I think we'll start to see an appreciable performance difference between the 8 core rigs running at 5 Ghz with hi-speed memory (such as the kit Rob secured -nice kit btw), vs and the 8 core rigs running 5.0 with standard run of the mill 3000 Mhz memory.

Rob, thanks for the RAM info. It will help me decide what to do.

Robert

It looks more and more like Nvidia and Intel have both spent way more time on developing their Marketing Plans than they have on advanceing their real performance. It is fun watching Rob push the envelope and I do thank him for his effort. Great stuff. In real life though I would think that something like 99% of the simmers are not going to be plumbing custom water cooling or shopping for chillers. The real story here may be that we have just about reached the very top of performance unless some magic new products are hiding out there somewhere. I don't think of this as being negative in anyway. The fact is that I plan on upgrading as soon as things level out a bit, not due to any expectations of super overclocks or RTX magic ect. The fact is my rig is getting old and I will most likely realize better performance from the bigger pipelines and faster memory and a Better GPU to push the 4K monitor. I run at 4.5 with it and I am not sure that say 5.0 or 5.1 will be that big of a performance boost in the end. It is nice to see a bit of progress but if I had a 7700 or 8700 and a good 1080TI then I would be reading about fishing now. LOL! This is a good time to use your best judgement before hitting the buy button. 

12 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

It looks more and more like Nvidia and Intel have both spent way more time on developing their Marketing Plans than they have on advanceing their real performance.

The Tech industry has always been good at Marketing Plans and Spin Control... quite often they require the latter because of their choices in how they use the former.

Greg

And then there's this headline from TechPowerUp-- New Principled Technology Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster Than 2700X At Gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/248518/new-pt-data-i9-9900k-is-66-pricier-while-being-just-12-faster-than-2700x-at-gaming

Greg

5 hours ago, lownslo said:

And then there's this headline from TechPowerUp-- New Principled Technology Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster Than 2700X At Gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/248518/new-pt-data-i9-9900k-is-66-pricier-while-being-just-12-faster-than-2700x-at-gaming

Greg

Click bate.

However! I (me) do find the headline interesting as it falls in line with my predicted performance difference between the 6 and 8 core Coffee running at 5.0 GHz.  But there's a caveat (the price delta), in order to see that 12% pop with the I9-9900K vs 8700K you're gonna have to install 4400 MHz c18 (or better) memory. <------assumes the 6 core is configured with 3200 MHz memory.

The above is just my 2 cent P3D 4.3 prediction

Edited October 13, 20187 yr by FunknNasty

4 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

Click bate.

Indeed, but then most marketing maneuvers are designed to do just the same!  We won't know for sure until the products are actually in the hands of end users.  One thing's for sure... Principled Technology ought to be thinking about what they'll will be doing in the future! 😰

Greg 😀

17 hours ago, lownslo said:

And then there's this headline from TechPowerUp-- New Principled Technology Data: i9-9900K is 66% Pricier While Being Just 12% Faster Than 2700X At Gaming.

https://www.techpowerup.com/248518/new-pt-data-i9-9900k-is-66-pricier-while-being-just-12-faster-than-2700x-at-gaming

Greg

 

7 hours ago, lownslo said:

Indeed, but then most marketing maneuvers are designed to do just the same!  We won't know for sure until the products are actually in the hands of end users.  One thing's for sure... Principled Technology ought to be thinking about what they'll will be doing in the future! 😰

Greg 😀

Geez, I'm sorry Greg, I totally took your techpower headline post out of context. I've since read up on the subject matter . :-)

So if only 1 core will turbo into 5.0Ghz, does this means the other cores will not be able to overclock all to say 5.0Ghz or more at the same time? 

8 hours ago, joemiller said:

So if only 1 core will turbo into 5.0Ghz, does this means the other cores will not be able to overclock all to say 5.0Ghz or more at the same time? 

No, it means that at default manufacturer settings, the chip will upshift to 5 GHz with a load on one core and still remain within the chip's 95W thermal design power specs.  The K-series chips can be overclocked above that with enhanced cooling and/or changes to the operating voltages. 

The top-end i7-9700K and i9-9900K chips mark a return to a soldered thermal interface between the chip die and the package, so aggressive cooling should be much more effective than it was with the underwhelming paste TIM that was being used since Ivy Bridge (with an exception made in the case of the Devil's Canyon Haswell-refresh CPUs).  The last five generations of chips were somewhat limited because no matter how good a cooling solution you used, at some point well short of the best stable overclock the silicon could sustain, the TIM couldn't transfer the heat out to the case as fast as it was generated inside the package.  So no more need to delid a CPU to solve that problem.

Regards

 

1 minute ago, w6kd said:

No, it means that at default manufacturer settings, the chip will upshift to 5 GHz with a load on one core and still remain within the chip's 95W thermal design power specs.  The K-series chips can be overclocked above that with enhanced cooling and/or changes to the operating voltages. 

The top-end i7-9700K and i9-9900K chips mark a return to a soldered thermal interface between the chip die and the package, so aggressive cooling should be much more effective than it was with the underwhelming paste TIM that was being used since Ivy Bridge (with an exception made in the case of the Devil's Canyon Haswell CPUs).  The last five generations of chips were somewhat limited because no matter how good a cooling solution you used, the TIM couldn't transfer the heat out to the case as fast as it was generated inside the package.  So no more need to delid a CPU to solve that problem.

Regards

 

Very well, Bob. Thanks for the clarification. Hopefully, we can overclock all cores on the 9900k or 9700k to near 6.0Ghz. I guess we won't need HT on as that would create more heat.

Are there any official info of when they will be available for purchase? 

On 10/10/2018 at 12:04 PM, Rob Ainscough said:

I've read the "testing" accusations going back and forth between Intel / AMD / Reviewers … no idea how the WC setup was done to only get 5.3GHz, but the first thing I will do is turn off HT as that seems hinder most sims/games … the only time I've seen any benefit from HT is when using "defined" segmented tasks like you see in Adobe PP or Cinebench or 3DSMax.  Otherwise HT is just a heat generator usually triggering instability.

It'll be fun discovering what can be done … still waiting for a commercial LN2 loop with zero maintenance 🙂

Cheers, Rob.

Rob, I'm curious as to why chose the 9900k vs the 9700k if HT will not be beneficial?  Wouldn't the 9700k be better for P3D ? 

Not speaking for Rob, but the 9900k has a boat load of cache and is probably binned (verified strong cpu meaning higher clocks).

 

edit: oh, and HT can be turned off on the 9900k.

Edited October 16, 20187 yr by FunknNasty

14 minutes ago, joemiller said:

why chose the 9900k vs the 9700k if HT will not be beneficial?  Wouldn't the 9700k be better for P3D ?

I'm always squeezing as much as I can out of the hardware with the goal of performance, as you can see I'm not price conscious and have a different perspective on "value". 

On the tech side the 9900K has 16MB L3 the 9700K has 12MB L3.

9700K boost max is 1 Core 4.9Ghz, 2 core 4.8Ghz, 4 core 4.7Ghz, all cores 4.6Ghz

9900K boost mas is 2 cores 5.0Ghz, 4 core 4.8Ghz, all cores 4.7Ghz

 This is going to be my first K series CPU I've dedicated to Flight Simming (in the past I've used K's for my test PCs and X's for my main simpit).  Since I've never been a fan of the "delid" process and the risks involved, having Intel step up their heat transfer game at the assembly line has sent me in the direction of getting a water "chiller" as I plan to push OC very high on the 9900K.  It's a relatively cheap processor (compared to the X's) so I don't mind if I expire one during the process.

For P3D performance I've seen ZERO benefit from running ALL cores as high as they can go, but I have seen a benefit from running 1 core (the main sync thread) higher while the other cores are still high but about 200-300Mhz lower ... this increases stability, reduces heat, and doesn't have any detriment to P3D performance.

P3D does use all cores but in most of my testing I see about 60-80% utilization across the other cores while the primary main thread is around 90-98%, but the main sync thread will always without except bare the grunt of work as it has to assemble the final frame render in a virtual world that is "bound to time" ... and that's very important distinction "bound to time"

However, seeing as the Z390 chipset and CPU are relatively new, there will most likely be several EFI versions that need to happen before all the bugs are worked out.

NOTE: this is still NOT the processor that has hardware fixes for Spectre and Meltdown, I believe those CPUs are a couple of generations away.

Cheers, Rob.

3 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

NOTE: this is still NOT the processor that has hardware fixes for Spectre and Meltdown, I believe those CPUs are a couple of generations away.

Correction:

Covfefe Lake R has hardware fixes for variants 3 and 5 in hardware.  It is only the refreshed Skylake-X CPUs that bring nothing new to the table in this regard.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13450/intels-new-core-and-xeon-w-processors-fixes-for-spectre-meltdown