17 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

Why not inform them?

Agreed.  And it's also a shame the new Ryzens aren't even mentioned.  Most likely because this board hasn't been exposed to them.

Just now, Greggy_D said:

Agreed.  And it's also a shame the new Ryzens aren't even mentioned.  Most likely because this board hasn't been exposed to them.

re: Ryzen

1) yes this board has a lack of exposure to AMD products, but...

2) AMD's products are still not "the best" for flight sim.  They've come a long way since the FX series but Intel still has a clockspeed advantage and an IPC advantage.  AMD GPUs aren't worth mentioning for graphics.  They're good at compute workloads (i.e. some professional workloads and crypto-currency mining) but they're very far behind NV for graphical workloads and it's about to get worse with the launch of Geforce RTX 20xx parts soon.  

52 minutes ago, TechguyMaxC said:

AMD's products are still not "the best" for flight sim. 

I'd like to see some actual Ryzen vs Intel benchmarks in P3D/XP11 before that determination is made.  Also, the price/performance ratio should be considered.

1 hour ago, Greggy_D said:

I'd like to see some actual Ryzen vs Intel benchmarks in P3D/XP11 before that determination is made.  Also, the price/performance ratio should be considered.

In my world the champ is the champ until proven otherwise. Intel has been the single thread champ for many years .....You want to challenge that notion? Then you prove it.

OBTW, my 8600K is $225. My money sez the 8600K I own and operate for P3D V4.3 will wax any AMD processor at any price.

Edited August 15, 20187 yr by FunknNasty

4 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

In my world the champ is the champ until proven otherwise. Intel has been the single thread champ for many years .....You want to challenge that notion? Then you prove it.

Why take this so personal?  I didn't challenge your "world".  I'd simply like to see some equal benchmarks from both sides.  There have been some advances in CPU technology lately and it hasn't been done yet.

5 minutes ago, Greggy_D said:

Why take this so personal?  I didn't challenge your "world".  I'd simply like to see some equal benchmarks from both sides.  There have been some advances in CPU technology lately and it hasn't been done yet.

Flight sim benchmarks on Ryzen haven't been posted anywhere (that I have seen) because no one has bothered to do it yet.  If you are interested, perhaps you could take up the challenge?  

 

Quote

My point is that better answers exist, which the OP may not be aware of.  The question then is, why not inform the OP of these options which he seems to be unaware of, unless those making said responses are not themselves aware of said options.  

 

8086k is not a better option. 8086K is £50 more expensive ($63) and all that it will provide him, given that he stated he will not be overclocking, is a mere  300 MHz max turbo on ONE core, as long as that ONE core is the only core in use. So essentially nothing that would be noticeable over the 8700K. And given that he specifically stated he wished to keep costs down on the CPU and was prepared to drop to an i5, no reason to recommend the more expensive 8086K that would essentially give him no noticeable benefit. If he were planning to overclock on the other hand, the fact that the 8086K is a binned 8700K might have been a useful suggestion. So I see why there was no mention in the thread of the 8086K.

 

Quote

There's nothing to suggest the 9900k will be considerably more expensive

 

"but the Core i9-9900K looks set to cost around $450"

https://www.forbes.com/sites/antonyleather/2018/07/24/intels-monster-core-i9-9900k-8-core-processor-will-reach-a-massive-5ghz-with-4-7ghz-all-core-boost/#159d6e947222

 

8700K costs $359... so the 9900k is estimated to be $91 more expensive.  So again.... given he stated he had already decided he wanted one of the three CPU's mentioned, given he's not overclocking, given he specifically said he wishes to keep costs down on the CPU and even drop to an i5 I see why there is no mention of the 9900K in this thread.

 

Quote

Why not inform them?

 

It costs nothing to inform, so I would accept that on that basis and accept your point, and perhaps an oversight not to at least mention said CPU's. Likewise I see why there was no mention of your suggested CPU's given the reasons stated above.

In addition, the 8700K will probably drop in price after the launch of 9900K. So if cuttings costs is still the OP's objective he may be able to save more.

Edited August 16, 20187 yr by martin-w

In lieu of starting another thread seeking the same answer I will add to this one. I have a i7 6700k and I want to get it upgraded along with the cooling system and MB. I lost the silicon lottery as even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C. This with a H115i cooler. I am thinking of waiting for Intel's new i9-9900K. Going from 4 cores to 8 cores in non-HT setting plus the added speed. I do long 12+ hour flights frequently using the high-end payware type planes and airports. 

20 hours ago, B777ER said:

In lieu of starting another thread seeking the same answer I will add to this one. I have a i7 6700k and I want to get it upgraded along with the cooling system and MB. I lost the silicon lottery as even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C. This with a H115i cooler. I am thinking of waiting for Intel's new i9-9900K. Going from 4 cores to 8 cores in non-HT setting plus the added speed. I do long 12+ hour flights frequently using the high-end payware type planes and airports. 

 

"even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C."

At what ambient temp? 60C isn't a bad temp under load. Whats the temp at stock voltage? What kind of a load, the sim or stress test? If you are running something like RealBench or Prime 95 that runs AVX temp will be high.

I cant recall what stock voltage is to be honest. At 60C you still have loads of thermal headroom, why do you see that as an issue?. 

If you are considering the 9900K, then there's still just rumour and speculation floating around. We will have to see how it does in the sim once released. I know someone who has probably tested it, but of course NDA applies. 

Edited August 17, 20187 yr by martin-w

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

"even a stock speed and 1.18VCPU my cpu temps are around 60C."

At what ambient temp? 60C isn't a bad temp under load. Whats the temp at stock voltage? What kind of a load, the sim or stress test? If you are running something like RealBench or Prime 95 that runs AVX temp will be high.

I cant recall what stock voltage is to be honest. At 60C you still have loads of thermal headroom, why do you see that as an issue?. 

If you are considering the 9900K, then there's still just rumour and speculation floating around. We will have to see how it does in the sim once released. I know someone who has probably tested it, but of course NDA applies. 

Under load the temps are in the upper 70's with spikes into the 80's. Now a payware aircraft into Orbx True Earth Netherlands and FT EHAM and its in the 90's, all 4 cores with HT not enabled (which, with HT enabled will cause greater heat). I swear, P3D is more stress than Prime95.

Edited August 17, 20187 yr by B777ER

1 hour ago, B777ER said:

Under load the temps are in the upper 70's with spikes into the 80's. Now a payware aircraft into Orbx True Earth Netherlands and FT EHAM and its in the 90's, all 4 cores with HT not enabled (which, with HT enabled will cause greater heat). I swear, P3D is more stress than Prime95.

 

Well that is indeed hot with no overclock.  

MCE on or off? Have you made sure your cooler is okay, pump functioning properly, cooler mated properly? fans on the rad functioning at a reasonable rpm? 

 

It's possible of course that the die/IHS interface is defective, in which case delidding is the answer. 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

Well that is indeed hot with no overclock.  

MCE on or off? Have you made sure your cooler is okay, pump functioning properly, cooler mated properly? fans on the rad functioning at a reasonable rpm? 

 

It's possible of course that the die/IHS interface is defective, in which case delidding is the answer. 

I'm thinking Multi Core Enhancement is on, going to shut if off tomorrow and see the results I get from it.  I think Power Phase control is set to extreme. Going to go to Optimized instead. I think LLC is set to high as well. I think that needs to be Auto. I think even with a XMP profile loaded setting my core to 1.20v fixed will work. 

14 hours ago, B777ER said:

I'm thinking Multi Core Enhancement is on, going to shut if off tomorrow and see the results I get from it.  I think Power Phase control is set to extreme. Going to go to Optimized instead. I think LLC is set to high as well. I think that needs to be Auto. I think even with a XMP profile loaded setting my core to 1.20v fixed will work. 

 

Yep, I would set everything to optimised defaults. Don't forget though, some board manufactures were setting MCE (Multi Core Enhancement) to ON by default, so essentially overclocking all cores to the max Turbo frequency. So after setting optimised defaults, then make sure MCE is off.

Don't set the XMP profile for your RAM either, all at stock.

 

The above will give us some idea what your CPU is really doing. 

 

 

I do alright with my system with P3Dv4.3, but have you noticed that motherboard manufactures are now fitting HEAT PIPES to the VRM on some ROG boards I wonder why. 

And fans attached to the VRM shield.

Edited August 18, 20187 yr by rjfry

6 hours ago, rjfry said:

I do alright with my system with P3Dv4.3, but have you noticed that motherboard manufactures are now fitting HEAT PIPES to the VRM on some ROG boards I wonder why. 

And fans attached to the VRM shield.

 

It's not new of course, heat pipes have been around on boards for a while. I had an old Gigabyte board some years ago that had a mini fan. Noisy damn thing. 

Seen more now on the newer high end platforms  because VRM's are getting toasty.