joemiller

And Finally- A Processor worth more than its Value!

Recommended Posts

Well.. Who would've thought. After so many years I can finally (finally) say that I have  found a CPU that has  tamed P3D 4.3

I just purchased the Intel 8086K and managed to Overclock this guy to 5.3Ghz, along with 16Gb of RAM at  4266 Mhz. This along with an Nvidia 2070 card (will be getting an 11Gb soon).

I will tell you, now I can fly my sim with any settings I choose and frames remain constant at 29-30 ... smooth, and clean! Sounds too good to be true but it actually is. I managed this with Hyperthreading  Off. I actually took it all the way to 

5.4Ghz but will not hold for more than 5 minutes and BSOD. No worries, I am indeed a very happy simmer. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

That's interesting. I've just ordered a new PC based on an i7-8086K. The company said they can overclock up to 5.0Ghz but I wonder if they might be able to get more. My memory is 'slower' than yours but when I asked them if 'faster' memory would help overall performance they said not so I went with G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB DDR4 3000MHz.

I'll report back when I get the machine in about 10 days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read somewhere that mem speeds possibly affected sim performance significantly.  I may be wrong... often happens :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, kevinfirth said:

I thought I read somewhere that mem speeds possibly affected sim performance significantly.  I may be wrong... often happens 😛

Significantly better or significantly worse? The company building mine could have suggested faster memory (for financial gain) than the 3000 but said it would not improve performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Significantly better or significantly worse? The company building mine could have suggested faster memory (for financial gain) than the 3000 but said it would not improve performance.

Hi Ray,

Do they have much/any knowledge about P3D or our current line of Flight Sims? In alot of circumstances I would agree that RAM speed (and latency) might not make a discernible difference, but there are a number of test and threads on here to show that faster RAM will benefit P3D.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, joemiller said:

Well.. Who would've thought. After so many years I can finally (finally) say that I have  found a CPU that has  tamed P3D 4.3

I just purchased the Intel 8086K and managed to Overclock this guy to 5.3Ghz, along with 16Gb of RAM at  4266 Mhz. This along with an Nvidia 2070 card (will be getting an 11Gb soon).

 

I'm still tossing up the 8086k or 9700K. There doesn't seem to be much data around about how well the 9700k overclocks and I'm not particularly convinced that the 2 extra cores on the 9700K (I would disable HT on the 8086k) will make much if any difference to P3D. Given that they are essentially the same price, I'm erring on the side of going with an 8086k that might overclock slightly faster and forgo the 2 additional cores?

 

Any thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KL Oo said:

Hi Ray,

Do they have much/any knowledge about P3D or our current line of Flight Sims? In alot of circumstances I would agree that RAM speed (and latency) might not make a discernible difference, but there are a number of test and threads on here to show that faster RAM will benefit P3D.

Hi Kael,

No, they have no specific knowledge of P3D. Given the 3200 set has a "true latency" of 8.75 and the 3000 is 9.33 I asked if the difference would make a difference and they said not. The price difference is £134 for 32GB. I saw no point in throwing money away.

How does it benefit P3D specifically? I'm not aware of any memory specific tests with all other hardware the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, joemiller said:

 

I just purchased the Intel 8086K and managed to Overclock this guy to 5.3Ghz, along with 16Gb of RAM at  4266 Mhz. This along with an Nvidia 2070 card (will be getting an 11Gb soon).

 

 

Great result Joe! What sort of temps are you seeing at 5.3 GHz? Voltage? Have you delidded?

My 8700K does 5.2 GHz with HT off, it's delidded. Won't do 5.3 though. Although I haven't tried voltage at 1.5, the max Intel recommend. 

Is that 4266 Mhz Ram the XMP setting, or did you push it beyond the XMP setting? 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall exactly how to do the math but the Mhz value alone tells you nothing about the speed of memory.

It always has to be considered in conjunction with the Case latency. The lower the CL value the better. so indeed 3200 mhz can be faster than 4266mhz.

There is a lot of marketing hype with memory Mhz values.

Memory did make a difference with FSX. The faster the memory the less long frame stutters you would get.

I am not sure if that still holds for P3D but I would guess that it does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall Saab 340 tested RAM speed a few years ago, with FSX though not P3D. Faster RAM helped, but not by much. I recall it was just a few percent, 3 or 4 percent from 3000 to 3800, something like that. As for P3D... I have no experience of that, so no idea if the increase in performance is significant or not. I would suspect the same as FSX, a small increase in performance. 

Ray has GSkill RAM on the way, which generally overclocks above the XMP profile well, so could be nudged up in frequency. 

 

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Avidean said:

I don't recall exactly how to do the math but the Mhz value alone tells you nothing about the speed of memory.

It always has to be considered in conjunction with the Case latency. The lower the CL value the better. so indeed 3200 mhz can be faster than 4266mhz.

There is a lot of marketing hype with memory Mhz values.

Memory did make a difference with FSX. The faster the memory the less long frame stutters you would get.

I am not sure if that still holds for P3D but I would guess that it does.

The formula for determining "true latency" is:-

2000 x (CL / Tested Speed)

For a 3200 CL14 set that will be 2000 x (14 / 3200) = 8.75

For a 3000 CL14 set that will be 2000 x (14 / 3000) = 9.33

For the fastest memory - 4000 with a CL of 19 the result is 9.50

So my 3000 CL14 memory is faster than 4000 CL19. And £238 cheaper!

Share this post


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

The formula for determining "true latency" is:-

2000 x (CL / Tested Speed)

For a 3200 CL14 set that will be 2000 x (14 / 3200) = 8.75

For a 3000 CL14 set that will be 2000 x (14 / 3000) = 9.33

For the fastest memory - 4000 with a CL of 19 the result is 9.50

So my 3000 CL14 memory is faster than 4000 CL19. And £238 cheaper!

 

 

 

Quote

 

Which is more important: speed or latency?

Based on in-depth engineering analysis and extensive testing in the Crucial Performance Lab, the answer to this classic question is speed. In general, as speeds have increased, true latencies have remained approximately the same, meaning faster speeds enable you to achieve a higher level of performance. True latencies haven't necessarily increased, just CAS latencies. And CL ratings are an inaccurate, and often misleading, indicator of true latency (and memory) performance.

 

 

 

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency

 

 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

 

Which is more important: speed or latency?

Based on in-depth engineering analysis and extensive testing in the Crucial Performance Lab, the answer to this classic question is speed. In general, as speeds have increased, true latencies have remained approximately the same, meaning faster speeds enable you to achieve a higher level of performance. True latencies haven't necessarily increased, just CAS latencies. And CL ratings are an inaccurate, and often misleading, indicator of true latency (and memory) performance.

 

http://www.crucial.com/usa/en/memory-performance-speed-latency

Well now, they would say that wouldn't they? They are in the business after all, of selling you ever more expensive ram.......

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is the case then I have been given conflicting advice here on AvSim. 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

Well now, they would say that wouldn't they? They are in the business after all, of selling you ever more expensive ram.......

 

Ha... yes but if they were involved in a conspiracy theory to lie to us it would be 100% transparent and obvious to every technical expert out there. So no, I don't accept that.

 

Oh god not Linus, please not Linus. :biggrin:

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ray Proudfoot said:

If that is the case then I have been given conflicting advice here on AvSim. 🙄

 

By who?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, martin-w said:

By who?

Read Bob's third para in this reply. That would appear to conflict with your link to Crucial.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not sure I would agree with that. The "real measure of performance" isn't just true latency, it's frequency too. And BOTH play a part. In the example you gave the true latency between your two examples is barely any different, but the frequency is way higher. I would agree with Crucial, after all they are the experts.

I wouldn't be too concerned Ray. Tests here on Avsim in FSX demonstrated only a few percent difference, no big deal, and that was (IIRC ) jumping from 3000 to 3800 MHz. 

Again, I'm not a P3D expert though, re how RAM impacts it. But I have no doubt that you will be happy with your 3000 MHz RAM, and as I say, it can be nudged up in frequency rather easily. 

 

"The real measure of RAM performance is true latency"

I would rephrase his comment as follows... The real measure of latency is "true latency" not CAS latency. 

He also said... "Yup, no faster at all, in fact if you take the heat spreader off, don't be surprised to find the same memory ICs on the DIMM."

 

Well yes they will be, they are speed binned. 

Edited by martin-w

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Read Bob's third para in this reply. That would appear to conflict with your link to Crucial.

 

I don't think it does conflict.  I loaded the Crucial examples into Excel and the numbers match Bob's formula.  Speed and latency both have to be included in determining relative performance.  The Crucial page states that CL alone is misleading because it's only half the equation.  Then, in their last paragraph they state that speed is more important, which is still only half the equation.  So their conclusion doesn't match their own article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i went with 3200cas14 for financial reasons, but had I had no limit on spending I would have gone higher.  Mine are GSkill, just running at XMP profile, havent tried running them higher yet...

Share this post


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

That's interesting. I've just ordered a new PC based on an i7-8086K. The company said they can overclock up to 5.0Ghz but I wonder if they might be able to get more. My memory is 'slower' than yours but when I asked them if 'faster' memory would help overall performance they said not so I went with G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB DDR4 3000MHz.

I'll report back when I get the machine in about 10 days.

Ordered same, Ray, from Scan a couple of months ago..

Good to see you at Cosford once more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LRW said:

Then, in their last paragraph they state that speed is more important, which is still only half the equation.  So their conclusion doesn't match their own article.

 

I think they were saying that "true latency" has hardly changed, only CAS latency has changed, thus speed being the important factor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, martin-w said:

Yeah I'm not sure I would agree with that. The "real measure of performance" isn't just true latency, it's frequency too. And BOTH play a part. In the example you gave the latency between your two examples is barely any different, but the frequency is way higher. I would agree with Crucial, after all they are the experts.

I wouldn't be too concerned Ray. Tests here on Avsim in FSX demonstrated only a few percent difference, no big deal, and that was (IIRC ) jumping from 3000 to 3800 MHz. 

Again, I'm not a P3D expert though, re how RAM impacts it. But I have no doubt that you will be happy with your 3000 MHz RAM, and as I say, it can be nudged up in frequency rather easily. 

 

"The real measure of RAM performance is true latency"

I would rephrase his comment as follows... The real measure of latency is "true latency" not CAS latency. 

He also said... "Yup, no faster at all, in fact if you take the heat spreader off, don't be surprised to find the same memory ICs on the DIMM."

 

Well yes they will be, they are speed binned. 

Given it's a mathematical formula you would expect it to be either correct or incorrect. No half-way house.  There is very little difference in actual speed using that formula which presumably was thought out scientifically.

And as you say the difference is very small so I'm not going to lose any sleep on it. But it would be nice if everyone on AvSim could agree on the best way of selecting RAM.

If Bob reads this topic he may care to discuss that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

I think they were saying that "true latency" has hardly changed, only CAS latency has changed, thus speed being the important factor. 

Yes, they did state that.  In fact, it was the central point of the article.  But the sentence stating the speed is more important than latency struck me like marketing had to stick their thumb in it at the last moment.  I first saw this article on their site a few years ago and it's still the best consumer explanation of memory performance that I've seen.

Share this post


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

I don't think it does conflict.  I loaded the Crucial examples into Excel and the numbers match Bob's formula.  Speed and latency both have to be included in determining relative performance.  The Crucial page states that CL alone is misleading because it's only half the equation.  Then, in their last paragraph they state that speed is more important, which is still only half the equation.  So their conclusion doesn't match their own article.

It seems Crucial are just confusing people. Bob didn't just take CL or speed on their own. They formed the basis of the formula he provided.

Maybe that link to Crucial needs removing as it doesn't seem particularly helpful.

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