i7 8700 6 cores @ 4.3 VS 1 core @ 4.6

[lidorx7 8]

Hi guys,

i have regular 8700 cpu, not K version.

it can go 6 cores @ 4.3 or 1 core @ 4.6, what you guys think is better? right now im on the 6 cores at 4.2-3. all of them running to 100% with P4.3 around temp of 78-80c.

im not using any AM parameter.

 

another thing i noticed, i see my 1080 card mostly running on 80-90% usage, 80c temp. and only 3000Gb vram used for the card (out of 8 )

if the card is almots kiiling himself why the vram so low?

 

thanks!

 

Edited July 10, 2018 by lidorx7

[GSalden 4,656]

Core 0 4.8 -> P3D so do not exclude

Core 1. 4.6

All other cores 4.3

[lidorx7 8]

21 minutes ago, GSalden said:

Core 0 4.8 -> P3D so do not exclude

Core 1. 4.6

All other cores 4.3

from what i saw, the maximum turbo boost is 4.6. how you set different speed for different cores without OC? 

[kurtb 121]

what do you need this for lol ???

[Nuno Pinto 1,395]

Locked CPUs cannot have all cores running simultaneously at the same speed. It's obviously better to have all cores at 4.6 than all cores at 4.3. Mine's unlocked and i run all cores at 5.1 (with increased voltage and proper cooling obviously).

In your case, you simply have no choice, so it's better to leave all cores running at 4.3 than disabling some.

Bear in mind that power consumption escalates real quick with clock and voltage on a hexacore (as well as temperature).

Edited July 10, 2018 by Nuno Pinto

[Litmoose 90]

I'm getting close on dropping £1000+ to upgrade my current setup of 16gb(ddr3) + 3770k(4.6ghz) on either the 8700k or the 8086 limited edition(pre 5ghz OC'ed basically). And keeping my 1080ti

 

The only thing that's holding me back is I haven't seen any figures to give me a rough idea of how much improvement I'll see. I would only require this system purely for simming as other games I play don't require such high specs, So I don't want to upgrade if its not going to see significant improvement. Does anyone have any experience or figures?

[Marc Banger 5]

24 minutes ago, Litmoose said:

I'm getting close on dropping £1000+ to upgrade my current setup of 16gb(ddr3) + 3770k(4.6ghz) on either the 8700k or the 8086 limited edition(pre 5ghz OC'ed basically). And keeping my 1080ti

 

The only thing that's holding me back is I haven't seen any figures to give me a rough idea of how much improvement I'll see. I would only require this system purely for simming as other games I play don't require such high specs, So I don't want to upgrade if its not going to see significant improvement. Does anyone have any experience or figures?

Upgrade to a new CPU and the addition of DDR4, you should see a slight improvement but all depends on what addons your running and that, also just to note, you could have 2 identical setups but they could perform totally different to each other, personally if you looking to upgrade in general, I'd go ahead and do it, nothing more statisfying than buying new hardware lol.

[dal330200 216]

I upgraded a few months ago to an 8700k, faster RAM and a 1080ti GPU and performance was TERRIBLE, even with it overclocked to 4.6ghz (the limit for stability on my system). Turned out to be the video card.  Not the driver, not any settings, but I'm guessing something in the architecture of the card itself.  I returned it, went back to my 1060 and tried my luck with a couple of different 1080ti cards, and I ended up with the Zotac AMP Extreme, and performance is much better.  Not perfect, but much smoother at higher settings.  Still have problems with slow-loading autogen at times, but that's something that LM needs to address, but I don't think they know how since this has been a persistent issue in their forums since v4 came out.  Anyway, I had no idea that different manufacturers of GPUs can have varying degrees of performance, but this seems to be the case on my end here.  Luckily I get mine through Amazon Prime, so I had 30 days to return them while I was experimenting. 

[Litmoose 90]

55 minutes ago, dal330200 said:

I upgraded a few months ago to an 8700k, faster RAM and a 1080ti GPU and performance was TERRIBLE, even with it overclocked to 4.6ghz (the limit for stability on my system). Turned out to be the video card.  Not the driver, not any settings, but I'm guessing something in the architecture of the card itself.  I returned it, went back to my 1060 and tried my luck with a couple of different 1080ti cards, and I ended up with the Zotac AMP Extreme, and performance is much better.  Not perfect, but much smoother at higher settings.  Still have problems with slow-loading autogen at times, but that's something that LM needs to address, but I don't think they know how since this has been a persistent issue in their forums since v4 came out.  Anyway, I had no idea that different manufacturers of GPUs can have varying degrees of performance, but this seems to be the case on my end here.  Luckily I get mine through Amazon Prime, so I had 30 days to return them while I was experimenting. 

 

Thanks for feedback, with regards to the issue with your video card. Performance shouldn't vary depending on the vendor apart from if its factory overclocked, I'm guessing your were just unlucky and had a faulty card or didn't install it correctly(maybe didn't plug the power plug in correctly? that can cause to run at snails pace)

Edited July 10, 2018 by Litmoose

[Steve_mac 5]

On 7/10/2018 at 10:57 PM, Litmoose said:

I'm getting close on dropping £1000+ to upgrade my current setup of 16gb(ddr3) + 3770k(4.6ghz) on either the 8700k or the 8086 limited edition(pre 5ghz OC'ed basically). And keeping my 1080ti

 

The only thing that's holding me back is I haven't seen any figures to give me a rough idea of how much improvement I'll see. I would only require this system purely for simming as other games I play don't require such high specs, So I don't want to upgrade if its not going to see significant improvement. Does anyone have any experience or figures?

Hi Litmoose,

I just upgraded from an i7 3820 @3.6 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3 @1600 MHz (was overclocked to 4.6 Ghz but became unstable) to an i7 8086k which also entailed a new motherboard (Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 3) and memory (32 GB DDR4 @3200 MHz). I had upgraded the GPU from an nVidia GTX770 to GTX1080 a year ago which gave a slight improvement that i retained for this build.

The performance increase was marked. Where before I had most sliders to the left to achieve the 30-35 fps I desire when flying PMDG 737/747 at addon airports, I can now have most sliders mostly right which means way more eye candy at higher visual distances that increases the realism. Outside of high-detail airports with ORBX global installed the FPS have gone from 40-50 to 80-120. Overall the sim feels more fluid.

As an example, at FlyTampa's Toronto in the PMDG 737 with no AI traffic and clear skies or light cloud I could only achieve 14-20 FPS with stutters and long texture load times. Now, without reducing the sliders, I can achieve 27-40 FPS. 

The 8086k without overclocking or an affinity mask for Prepar3D v4.3 in Windows 10 sits at 4.3 GHz with a max temp of 45 deg C running a Corsair H115i.

That's my experience so far. Hope this helps.

Cheers,

Steve

[lownslo 592]

3 hours ago, Steve_mac said:

I just upgraded from an i7 3820 @3.6 Ghz, 16 GB DDR3 @1600 MHz (was overclocked to 4.6 Ghz but became unstable) to an i7 8086k which also entailed a new motherboard (Gigabyte AORUS Gaming 3) and memory (32 GB DDR4 @3200 MHz). I had upgraded the GPU from an nVidia GTX770 to GTX1080 a year ago which gave a slight improvement that i retained for this build.

The performance increase was marked. Where before I had most sliders to the left to achieve the 30-35 fps I desire when flying PMDG 737/747 at addon airports, I can now have most sliders mostly right which means way more eye candy at higher visual distances that increases the realism. Outside of high-detail airports with ORBX global installed the FPS have gone from 40-50 to 80-120. Overall the sim feels more fluid.

As an example, at FlyTampa's Toronto in the PMDG 737 with no AI traffic and clear skies or light cloud I could only achieve 14-20 FPS with stutters and long texture load times. Now, without reducing the sliders, I can achieve 27-40 FPS. 

The 8086k without overclocking or an affinity mask for Prepar3D v4.3 in Windows 10 sits at 4.3 GHz with a max temp of 45 deg C running a Corsair H115i.

That's my experience so far. Hope this helps,

+1.  This pretty sums it up.  The problem is getting forks to pay attention.  We shall see....

Thanks,

Greg

[downscc 1,327]

14 hours ago, Steve_mac said:

The 8086k without overclocking or an affinity mask for Prepar3D v4.3 in Windows 10 sits at 4.3 GHz with a max temp of 45 deg C running a Corsair H115i.

I read about the new 8086 a few weeks ago and didn't realize it had come out... interesting.  The hype I read was that it could OC to 5 GHz on air cooling, a claim I wondered about.

[Litmoose 90]

Well I did upgrade my computer in the end and I've had it a few weeks, I'd say the new performance even exceeds what I expected. Pretty much maintains my 30fps lock flawlessly even in the FSlabs which wasn't a pleasant experience before. Also almost 0 stutters(apart from when FSuipc auto saves) and does all this with higher settings than before. Its might also help that I use my old PC as a "slave" now to run all the networkable apps that I can, ActiveSky/ASCA/Charts etc.

 

Old specs(which is now my "slave" pc)

3770k @ 4.6Ghz, 16gb DDR3, 1080ti

 

New PC

8770k @ 5Ghz, 16GB DDR4(3600Mhz), 1080ti(recycled from previous pc)

Edited August 6, 2018 by Litmoose

[Mace 1,909]

On 7/13/2018 at 10:43 AM, downscc said:

I read about the new 8086 a few weeks ago and didn't realize it had come out... interesting.  The hype I read was that it could OC to 5 GHz on air cooling, a claim I wondered about.

 

If you'd have told me "I'm running my sim on an 8086", I would have laughed at the thought.   Maybe FS I or FS II.

Intel must have named it 8086K in homage to the old 8086 cpu.   I'll have to read up on this.

[Skywolf 992]

4 minutes ago, Mace said:

 

If you'd have told me "I'm running my sim on an 8086", I would have laughed at the thought.   Maybe FS I or FS II.

Intel must have named it 8086K in homage to the old 8086 cpu.   I'll have to read up on this.

Yes, Intel did name the cpu in homage to the original 8086.

I wonder when they will pay homage to 8088...b/c that is the cpu I had when I was a kid.