Intel i9 9900k to hit 5GHZ - Do you have one Rob?!

[Noel 4,559]

Thanks SteveW for letting folks know where to look to answer the question.  I think given this, I'll go for the HT capable one then test and decide whether HT on w/ an appropriate AM does better in load times than HT off w/ no AM.   

[SteveW 1,792]

You'll find that pairs of background tasks per core simply utilise more of the core's available throughput and so generate more heat since more work done = more heat made. You'll find that HT on enables the system functions networking I/O etc to fully maximise throughput, but this is not so desirable for apps like P3D that's why the AM is present in those type of apps.  P3D v4 is much more efficient in not bothering with the AM in HT mode but even so still grabs 20% of the first core needlessly if none is specified that second LP is well used. Think about that, there's those that purchase software to hopefully give them 5%.

If you have massive core count you also have massive shared cache so not using all the cores saves thinning it out so much, there's a few percent to be had there too.

[G-RFRY 1,720]

Have you guys checked out the latest motherboards coming out all sporting heat pipes for the VRM both Intel and AMD boards, may be testers got the message home to the manufactures last year.  

[Noel 4,559]

14 hours ago, SteveW said:

If you have massive core count you also have massive shared cache so not using all the cores saves thinning it out so much, there's a few percent to be had there too.

I think the I9-9900K has double the cache as the 9700K so that will help I'm guessing.  Actually, if my trusty nearly 6y/o 3930K continues chugging along w/ HT enable at 4.42gHz on all core I may end up waiting yet again!  Can't kill this thing!

[martin-w 3,252]

On 8/3/2018 at 6:19 PM, jabloomf1230 said:

https://pcpartpicker.com/forums/topic/270785-noctua-nh-d15-weight

That's why they make retention straps and heavy backplates. It could happen, but like Rob said, who cares about a 0.00002% chance?

 

 

Re your link... I have already mentioned the Tom's Hardware issue in my post.

The Tom's Hardware opinion is based on their own experience, where they stupidly  shipped the PC, won in a competition, half way across the US to the winner... with cooler attached. A very silly thing to do, and contrary to the advice Noctua provide They then went on to advise people to not even move the PC "anywhere" with cooler attached. Which is ridiculous. They overreacted to their own stupidity, with no evidence that moving the PC around in the normal way was an issue at all.

I have lost count how many times my PC has been moved around the house, the same way you move any PC... with no issues whatsoever. That's three Noctua coolers and in several systems over 8 years.

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

But like Rob said, who cares about a 0.00002% chance?

 

Leaks are way more common than your hypothetical percentage of course. And as I said, no evidence whatsoever of a Noctua causing issues when PC is treated in the normal way.

I posted about a friend with a leaking H100i here on Avsim not long ago. Luckily for him no other components damaged. Less common for sure now the technology has matured a bit. But still happens. It didn't put me off though, as you say, when I built my daughters PC with an H100i V2. Custom loops tend to employ non conductive fluids of course, but do become conductive over time. Not sure what sort of time frame.

 

 

Edited August 5, 2018 by martin-w

[lownslo 592]

More info... err rumors... about launch dates: https://www.techpowerup.com/246491/intel-to-paper-launch-9th-gen-core-on-august-14-availability-in-q4-2018

https://wccftech.com/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-core-x-refresh-cpu-family-october-launch/

https://www.techradar.com/news/intel-coffee-lake-release-date-news-and-rumors

Greg

[Noel 4,559]

Is there anything theoretically wrong w/ this approach w/ a I9-9900K which boasts 5gHz in dual core operation, and 4.7 for all core:  will it be possible with options available in the BIOS to clock 2 cores at 5gHz, and by use of an affinity mask direct the main thread to one of those cores, but run to terrain texture loaders and OS at say 4.0gHz or what have you.  Something that controls heat some but w/ little downside to affect total performance.  Will this be possible does anyone know?

[shivers9 1,174]

This "Dog and Pony show" is starting to look and feel like all of the other "New" releases of CPU's that we have had over the past few years. I was at first hopeful that we may see a good bit of performance increase of our flight sims this time around. I hope that I am wrong but it is beginning to sound like we are in another Intel 99% marketing and 1% computer improvement exercise. It is all a bit strange at this point. We are looking at a 9700K that is an I8 and then we have a 9900K that is an I9 ?? Now the I8 and I9 will run on the 370 boards but we are going to get a 390 board that we can buy and to be honest I don't know why unless it will just make us feel better. It just makes me wonder if the first post after release is going to be...Wow, after just a $3000.00 build the blinking LEDs are beautiful and I am getting 3 more FPS but, can someone help me with this studdering problem in Prepar3d. 

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

Everyone clamored for shifting the workload to the GPU and the sim developers responded. They continue to move in that direction, so I'm not sure what's so exciting about these incremental CPU improvements.

[Noel 4,559]

I have a little excitement as it's been almost 6y since I put together my current PC for flight simming.  Being at this now for several decades and seeing giant jumps in CPU improvements come fairly regularly  in the past it now takes a good 6y or more to get enough real difference for it to matter a whole lot!  I should see a significant jump in total performance when I go from my 3930K at 4.42 to a I9-9900K at 5.0, and going from an original GTX Titan to a GTX 1180 or whatever looks good, so yes I'm excited!  

[shivers9 1,174]

26 minutes ago, Noel said:

I have a little excitement as it's been almost 6y since I put together my current PC for flight simming.  Being at this now for several decades and seeing giant jumps in CPU improvements come fairly regularly  in the past it now takes a good 6y or more to get enough real difference for it to matter a whole lot!  I should see a significant jump in total performance when I go from my 3930K at 4.42 to a I9-9900K at 5.0, and going from an original GTX Titan to a GTX 1180 or whatever looks good, so yes I'm excited!  

Understood. I am in kind of the same boat. I am still at a 3770K at 4.5. I am just waiting to see the price difference of say the 8700K/8086K and the 9700K. So far I have not seen anything that makes me want to go to 9900K since this is just a P3D machine. Either way looks like I will have to change to an AIO to run in the low 5's. If the 9700K does not use toothpaste for cooling may be that I can stay with Air cooler and still get a fairly large overall boost when considering newer chip and much faster RAM. What advantage do you see in the 9900K over the 9700K speaking of course for Flight Sim use only with the new build?

[Noel 4,559]

Doesn't this imply I could use more cores, if not necessarily more logical processors?

[SteveW 1,792]

Measure how long it takes to load a scenario - do it a few times before measuring it. Then add a core and measure again. If it decrees the time to load you need it - otherwise leave it.

Also if our main core is at 100% - that means even if only one LP shows 100% - it is at 100%.

So what happens when internally the load increases? Right, the sim slows down to accommodate more complexity in the scene. This is just one way to set up the sim.

But we can't have it both ways. If we leave it with a margin of overhead then the sim continues to perform exactly the same as load increases - is that a good idea?

[Noel 4,559]

5 hours ago, SteveW said:

Measure how long it takes to load a scenario - do it a few times before measuring it. Then add a core and measure again. If it decrees the time to load you need it - otherwise leave it.

Also if our main core is at 100% - that means even if only one LP shows 100% - it is at 100%.

So what happens when internally the load increases? Right, the sim slows down to accommodate more complexity in the scene. This is just one way to set up the sim.

But we can't have it both ways. If we leave it with a margin of overhead then the sim continues to perform exactly the same as load increases - is that a good idea?

But isn't this a completely dynamic situation, so if I measure time to load in one scenario, then go to one 10x more complex, what am I learning w/ re to optimal core counts and setup?  Quite often, not in this clip but most of the time in specific scenarios I might see the main thread hovering way below 100%, like around 72%, and all or most of the terrain texture loaders at 100%.  This makes me think having a few more of those simply allows more textures to be loaded in advance of being needed perhaps, and in do so textures stay nice and clear for a larger radius.   Why does this not basically describe what's happening?   My bad for displaying a clip w/ the main thread at 100% I typically avoid this by reducing scenery sliders this clip was to illustrate 100% in the texture loaders.

Edited August 6, 2018 by Noel

[lownslo 592]

8 minutes ago, Noel said:

But isn't this a completely dynamic situation, so if I measure time to load in one scenario, then go to one 10x more complex, what am I learning w/ re to optimal core counts and setup?

We don't test different scenarios, but the same scenario and time how long it takes to load.  Then change the affinity mask to add another LP and time how long it takes to load.  Keep testing by adding LP's until the scenario load times stop getting shorter, then you've found how many cores your simulator can use.

Greg