Why not the 9700K?

[mpw8679 428]

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?

[HiFlyer 9,353]

 

[mpw8679 428]

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?

[HiFlyer 9,353]

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.

[Bob Scott 7,716]

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

 

[mpw8679 428]

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

[ttbq1 347]

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

[mpw8679 428]

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?

[Taver 57]

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. 

[mpw8679 428]

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

[carlito777 712]

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 November 19, 2018 by carlito777

[HighTowers 1,434]

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. 

[d.tsakiris 417]

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!

[Taver 57]

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 

[mpw8679 428]

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 November 21, 2018 by mpw8679