would crash occasionally. Going back to 4.8 fixed that. And really the difference in performance was negligible -- not really worth further hassle.

Pete

 

 

The difference between 4.8 and 5.0 is 4% in cpu speed difference which might be just 2% more fps performance....

I never see more than 15-20% load on the terrain cores. If I apply an AM , then those cores go to 50-100% many times...

Did you try without HT and without AM ?

regards, Gerard