Recommended Posts

So in the progress of choosing a new CPU for P3d.  I hear a lot about the 8700k, 8086k, and 9900k.  All these are HT equipped.  From my understanding of HT and P3d wouldn’t a processor like the 9600k and 9700k have the same performance for a better price?  U can pick up a 9600k for $250 right now.  Why pay the premium price if it is not needed?  Or am I missing something?

Share this post


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

11 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

 

Interesting results.  Quite a bit closer then I thought it would be.  The 9600K looks like a very good value.  This raises a question.  Would the two extra cores of the 9700K be any benefit over the 9600K in P3d?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

Interesting results.  Quite a bit closer then I thought it would be.  The 9600K looks like a very good value.  This raises a question.  Would the two extra cores of the 9700K be any benefit over the 9600K in P3d?

Somebody more familiar with P3D would have to answer, but my own experience makes me suspect single core performance is more important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

Interesting results.  Quite a bit closer then I thought it would be.  The 9600K looks like a very good value.  This raises a question.  Would the two extra cores of the 9700K be any benefit over the 9600K in P3d?

I think someone's gonna have to try it out to see.  I am a bit put off by the lower per-core L3 cache (the 8-core 9700K has the same 12MB of L3 as the hexacore 9600K/8700K/8086K CPUs), and the possibility based on early overclocking results that the extra heat from the 8-core CPU would depress top-end clock speed to get those extra cores in play.

So the question that I have is whether or not loss of ~300MHz of overclocking top-end is a worthwhile trade for an additional two cores sharing the same cache.  There are reasonable theories either way...this one will have to be resolved in the field, I think.

Regards

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, w6kd said:

I think someone's gonna have to try it out to see.  I am a bit put off by the lower per-core L3 cache (the 8-core 9700K has the same 12MB of L3 as the hexacore 9600K/8700K/8086K CPUs), and the possibility based on early overclocking results that the extra heat from the 8-core CPU would depress top-end clock speed to get those extra cores in play.

So the question that I have is whether or not loss of ~300MHz of overclocking top-end is a worthwhile trade for an additional two cores sharing the same cache.  There are reasonable theories either way...this one will have to be resolved in the field, I think.

Regards

 

U bring up a good point regarding the cache.  I was unaware of that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am waiting for my new 9700K, I will share my experience next week when i get it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ttbq1 said:

I am waiting for my new 9700K, I will share my experience next week when i get it. 

Thank u!  What motherboard did u go with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a 9700k clocked at 5.0Ghz on all cores. I upgraded from an i7-4770k clocked to 4.4Ghz. I didn't do any head to head benchmarks but my system has never ran so well. 

I went with the Gigabyte Z390 Ultra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Taver said:

I have a 9700k clocked at 5.0Ghz on all cores. I upgraded from an i7-4770k clocked to 4.4Ghz. I didn't do any head to head benchmarks but my system has never ran so well. 

I went with the Gigabyte Z390 Ultra. 

That would be a pretty substantial upgrade from a 4770k

Share this post


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

I have a 9700k clocked at 5.0Ghz on all cores. I upgraded from an i7-4770k clocked to 4.4Ghz. I didn't do any head to head benchmarks but my system has never ran so well. 

I went with the Gigabyte Z390 Ultra. 

I‘m thinking about doing the exact same upgrade. I‘m currently on a 4770K @ 4.5 GHz. If you could give some insight into the performance difference that you are seeing, it would be highly appreciated. 

Edited by carlito777

Share this post


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

I have a 9700k clocked at 5.0Ghz on all cores. I upgraded from an i7-4770k clocked to 4.4Ghz. I didn't do any head to head benchmarks but my system has never ran so well. 

I went with the Gigabyte Z390 Ultra. 

Good to know. Ordered the same MB and CPU. Upgrade from a 6700k.   My bottleneck will now be the GTX1070. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also looking at the 9600K. On paper, it checks a lot of boxes: No HT, high single thread performance, 6 cores, and it's rather light on the bank account. I'm still gathering the hardware, so I would really appreciate any reports from those who are already there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/19/2018 at 12:46 PM, carlito777 said:

I‘m thinking about doing the exact same upgrade. I‘m currently on a 4770K @ 4.5 GHz. If you could give some insight into the performance difference that you are seeing, it would be highly appreciated. 

I am seeing improvement in minimum frame rates in heavily populated areas with a lot of plane traffic. To be transparent I still have FPS issues with one plane the A2A Connie. It is only on take off and landing but even that is better on the new system. (I don't know why that plane has always given me so many FPS issues.) Planes like the default Carenado Bonanza runs like a dream in all situations such as never dipping below 40 FPS over KSEA in heavy cloud cover and rain. 

I run max everything except Shadows on high and the following Scenery Object settings:

Scenery Complexity: Max

Autogen draw distance: Max

Autogen vegetation density: Very high

Autogen building density: Off 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ended up ordering a 9600k bundle from NewEgg for $425.  Comes with a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi.  I really wanted to try the 9700k but I refuse to pay Intels ridiculous prices.

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 9:16 PM, mpw8679 said:

Ended up ordering a 9600k bundle from NewEgg for $425.  Comes with a Gigabyte Z390 Aorus Pro WiFi.  I really wanted to try the 9700k but I refuse to pay Intels ridiculous prices.

Share us your impressions/performances on heavy areas with pmdg and aerosoft aircrafts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, BrucoGianluco05 said:

Share us your impressions/performances on heavy areas with pmdg and aerosoft aircrafts 

Ya for sure. I sold my 2 1080ti’s and will be installing a 2080ti also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have my 9600K up and running. Haven't done a complete flight yet, just short tests. Strange phenomenon: CPU utilization is much lower (50 %, down from 90), but FPS are hardly higher. Gotta look into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my 9600k up ang going.  It is hard to give an accurate judgment on performance over the 7700k since I installed 4.4 at the same time.  So some of the improvements could be from that.  Definitely better scenery loading.  I can run FFTF=0.01 and have no blurry scenery issues.  Frames are up and more consistent.  Flying into FSDT KLAX used to be around 26-27 FPS now it will hold a steady 30fps.  So it could be the upgrades or the newer version of P3d.  Hard to say but definitely happy with the upgrade.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same here too. Got the 9700k up and running. 5ghz all cores. Not all addons are on yet but most of them, and so far the experience is pleasing.  I did gain a little fps but more importantly, its way more smoother and can hold 30 very well if I lock it there. The previous 6700k had trouble occasionally to do that. Wasnt expecting a huge jump in fps, especially my bottleneck is now the GPU but having it smoother is a much better experience.  The only noticeable detriment is the long frames I get in heavy areas, and even pauses and stutters but I think that goes for just about any machine, and has to do more with coping with all the scenery layers in heavy areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 12:53 AM, HighTowers said:

Same here too. Got the 9700k up and running. 5ghz all cores. Not all addons are on yet but most of them, and so far the experience is pleasing.  I did gain a little fps but more importantly, its way more smoother and can hold 30 very well if I lock it there. The previous 6700k had trouble occasionally to do that. Wasnt expecting a huge jump in fps, especially my bottleneck is now the GPU but having it smoother is a much better experience.  The only noticeable detriment is the long frames I get in heavy areas, and even pauses and stutters but I think that goes for just about any machine, and has to do more with coping with all the scenery layers in heavy areas. 

What vcore do u have for the overclock?  My 9600K hits a brick wall past 4.9ghz.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mpw8679 said:

What vcore do u have for the overclock?  My 9600K hits a brick wall past 4.9ghz.   

Its set for 1.31 but adaptive.  HWINFO64 reports up to 1.36 at times. You could just have a silicon lottery issue, or perhaps depends on the VRM on your MB. 

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