Guys,

I need your help. I have seen recent post regarding CPU upgrade but I would like to have a narrowed down advise between the two, 8700K v 9700K. I use P3D v4.4 with FSL.

At the moment I am using 6600K Oc to 4.5 Ghz. That is the highest I can get and I get stutter here and there during take off and approach. I am still not sure which road I should go. 8700K has 6 core with HT and 9700K has 8 without HT. Which do you think will be best to upgrade to and if you have any personal experience with this. 

Thanks

Hi Hendrick,

I recently upgraded from a 6600K OC to 4.5 GHz to a 9700K OC to 4.9 GHz (cannot keep stable higher that 4.9, but I've seen others achieve 5.0+ ) and I am happy with it. I chose the 9700K over the 8700K because I mainly use this computer for P3D v4.4 and don't really need HT (with the 8700K, I would have disabled HT anyway for better P3D stability) since I don't use any software taking advantage of HT (no video editing etc...). Going with 8 cores was the logical choice in my case and I see P3D using them all with less micro-pauses compared to my previous 6600K.

If, like me, your main use is P3D, then the 9700K might be a good choice. The 8700K is still a very good CPU, easily overclockable to 5.0 GHz, but might generates more heat when OC than the 9700K in my opinion. At 4.9 GHz, my 9700K is cooled on air with a Noctua DH-U14S and runs between 60-65C under load, with a few short peaks at 70C.

Since I never had the 8700K, I cannot offer any hard evidence of which one will best fit your need, I simply choose the 9700K for the reasons stated above, following my personal guts feeling. Lets see if some 8700K users can offer some more info regarding their choice. May be they will come up with some experience to steer you their way 😉

Best regards,

 

5 hours ago, NBouc said:

Hi Hendrick,

I recently upgraded from a 6600K OC to 4.5 GHz to a 9700K OC to 4.9 GHz (cannot keep stable higher that 4.9, but I've seen others achieve 5.0+ ) and I am happy with it. I chose the 9700K over the 8700K because I mainly use this computer for P3D v4.4 and don't really need HT (with the 8700K, I would have disabled HT anyway for better P3D stability) since I don't use any software taking advantage of HT (no video editing etc...). Going with 8 cores was the logical choice in my case and I see P3D using them all with less micro-pauses compared to my previous 6600K.

If, like me, your main use is P3D, then the 9700K might be a good choice. The 8700K is still a very good CPU, easily overclockable to 5.0 GHz, but might generates more heat when OC than the 9700K in my opinion. At 4.9 GHz, my 9700K is cooled on air with a Noctua DH-U14S and runs between 60-65C under load, with a few short peaks at 70C.

Since I never had the 8700K, I cannot offer any hard evidence of which one will best fit your need, I simply choose the 9700K for the reasons stated above, following my personal guts feeling. Lets see if some 8700K users can offer some more info regarding their choice. May be they will come up with some experience to steer you their way 😉

Best regards,

 

Well, lets stop guessing .... 🙂

The below graphic says the extra cores on the 9700 are useless is the captured scene. Furthermore, the graphic shows us that the nearly completed sfo to lax flight was pretty darn tough on the system ...but the humble 100i V2, with no help from the two sleeping stock case fans,  was able to keep things fairly cool -ambient 73F.

 

Not throwing shade on the 9700 as I think the cpu is more than capable.

 

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by FunknNasty

Thanks for the input. Now if the 2 extra cores do not give extra boost there is another option to go i5 9600K. What do you think about that? 9600k and  9700K has a big gap in price

 

4 hours ago, TrentXWB said:

Thanks for the input. Now if the 2 extra cores do not give extra boost there is another option to go i5 9600K. What do you think about that? 9600k and  9700K has a big gap in price

 

Glad you asked ....but it's not that easy.

Are we talking p3d v4? If so, there's heck of a lot more going on than meets the eye. The below link is an image of same flight but on the ground. Notice the real time core usage? there's only a few cores working, right? Also, notice the frame rate?

I could have a hundred cores on the cpu and I'd still have only a couple cores working for me with same frame rate as the linked screenshot. The only thing that's going help me get that fps up while on the ground at this airport is faster cpu speeds (memory helps, too) not more cores, am or hyperthreading.

The extra cores on the 97xx and 99xx are nice, and as Steve W. has pointed out, with some fancy AM can get the cores to work as effective as a 6 core running a few GHz higher .....but this typically is only true at cruise altitude. On the ground taxing, during take-off roll and rotation, on the short-final, during flare and landing roll at a mega airport ...it's all about Mhzeees.

Myself, I recently chose the 8086 over the 9900K. I felt I could not only get a superior overclock with the 8086 but also superior memory/cache performance over the 9900K.  Oh, and the six cores are plenty.

.https://i.imgur.com/4frSPCJ.png

edit: Oh, I do have an 8600K just sitting here in front of me not doing anything ....will do 52/48 all day long. Oh, and the IMC on thing is not bad either. Interested?    ....Take a chance on the 8600k over the 9600K, if budget is important. But I'd probably take the 8700K or the 9700 over the 8600K and 9600K if I was starting from scratch and on a budget.

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by FunknNasty

Thank you for the insight.

8600K and 9600K or 8700K and 9700K, price-wise there is little to no difference here in NL. Budget is not the biggest problem but I would like to get the best performance to price ratio. I was thinking if I go for 9600K I can OC it to around 4.9/5 that would be good. I could save some money to go for a good motherboard that is good for OC. It makes no sense if I go for 9700K while I can achieve the same result with an OC'd 9600K since you said that core is not the most important but more freq.

Regards,

Hendrik

 

16 hours ago, TrentXWB said:

Guys,

I need your help. I have seen recent post regarding CPU upgrade but I would like to have a narrowed down advise between the two, 8700K v 9700K. I use P3D v4.4 with FSL.

At the moment I am using 6600K Oc to 4.5 Ghz. That is the highest I can get and I get stutter here and there during take off and approach. I am still not sure which road I should go. 8700K has 6 core with HT and 9700K has 8 without HT. Which do you think will be best to upgrade to and if you have any personal experience with this. 

Thanks

9700K hands down over the 8700K.  In complex scenery the 8 core processors will have better scenery loading.  I could easily saturate the cores of a 9600K in ORBX regions with complex airports.  I see no point going with a 6 core cpu.

2 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

Myself, I recently chose the 8086 over the 9900K. I felt I could not only get a superior overclock with the 8086 but also superior memory/cache performance over the 9900K.  Oh, and the six cores are plenty.

If I was going to upgrade now that's what I would do.

7 minutes ago, TrentXWB said:

Thank you for the insight.

8600K and 9600K or 8700K and 9700K, price-wise there is little to no difference here in NL. Budget is not the biggest problem but I would like to get the best performance to price ratio. I was thinking if I go for 9600K I can OC it to around 4.9/5 that would be good. I could save some money to go for a good motherboard that is good for OC. It makes no sense if I go for 9700K while I can achieve the same result with an OC'd 9600K since you said that core is not the most important but more freq.

Regards,

Hendrik

 

If you are on a budget the 9600K is an excellent choice.  Over clocking I could reach 4.9ghz.  My 9700K would reach 5.1ghz.  But moral of the story the extra two cores does make a difference.  Not a huge difference but noticeable.

1 hour ago, mpw8679 said:

If you are on a budget the 9600K is an excellent choice.  Over clocking I could reach 4.9ghz.  My 9700K would reach 5.1ghz.  But moral of the story the extra two cores does make a difference.  Not a huge difference but noticeable.

My 8600K could do 5.0 / 4.6 ring with mems at 4133 c17 out of the box. Before I retied it, it was doing 5.2 / 4.8 4200 c17 ....with latencies well under 40ns.  heck, I'd venture to say that not even 20% of the 9900k's can do that. My 8086? ....destroys my 8600k on every level. Complex scenes? While airborne  9700 cant do it any better ....maybe a lil easier but probably not better, unless you're doing something exotic, but when you get to the airport you're going to wish you had more horse power.  Very few 9xxx can match the average 8xxxx in max clock speeds.

23 minutes ago, FunknNasty said:

My 8600K could do 5.0 / 4.6 ring with mems at 4133 c17 out of the box. Before I retied it, it was doing 5.2 / 4.8 4200 c17 ....with latencies well under 40ns.  heck, I'd venture to say that not even 20% of the 9900k's can do that. My 8086? ....destroys my 8600k on every level. Complex scenes? While airborne  9700 cant do it any better ....maybe a lil easier but probably not better, unless you're doing something exotic, but when you get to the airport you're going to wish you had more horse power.  Very few 9xxx can match the average 8xxxx in max clock speeds.

8086K is a impressive cpu.  Do you use HT?

Edited February 4, 20197 yr by mpw8679

5 hours ago, FunknNasty said:

Myself, I recently chose the 8086 over the 9900K. I felt I could not only get a superior overclock with the 8086 but also superior memory/cache performance over the 9900K.  Oh, and the six cores are plenty.

Thank heavens another endorsement.

5 minutes ago, mpw8679 said:

8086K is a impressive cpu.  Do you use HT?

No. played with it a little ......for certain, it sucks cpu cycles. I do use it for video, though  ....yeah, it shines there. :-)

now back to the topic  <big grin>

aida to match hwinfo ...what I'm running at now .

 

Oh, and a aida score that a 9xxxx can't get within a 1/2 hour of :-)

 

Thank you again!

That is a lot of number to crunch. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that 8086K is like buying i7 that wins a silicon lottery, no?! I used to own i7 2700K and that beast I could overclock to 4.5 or even more with no penalty. This 6600K of mine is struggling to keep on 4.5, I have to play a lot with vcore.

I don't think I can justify getting 8086K at the moment, the price is just insane. Now, I am leaning more on 9700K and hopefully winning another silicon lottery.

 

1 hour ago, TrentXWB said:

Thank you again!

That is a lot of number to crunch. Maybe I am wrong but it seems that 8086K is like buying i7 that wins a silicon lottery, no?! I used to own i7 2700K and that beast I could overclock to 4.5 or even more with no penalty. This 6600K of mine is struggling to keep on 4.5, I have to play a lot with vcore.

I don't think I can justify getting 8086K at the moment, the price is just insane. Now, I am leaning more on 9700K and hopefully winning another silicon lottery.

 

 You won’t be disappointed with the 9700 ....a significant upgrade over what you have now and nearly plug-n-play.