KL Oo

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

Recommended Posts

On 8/3/2018 at 8:23 AM, Noel said:

This thing just makes me want to lose the fans and submerge it into the bottom of a 5 gallon bucket of water w/ ice cubes:  Could get a good couple of hours out of that maybe!Screen_Shot_2018-08-02_at_3.02.52_PM.jpg

 

Thats what i run, decent cooler. I’d build with the current version of the Kraken again.

I did have faulty fans, and thought of upgrading them. Ended up just using new standard nzxt ones, though.

re: submersion. Maybe in liquid nitrogen?😊

edit:

was just  reading this from tom;s hardware: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-9000-series-release-specs-pricing,37695.html

sounds like the i7 9700K will have solder, but the i5 version won’t. 

Edited by OzWhitey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

2 hours ago, OzWhitey said:

Hi, although this is off-topic, I do think that there’s far too many strange opinions on the Aerofly sim spread by people who have never flown it.

re: completely gutted of systems comment.

Default Aerofly FS2 Airbus A320- almost every button and knob can be interacted with, MCDU allows data entry on most of the main pages. ECAM is functional. FCU works as it should. Airbus features sich as alternate law, alpha floor etc are there. Flight model and fly by wire functionality are very good.

Some features - such as properly modelled fuel system or proper MCDU functionality - are still pending.

The level of systems depth is far, far higher than the default FSX airbus. I fly it using all the standard checklists. Well worth the money for what you get, IMHO, and plenty to offer the most serious of simmers. 

Hi Robert....Thanks for your opinion. It does sound like we agree on all the things it is missing at this point. I don't do A320s so I can't really say about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soldered IHS is half the reason to upgrade now.  I am happy to have never had to succumb to the silly putty they have been using since my beloved SB-E chip which now 6y later still runs at 4.42Ghz w/ HT enabled on an air cooler day in an day out, w/ a little help from my a/c unit, which as Martin says was hardly necessary.  So it's I7 9700K or I9-9900K.  Beyond HT enabling, and it appears maybe a little better binning, are there any advantages of going the 9900K route? Is their IPC identical when HT is not enabled?

Edited by Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overclocking a i7-9700K to 5.3 GHz on air: https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/core-i7-9700k-overclocked-to-5-30-ghz-on-air-cooling-(all-cores).html

45 minutes ago, Noel said:

So it's I7 9700K or I9-9900K.  Beyond HT enabling, and it appears maybe a little better binning, are there any advantages of going the 9900K route? Is their IPC identical when HT is not enabled?

It will be what it always is... some folks will see the 9900K as a waste of money, while others will see the 9700K as not enough.  In the end folks will buy what they want...

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, lownslo said:

It will be what it always is... some folks will see the 9900K as a waste of money, while others will see the 9700K as not enough.  In the end folks will buy what they want...

Greg

Yes that's true but says nothing about the question.  It would be nice to know if there are any differences in IPC when HT is off.  It's called I9, versus I7.  Are there any differences in architecture that would make the I9 do better than an I7, all else (ie clockspeed, and HT off) being equal?  Or are they identical beyond HT and binning?

Edited by Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Noel said:

It would be nice to know if there are any differences in IPC when HT is off.

HT OFF for "most" game/sim applications.  HT increases overall processing latency.  Where HT helps is with tasks that can operate relatively independent of one another (not games not simulators) ... these are applications like Web Servers, Video Rendering, 3D rendering (not realtime).  Why HT ON does NOT help simulators is because simulators "threading" targets the loading the terrain and AutoGen which is I/O intensive which will be slow relatively speaking (even with very fast M.2 SSDs) and HT doesn't help I/O since it's in order of magnitudes slower.

I found a good video on HT ON/OFF side by side ... in all but 1 game HT OFF performed better.  Given that HT OFF is more stable and allows for higher OC there is even more of a reason to NOT use HT for games/simulators.

9700K (with no HT option) will probably be the CPU of choice in terms of value for money for most.

The 9900K with HT OFF and the benefit of 4MB more CPU cache should perform a tad better than the 9700K provide same OC.  Either CPU will be a good choice for flight sims and gaming especially if they can hit 5.5-5.8 Ghz with a good water cooling solution.

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

The 9900K with HT OFF and the benefit of 4MB more CPU cache should perform a tad better than the 9700K provide same OC.

Cheers, Rob.

The HT on or off I already have a clear grip on thanks to SteveW's approach in how to evaluate that.   In using his method I determined my 3930K performed significantly better w/ HT on than off, so I run HT on.  That could well change w/ an 8 core CPU for several reasons I can think of.

What I do not know about is if I9's architecture is fundamentally faster in terms of IPC than I7's for this series of CPUs.  It sounds like you are saying the 4mb additional cache will have some positive effect.  Is there otherwise any differences in architecture from I7 to I9 that would improve IPC beyond the cache effect?

Edited by Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Noel said:

Yes that's true but says nothing about the question.  It would be nice to know if there are any differences in IPC when HT is off.  It's called I9, versus I7.  Are there any differences in architecture that would make the I9 do better than an I7, all else (ie clockspeed, and HT off) being equal?  Or are they identical beyond HT and binning?

Anybody who offers you answers to those questions now will only be conjecturing... or busting and NDA.  The point of my previous post is that it won't matter... some folks will see the benefit of a 9900K while others will bet the 9700K is the best choice for the sim.  IPC, clockspeed, HT ON/OFF will just be debating points then.  Point being... choose the one you believe is best and you're willing to buy.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lownslo said:

Anybody who offers you answers to those questions now will only be conjecturing... or busting and NDA.  The point of my previous post is that it won't matter... some folks will see the benefit of a 9900K while others will bet the 9700K is the best choice for the sim.  IPC, clockspeed, HT ON/OFF will just be debating points then.  Point being... choose the one you believe is best and you're willing to buy.

Greg

Yes Greg I understood your point, which had nothing to do with my question.  My question is based on the premise that IPC varies between processor models.   Doesn't it?   I was looking for an answer to the question which can be objectively evaluated at least in terms of an average of several benchmarks that might corroborate theoretical improvements in IPC that Intel was trying to accomplish with this iteration of processors.   I know how to evaluate HT ON/OFF very clearly, so this once again has nothing to do w/ my question.  One can compare the IPC of my 3930K and someone's 8700K, right?  For example, here's one from PassMark looking at single-threaded performance:

3930K@3.7Ghz = 2,239

8700K@3.7Ghz = 2,704

For practical purposes though I'm sure not technically 100% valid we can attribute the 24% increase to improvements in the architecture of each CPU.  IPC increases PLUS clockspeed increases translate roughly into comparative performance expectations for one CPU over another on a given task.   So the question remains, is there anything inherently superior in IPC of I9-9900 over I7-9700 w/ regard to IPC?  I've assumed but never known if Intel's naming one 'I9' meant there implied something fundamentally different between the two.  Is there?  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Noel said:

What I do not know about is if I9's architecture is fundamentally faster in terms of IPC than I7's for this series of CPUs.

If you believe the leaked 3DMark benchmarks (Time Spy - DX12) ... the 9900K at 3.1Ghz was about 20% faster than the 8700K at 3.6Ghz ... engineering samples.  So if that is "real" then that implies additional architectural changes to the CPU beyond just the extra 2 cores.

As soon as I can get one, I'll post a compare form my 8700K, 7900X, and 9900K - still hoping for Oct 1st retail release (assuming Z390 MB's are available).

For anyone building a system "now", it would be a good idea to wait for these new CPUs and GPUs ... if they do meet their "expected" benchmark numbers, you'll get far more performance for the same money spent.  But you will still not be able to "max everything out" with 1001 add-ons in P3D or XP11 ... so if that's one's expectation, then it will NOT be realized, not now and not ever ... I would fear the day we can max everything out because that would mean continued development of our favorite simulators and add-ons would have come to an end.

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The differences are from all CPU versions featuring differences in for example floating point matrix and other things like cache memory and other clever internal stuff like pre computing future branches of execution on sub cores which can differ in strength. All those things combined give rise to differing performance at the same clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

But you will still not be able to "max everything out" with 1001 add-ons in P3D or XP1  Cheers, Rob.

This I've always completely understood, hence I live w/in my means as it were w/ that old 3930K and original GTX Titan and prior systems and continue to use P3D almost daily and enjoy it greatly still.   From guestimates derived from this source or that I think I can expect about a 42% increase in total performance for me by going to one of these two new processors and GPUs, which will be a very significant improvement, so I'm really looking forward to it!  In the end i'm also aware the total experience will ultimately be very similar to what I do every day right now, but with a bit more complexity, but not really all that much.   My 3930K seems to want a little more juice these days so I'm thinking it won't be too long before I have to upgrade so perfect timing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Timespy bench, no info of frq used only info of the ES cpu default info 3100mhz and boost 5000, 

my I9 7920X ES report 2900mhz no turbo when run the timespy bench at 5.0ghz, the NDA is not lifted yet only speculations time will tell

probaly overclocked  5,0ghz with all cores enabled

Edited by westman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Noel said:

This I've always completely understood, hence I live w/in my means as it were w/ that old 3930K and original GTX Titan and prior systems and continue to use P3D almost daily and enjoy it greatly still.   From guestimates derived from this source or that I think I can expect about a 42% increase in total performance for me by going to one of these two new processors and GPUs, which will be a very significant improvement, so I'm really looking forward to it!  In the end i'm also aware the total experience will ultimately be very similar to what I do every day right now, but with a bit more complexity, but not really all that much.   My 3930K seems to want a little more juice these days so I'm thinking it won't be too long before I have to upgrade so perfect timing!

C'mon man! 

My coffee Lake runs P3d V4.3 with settings that probably require twice the bandwidth you run and can do it at the very minimum 2x the frame rate. Bottom line: That 3930 would produce an unflyable slide show with the settings I run.   .... I get 10% pop in minimum fps just by taking my memory from 3200mhz to 4133 ..... ....6 cores running 5ghz to the 4 cores of that Ivy bridge on ddr3????

What are you waiting for, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

Bottom line: That 3930 would produce an unflyable slide show with the settings I run.

What are you waiting for, again?

As I stated, I've learned well you have to live within your means, just like you do, and that is why RobA reminds you you will not be running everything maxed out.  I run all of the scenery sliders to hard right, except when in dense large terminals at which point I might put autogen down to Dense as the lowest.   I am most often flying in FTX regional sceneries.  I use ActivesSky out to 100m w/ variable cloud density according to what I'm after.   I would venture to say if two people walked by our two screens they would be hard pressed to see much difference, truly!   I'm in no hurry my friend because I'm real happy w/ the liquid smooth performance I get, near instant texture update rate at 3440x1440.  The biggest impairment I have is actually out of the GTX Titan.   I frequently have to dial back cloud and terrain shadowing do to GPU load.  Once again, it's easy once you fully understand what impacts what in P3D how to live within your means.  I get off on using FSCaptain, aiming for perfect flights, and use the super easy to process Majestic Q400, f/b PMDG NGX & 777.  I don't get off on a wee bit more complexity--it's hardly worth the cost!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Noel said:

As I stated, I've learned well you have to live within your means, just like you do, and that is why RobA reminds you you will not be running everything maxed out.  I run all of the scenery sliders to hard right, except when in dense large terminals at which point I might put autogen down to Dense as the lowest.   I am most often flying in FTX regional sceneries.  I use ActivesSky out to 100m w/ variable cloud density according to what I'm after.   I would venture to say if two people walked by our two screens they would be hard pressed to see much difference, truly!   I'm in no hurry my friend because I'm real happy w/ the liquid smooth performance I get, near instant texture update rate at 3440x1440.  The biggest impairment I have is actually out of the GTX Titan.   I frequently have to dial back cloud and terrain shadowing do to GPU load.  Once again, it's easy once you fully understand what impacts what in P3D how to live within your means.  I get off on using FSCaptain, aiming for perfect flights, and use the super easy to process Majestic Q400, f/b PMDG NGX & 777.  I don't get off on a wee bit more complexity--it's hardly worth the cost!

You weren't supposed to come back at me with perfectly reasonable logic ......I fully expected you to comeback at me with the I73930 has six cores not four!  -I'm gonna have to fix my spin machine. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 7:57 AM, FunknNasty said:

6 cores running 5ghz to the 4 cores of that Ivy bridge on ddr3????

On 9/5/2018 at 9:22 AM, FunknNasty said:

I fully expected you to comeback at me with the I73930 has six cores not four!

I couldn't tell what you were trying to say because the 3930K is not Ivy Bridge, it's Sandy Bridge-E!  Anywho, the dang thing just isn't dying!  Waiting 6y between systems is great nowadays because improvements in thruput have been so relatively paltry.  I am looking forward to an ~ 42% increase in total performance w/ a new I9-9900K and NVidia RTX 2080 Ti, which is really substantial so very happy I have waited this long.

Edited by Noel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Noel said:

I couldn't tell what you were trying to say because the 3930K is not Ivy Bridge, it's Sandy Bridge-E!  Anywho, the dang thing just isn't dying!  Waiting 6y between systems is great nowadays because improvements in thruput have been so relatively paltry.  I am looking forward to an ~ 42% increase in total performance w/ a new I9-9900K and NVidia RTX 2080 Ti, which is really substantial so very happy I have waited this long.

Yeah, as is often the case with me -post 1st research later, that 3930 is a nice processor  ...like an early coffee lake prototype. Anyway, with the new kit I'm gonna bet you a beer that the "42%" benchmark  you have set will be insignificant after you get some seat time with it. You will probably never use the term FPS again.

Edited by FunknNasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

 Anyway, with the new kit I'm gonna bet you a beer that the "42%" benchmark  you have set will be insignificant after you get some seat time with it.

Once again, I have no idea why this particular comment.  I'm exceedingly aware of exactly how the sim performs, what impacts the CPU, the GPU, and both combined, and I predict it will be very easy to quantify the difference between the current system and 142% of the current system.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2018 at 5:17 PM, Rob Ainscough said:

If you believe the leaked 3DMark benchmarks (Time Spy - DX12) ... the 9900K at 3.1Ghz was about 20% faster than the 8700K at 3.6Ghz ... engineering samples.  So if that is "real" then that implies additional architectural changes to the CPU beyond just the extra 2 cores.

As soon as I can get one, I'll post a compare form my 8700K, 7900X, and 9900K - still hoping for Oct 1st retail release (assuming Z390 MB's are available).

For anyone building a system "now", it would be a good idea to wait for these new CPUs and GPUs ... if they do meet their "expected" benchmark numbers, you'll get far more performance for the same money spent.  But you will still not be able to "max everything out" with 1001 add-ons in P3D or XP11 ... so if that's one's expectation, then it will NOT be realized, not now and not ever ... I would fear the day we can max everything out because that would mean continued development of our favorite simulators and add-ons would have come to an end.

Cheers, Rob.

🙋‍♂️ Exactly what I'm going to do, @Rob Ainscough

Edited by BimmerCop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/5/2018 at 1:17 AM, Rob Ainscough said:

If you believe the leaked 3DMark benchmarks (Time Spy - DX12) ... the 9900K at 3.1Ghz was about 20% faster than the 8700K at 3.6Ghz ... engineering samples.  So if that is "real" then that implies additional architectural changes to the CPU beyond just the extra 2 cores.

As soon as I can get one, I'll post a compare form my 8700K, 7900X, and 9900K - still hoping for Oct 1st retail release (assuming Z390 MB's are available).

For anyone building a system "now", it would be a good idea to wait for these new CPUs and GPUs ... if they do meet their "expected" benchmark numbers, you'll get far more performance for the same money spent.  But you will still not be able to "max everything out" with 1001 add-ons in P3D or XP11 ... so if that's one's expectation, then it will NOT be realized, not now and not ever ... I would fear the day we can max everything out because that would mean continued development of our favorite simulators and add-ons would have come to an end.

Cheers, Rob.

Hi Rob,

With the new Z390 (I am planning on getting the Asus Maximus XI Hero WiFi), are there any Memory type to avoid ? CL14/16....

 

Thank you

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pao said:

are there any Memory type to avoid ?

For memory:

1.  Manufacturers QVL list (example here: https://www.asus.com/us/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-Z370-E-GAMING/HelpDesk_QVL/) ... I scan thru a rather long and extensive list of memory modules and I start with "frequency" and "Voltage" and "timing" values ... for example CORSAIR listed at 10-12-12-31 1.35v for CMD16GX4M4B2133C10(Ver3.2 0)(XMP)... this is their DOMINATOR PLATINUM 16GB DDR 2133Mhz modules.  Great timing, but low frequency and high voltage ... this could be good or bad ... the only way to test is move to higher frequency and see what timing adjustments are needed ... for this particular module I'd guess voltage would stay the same but timings would need to be increased as frequency increases.

2.  Look for the lowest timing and lowest voltage with highest Frequency ... typically as frequency increases 2133, 2666, 2800, 3000, ... 4000+ voltage increases and unfortunately so do timing values.  The timing values are essentially how long the memory waits before it can be refreshed and ready for a data operation.

3.  Installation, very important you're in a clean environment and keep fingers and/or other dirty items away from the pins and the MB slots ... it's best NOT to remove them once installed.  Make sure they click into place with locking pins.

Over the decades I've tried very high end "binned" memory and very low end and something in the middle ... XMP profiles don't always work the best and more often than not I can get very good performance from mid to low end memory modules.  IMHO, high end memory modules are worth their high asking price, one can usually get similar results on the less expensive modules and ignoring the XMP profiles ... but it'll take some experimentation.

Be sure to test memory performance after changes, I use SiSoftware Sandra to do my memory testing, but there are other products.  For example you may increase the frequency from 2800 to 3000 but you've had to increase timing resulting in actually lower overall memory performance.

Cheers, Rob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now