9900K/9700K Overclock performance review

[martin-w 3,235]

7 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

If only your sarcasm would stop similar serious comments. 

 

Sarcasm no. Humour yes, Hence the smiley faces and ridiculous comments regarding SSRI's and the official secrets act. 😉

Edited October 21, 2018 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

2 hours ago, joemiller said:

Martin, forgive me if I "stick my nose" where I probably shouldn't. But...

 

 

 

No problem with you nose Joe. It's wasn't offensive. If it were and Rob didn't understand that it was a joke, a jest, in humour, as moderator, he would have ticked me off quick as a flash. Don't know if you are from somewhere other than the UK, but they say other nationalities don't get British humour. It was,  hence the smiley faces and ridiculous comments like official secrets act. 🙂 Yes, I am bonkers sometimes but all you need to know is that I NEVER intend offensiveness. 

 

Quote

How about the 8700k, is it better for P3D than the 8086K ?

 

I have the 8700K and it overclocks to 5 GHz cooled by a D15 without any issues. The 8086K is a binned 8700K though, so if you don't mind paying the premium for a few hundred megahertz more, that would be the way to go in my opinion. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

11 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

 

Is Star Citizen anything like CIV VI?  Does it have large enough user base to continue development?  Sounds like something I might like.

 

 

 

Star Citizen will be a game changer Rob. It's in Alpha at the moment and a good few years of development remaining, but quite frankly, after being into simulation since Flight of The Intruder on the Commodore Amiga, and prior to that a bash with a flight sim on the Sinclair spectrum, so something like 30 years, I'm blown away.

Being able to wake up in your space vehicle, explore the vehicle, exit the vehicle, explore the space station and interact with others, sign up for missions, launch from the space port but explore a highly detailed planet before you head for your next destination, leave the atmosphere, engage hyper-drive, enter an atmosphere and experience the effects of entering the atmosphere, explore an entire world (many of them)... all without cut scenes loading screens or any interruptions whatsoever, is phenomenal. That must be the longest sentence I've ever written.

 

According to these guys, the 9900K runs a full 10 degrees cooler than the 8700K. looks like mot of the reviewers are hitting 5.2 max OC.

https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-review

 

 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by martin-w

[joemiller 269]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

 

No problem with you nose Joe. It's wasn't offensive. If it were and Rob didn't understand that it was a joke, a jest, in humour, as moderator, he would have ticked me off quick as a flash. Don't know if you are from somewhere other than the UK, but they say other nationalities don't get British humour. I thought it was obvious,  hence the smiley faces and ridiculous comments like official secrets act. 🙂 Yes, I am bonkers sometimes but all you need to know is that I NEVER intend offensiveness. 

 

 

I have the 8700K and it overclocks to 5 GHz cooled by a D15 without any issues. The 8086K is a binned 8700K though, so if you don't mind paying the premium for a few hundred megahertz more, that would be the way to go in my opinion. 

A few magahertz on the 8086K ? Will it make a difference on P3D ? Or mehh ? 

[martin-w 3,235]

18 minutes ago, joemiller said:

A few magahertz on the 8086K ? Will it make a difference on P3D ? Or mehh ? 

 

Well... I should probably have said a better chance of achieving 5 GHz. But no, a few hundred megahertz equates to 1 or 2 frames per second at 30 frames per second. So not a huge deal. 8086k does run slightly cooler I recall.

 

Which is why it sometimes puzzles me that people obsess over a few hundred megahertz. Its more about achieving the sought after 5 GHz, the magic number that isn't really magic at all. 4.8, 4.9, 5 GHz... not much between them in terms of frame rate in a reasonably well balanced system. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by martin-w

[joemiller 269]

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

According to these guys, the 9900K runs a full 10 degrees cooler than the 8700K. looks like mot of the reviewers are hitting 5.2 max OC.

https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-review

 

 

 

I just saw this article... and did you notice Cinebech  R-15 Single Core results?

- 8700K= 193

- 9900K= 211        // 18pts  of difference.. What does this equates to in terms of performance?  2 or 3 fps?  See..this is what bugs me big time, when these companies promise you the world, and all they do is raise the performance only a tiny fraction on every new chip they come up with. Therefore in 3 generations, you will have paid around $1,000 for a gain of 9 fps. Isn't that crazy?  Why not make a good CPU once and for all?  (ohhhh, it's called legal robbery, aka as 'business.'  Sure).  Sorry,  this practice makes me really mad. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by joemiller

[HighTowers 1,434]

31 minutes ago, joemiller said:

I just saw this article... and did you notice Cinebech  R-15 Single Core results?

- 8700K= 193

- 9900K= 211        // 18pts  of difference.. What does this equates to in terms of performance?  2 or 3 fps?  See..this is what bugs me big time, when these companies promise you the world, and all they do is raise the performance only a tiny fraction on every new chip they come up with. Therefore in 3 generations, you will have paid around $1,000 for a gain of 9 fps. Isn't that crazy?  Why not make a good CPU once and for all?  (ohhhh, it's called legal robbery, aka as 'business.'  Sure).  Sorry,  this practice makes me really mad. 

As long as we are on this sort of architecture, heat is and will always be the issue of constraint unless we all employ Robs chillers or carry tanks of liguid nitrogen in stock. So much energy in a tiny package against restriction equals alot of heat. If heat wasnt a factor , we would be alot further ahead. 

 

But I would agree, they do tease with very incremental improvements for a big price. Quite often its not just cpu. You need the new MB with a new chipset to support it. 

Edited October 21, 2018 by HighTowers

[Johnny19 344]

Just checking prices here in Croatia 8086k is around 720 USD, so when 9700k comes in it'll be over 900 USD. And I want so bad to upgrade my 6700K 😛

Edited October 21, 2018 by Johnny19

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

I am another following this topic with interest as I have a buyer for my 5 year-old i7-4770K with a 1080 added a year or so back.

I want the fastest CPU within reasonable cost that doesn't require serious cooling options. A Corsair H100 cooler has looked after my i7 very well.

Still chewing over either a 2080 or 2080Ti.

Regarding memory I'd like 32Gb but not sure if 4x8Gb or 2x16Gb is best. Would appreciate advice on that please.

[martin-w 3,235]

1 hour ago, joemiller said:

I just saw this article... and did you notice Cinebech  R-15 Single Core results?

- 8700K= 193

- 9900K= 211        // 18pts  of difference.. What does this equates to in terms of performance?  2 or 3 fps?  See..this is what bugs me big time, when these companies promise you the world, and all they do is raise the performance only a tiny fraction on every new chip they come up with. Therefore in 3 generations, you will have paid around $1,000 for a gain of 9 fps. Isn't that crazy?  Why not make a good CPU once and for all?  (ohhhh, it's called legal robbery, aka as 'business.'  Sure).  Sorry,  this practice makes me really mad. 

 

I know what you mean Joe.

Its early days though. Ive just seen a review that has claimed the oposite to 9700k cooler than 8700K... this reviewer claims its quite a bit hotter than 8700k.

There may be a variable at work here that's generating contradictory results. I'm thinking anyone seeking an upgrade would do better to wait a while till the dust settles. A few BIOS updates and different CPU batches may settle things down. Might be cheaper by then too.

 

It may be the motherboards that are responsible for this temp variance, reporting different temps, voltage or some other variable.

Edited October 21, 2018 by martin-w

[martin-w 3,235]

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I am another following this topic with interest as I have a buyer for my 5 year-old i7-4770K with a 1080 added a year or so back.

I want the fastest CPU within reasonable cost that doesn't require serious cooling options. A Corsair H100 cooler has looked after my i7 very well.

Still chewing over either a 2080 or 2080Ti.

Regarding memory I'd like 32Gb but not sure if 4x8Gb or 2x16Gb is best. Would appreciate advice on that please.

 

16 GB is enough for most people Ray. Whatever you go for, I'd go for two sticks rather than 4. Overclocking is usually better with two slots populated rather than 4.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,954]

6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

16 GB is enough for most people Ray. Whatever you go for, I'd go for two sticks rather than 4. Overclocking is usually better with two slots populated rather than 4.

Thanks Martin. I watched early reviews of P3D v4 that suggested 32Gb was ideal. But as most of my flying is IFR then I’m happy to go with 16.

And as I want the max overclocking (it will be professionally bench-tested for 24hrs) that advice makes sense. I assume this would be suitable. Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 3200.

[vortex681 806]

18 hours ago, joemiller said:

CPU is @4.90Ghz and 3800mhz RAM.

For apps which rely more on single-core performance (flight sims, for example), you won't gain much by going for a 9000 series CPU. At the same clock speed there's virtually no difference in IPC between your existing 7700k and the new chips. Look at the IPC chart here at the bottom of the page: https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i9_9900k_processor_review,7.html. Your chip at 4.9GHz should have a similar single-thread performance to the 9000 series chips at 5GHz. You may possibly gain a few extra percent from the newer chipsets but, unless you're desperate for the latest tech or you run heavily multi-threaded apps, on paper there's not really a compelling case to go for these CPUs over what you have.

Edited October 21, 2018 by vortex681

[westman 257]

My second PC , siming and play with res 2560x1440.

No fancy cooling no big Chassi.

fractal R6 , 8700k (delidded) Ht off, AIO Fractal 360 (3x120 rad) , mobo Asus Z370 Apex, mem Gskill, GPU 2x1080TI cooling NZXT G12 with Kraken X42.

Cinebench R-15 single tread 240 (239-241) 

Stabitility test AIDA64

https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1y1fn0m8xadwns/8700K-Aida64.png?dl=0

[martin-w 3,235]

21 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Thanks Martin. I watched early reviews of P3D v4 that suggested 32Gb was ideal. But as most of my flying is IFR then I’m happy to go with 16.

And as I want the max overclocking (it will be professionally bench-tested for 24hrs) that advice makes sense. I assume this would be suitable. Corsair CMK16GX4M2B3200C16 Vengeance LPX 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4 3200.

 

Personally im a GSkill fan.