turboken

6 or 8 core improvement in load times. Lets see what you got

Recommended Posts

This question is similar to another one I asked recently about hard drive speed but wanted to keep this one specific to the processor core counts.

So here goes. Recently I started flying faster jets and when getting lower to the ground the dreaded blurries show up. My question is IF anyone is interested in trying.

Pick a saved flight, ORBX or Megascenery is fine and record the time it takes to load up the scenery.

Then go into the BIOS and enable only six cores. Pick the same flight plan to load and record the load time. (If you only have 6 cores to start, go to the next step)

Then go into the BIOS and enable only four cores. Pick the same flight plan to load and record the load time.

If you want to take it a step further hit advance up to 4x for 10 seconds once the sim is loaded and ready for flight (just after take off) then back to normal and see how fast the sim can recover. I'm betting the 8 core folks can recover pretty quickly.

I would love to get actual numbers of improvements for these tests. I have conducted the same tests with my 4 core processor and going down to TWO cores is a massive hit in load times. But I'm unable to verify how well this scales. Depending on the results I see  I may be forced to upgrade...Thanks for anyone willing to try this out. By the way anyone having some crazy 16 core monster and wants to try this out let us know the results of that too. 

 

Share this post


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

Hard drive speed is going to play a major role in "loading" (not rendering) scenery. 

Your post is not specifying which sim. If you are talking P3D which version?

If 4.4, did you do a clean install? You should not be having any blurries with your system, I don't. Try deleting shaders folder and the P3D.cfg and let them rebuild.

 

Edited by pracines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pracines said:

Hard drive speed is going to play a major role in "loading" (not rendering) scenery. 

Your post is not specifying which sim. If you are talking P3D which version?

If 4.4, did you do a clean install? You should not be having any blurries with your system, I don't. Try deleting shaders folder and the P3D.cfg and let them rebuild.

 

Thanks for the reply...

That's what I thought too.. However I bought a much faster SSD then my old SSD and I saw NO difference in load time.

Regarding P3D 4.4

Just to clearify the blurries are NOT under normal flying conditions, the blurries were part of a test of advancing the time rate to produce blurries and see how quickly the scenery can recover with 4, 6 or 8 cores, as a difference to see how much more cores assist with loading times only. (not a FPS test in anyway). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone tried adding an Optane to cache the scenery data?  I’ve been considering this for a new build  

Kevin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blurries are not about number of cores. Search "blurries Rob Ainscough" for a description of  why "blurries" are created and how to solve them in P3D v4.3 and v4.4.

The overgeneralized bottom line...turn down your scenery settings and double the VRAM on your GPU. 🙂

Edited by Henry Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I5 8600K with essentially two cores disabled (AM85),.loading times were significantly longer than 6 cores with no AM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It also depends of using 1 or multiple view displays ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Henry Street said:

Blurries are not about number of cores.

The more cores the better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/24/2019 at 9:54 AM, mpw8679 said:

The more cores the better

Sure but if I go from a 4790k 4 cores @ 4.8 to a 9600k with 6 cores at 4.8 is there really gonna be that big a difference in scenery load times?

Share this post


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

Sure but if I go from a 4790k 4 cores @ 4.8 to a 9600k with 6 cores at 4.8 is there really gonna be that big a difference in scenery load times?

Going from a 7700K with HT enabled to a 9600K I noticed faster load times,  less scenery shifting, and less scenery loading pauses.  Not a huge difference but definitely noticeable.  I have since upgraded to a 9700K and it is better yet.  IMO eight physical cores is the sweet spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This blows away the old assumption of FSX not needing nor utilizing more than 4 cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 10:19 PM, mpw8679 said:

Going from a 7700K with HT enabled to a 9600K I noticed faster load times,  less scenery shifting, and less scenery loading pauses.

But did you have a clean install of the OS on the new system? That alone would probably make a big improvement even with the same processor and MB. Also, the newer chipset would make a small difference as would faster RAM if that was changed. Did you use a different type of drive (SSD rather than HDD)? This would make a BIG difference in loading times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vortex681 said:

But did you have a clean install of the OS on the new system? That alone would probably make a big improvement even with the same processor and MB. Also, the newer chipset would make a small difference as would faster RAM if that was changed. Did you use a different type of drive (SSD rather than HDD)? This would make a BIG difference in loading times.

Fresh OS install each time.  Samsung SDD. 7700K, 9600K, and 9700K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mpw8679 said:

Fresh OS install each time.  Samsung SDD. 7700K, 9600K, and 9700K

A fresh OS and SSD will make things appear much faster. These two things alone make it very difficult to attribute any performance improvement directly to your new CPU.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

A fresh OS and SSD will make things appear much faster. These two things alone make it very difficult to attribute any performance improvement directly to your new CPU.

Holy cow dude.

7700K- Fresh OS install, same ram, same hdd, and test.  Fresh install was not any faster then my old install.  I keep a very clean and sleek system.

9600K- New mobo, fresh OS install, same ram, same hdd, and test

9700K- Same mobo as 9600K, fresh OS install, same ram, same hdd, and test.

All done with 1080ti, ORBX global, ORBX NA land class, and UTX USA v2

7700K HT disabled< 7700K HT enabled< 9600K< 9700K

Share this post


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

same hdd, and test.

Did you fit an SSD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

Did you fit an SSD?

Sorry yes it was a Samsung SSD not a mechanical 

Share this post


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

Sorry yes it was a Samsung SSD not a mechanical 

As SSDs make such a massive difference to loading, if that wasn't fitted to your 7700k system the subsequent difference in load times would be huge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He says “same hdd” every time.

Which part of the answers can’t you read?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, vortex681 said:

As SSDs make such a massive difference to loading, if that wasn't fitted to your 7700k system the subsequent difference in load times would be huge.

If you can’t understand simple English please do not reply to others posts.  This is painful 

Edited by mpw8679

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/25/2019 at 2:19 PM, mpw8679 said:

Going from a 7700K with HT enabled to a 9600K I noticed faster load times,  less scenery shifting, and less scenery loading pauses.  Not a huge difference but definitely noticeable.  I have since upgraded to a 9700K and it is better yet.  IMO eight physical cores is the sweet spot.

So I was thinking of upgrading my 4790k to a 9600k. But you say you noticed a difference going to the 9700k from the 9600k. Maybe I should just jump to the 9700k then. 

Share this post


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

So I was thinking of upgrading my 4790k to a 9600k. But you say you noticed a difference going to the 9700k from the 9600k. Maybe I should just jump to the 9700k then. 

The 9600K will do great if u are on a budget.  If u have the extra funds go for the 9700K.  My 9700K overclocked better then the 9600K.

Share this post


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

If you can’t understand simple English please do not reply to others posts.  This is painful 

For me also! Perhaps the problem is with your explanation rather than my understanding. When I asked "did you fit an SSD?" you replied "yes". To me that implied that one had not previously been fitted. I'm not going to argue about semantics so consider this my last reply.

Edited by vortex681

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, vortex681 said:

For me also! Perhaps the problem is with your explanation rather than my understanding. When I asked "did you fit an SSD?" you replied "yes". To me that implied that one had not previously been fitted. I'm not going to argue about semantics so consider this my last reply.

I think this was just a misunderstanding.. no harm no foul... I appreciate all the feed back on the topic.

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