Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
samisahusky

What CPU for latest P3D 4 and beyond

Recommended Posts

About to invest in hardware upgrades and I’m torn between the i7 9700k and the i9 9990k ... only major difference is the 9900k has 16 threads compared to 8 threads on the 9700k ... but also from reading around I found this - “Mainstream PC games do not benefit from more than eight threads, so at $350 (25% cheaper than the 9900K), the 9700K offers far better value for money to gamers.”

 

so so would it even be worth the extra $100 for something that I don’t even know if P3D would benefit from?


Steven Destazio (DVA12924)

 

"There's not reason to be alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of the fight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?" - Elaine Dickinson

We all started learning a product/feature at some point in our tenure within the flight sim community. Please understand that and understand that people come here to learn how to solve problems, not be harassed because you feel you are better than everyone else. We are all equal. Show respect and you'll get respect. Please don't guess at a solution unless trial/error and remember we are here to help each other and learn/teach from each other. Check your ego at the door. We should be interacting as if we will be sitting next to each other on the flight deck, not grade school bullies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question to ask is will you use the next version of P3D and/or new MS Flight Simulator and if they will benefit.  On the other hand one benefit to the 9700k (other than cost) is less heat due to know hyper threading.  Obviously this can be moot if turned off.  


5800X3D, Gigabyte X570S MB, 4090FE, 32GB DDR4 3600 CL14, EVO 970 M.2's, Alienware 3821DW  and 2  22" monitors,  Corsair RM1000x PSU,  360MM MSI MEG, MFG Crosswind, T16000M Stick, Boeing TCA Yoke/Throttle, Skalarki MCDU and FCU, Saitek Radio Panel/Switch Panel, Spad.Next

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this always a theme in whatever CPU is the topend at the time it is new on the market.

Back when I got my i5 it was also just the second best CPU on the market. But it had the better value for money and it was highly overclockable. The money I saved from not going for the most high end solution I could invest in a SSD, which back then was a completely new thing on the market.

So you should keep in mind what you would do with the money you save.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about an upgrade too, its seems from what i am reading that the latest versions of p3d are optimized for multiple cores and hyperthreading.  I'm personally leaning towards the 9900k because of this. Either way it's gonna be an expensive upgrade, i figure the extra cache and hyperthreading are worth $100.  


 

Lian Li 011 Air Mini | AMD 7950X3D | Asus ROG STRIX B650E-F | Arctic Cooling Liquid Freezer II 280mm RGB | 2x32GB G.Skill DDR5-6000 | ASUS TUF RTX 4090 | Seasonic Prime Platinum 1000W | Varjo Aero

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More than 8 cores seems like a questionable investment at this time..


Bert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spent months looking into this myself for my next PC.

Bang for bucks imo a pre binned 9700k @ 5.1 is the way am going.

9900k has better cash but needs a lot more cooling power for very little gains and at 40% more here in the UK for a pre binned 9900k is simply a wast of cash....imo ofc. Also P3D does not need HT.

Edited by Nyxx
  • Like 1

David Murden  MSFS   Fenix A320  PMDG 737 • MG Honda Jet • 414 / TDS 750Xi •  FS-ATC Chatter • FlyingIron Spitfire & ME109G • MG Honda Jet 

 Fenix A320 Walkthrough PDF   Flightsim.to •

DCS  A10c II  F-16c  F/A-18c • F-14 • (Others in hanger) • Supercarrier  Terrains = • Nevada NTTR  Persian Gulf  Syria • Marianas • 

• 10900K@4.9 All Cores HT ON   32GB DDR4  3200MHz RTX 3080  • TM Warthog HOTAS • TM TPR • Corsair Virtuoso XT with Dolby Atmos®  Samsung G7 32" 1440p 240Hz • TrackIR 5 & ProClip

Share this post


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

The question to ask is will you use the next version of P3D and/or new MS Flight Simulator and if they will benefit.  On the other hand one benefit to the 9700k (other than cost) is less heat due to know hyper threading.  Obviously this can be moot if turned off.  

I will of course be keeping P3D updated. I did indicate that in the post title, but also most addons I use REQUIRE P3D to be kept updated. That's precisely why I'm questioning which CPU to get. HOWEVER, as stated in the OP, most modern games and simulators do not even go above 8 threads of usage as of now. P3D MAY get there some day, but for right now, I don't think it would make a difference in the current and foreseeable future versions to have too many threads if they are just going to sit there idle.

9 hours ago, Farlis said:

It seems to me that this always a theme in whatever CPU is the topend at the time it is new on the market.

Back when I got my i5 it was also just the second best CPU on the market. But it had the better value for money and it was highly overclockable. The money I saved from not going for the most high end solution I could invest in a SSD, which back then was a completely new thing on the market.

So you should keep in mind what you would do with the money you save.

I have a 3rd gen i5 ... It's WAY past time to upgrade. That being said, I don't want to upgrade to be able to run the sim as it is NOW, I want to be able to upgrade to be able to run the sim 1 or 2 years from now. The FS world has made massive changes since P3Dv4 came out. We have GSX Level 2 which has animated pax, we have PBR, we have more high level study level aircraft coming out. All of these would require a good CPU. the 9700k will EASILY run P3Dv4 with all my addons right now, but will it be able to keep up with the changes to come in the next year or two?

8 hours ago, Pilot53 said:

I've been thinking about an upgrade too, its seems from what i am reading that the latest versions of p3d are optimized for multiple cores and hyperthreading.  I'm personally leaning towards the 9900k because of this. Either way it's gonna be an expensive upgrade, i figure the extra cache and hyperthreading are worth $100.  

Both the 9700k and 9900k are multi-core and multi-thread ... the only difference is the 9700k is 8 threads and 8 core, while the 9900k is 16threads and 8 core. Both have 8 core. However, as stated already, most modern games and sims do no even use anything above 8 threads right now. So unless P3D can or at some point in the next 2 years (if it does not already) utilize more than 8 cores, then it would be a waste of money to buy the 9900k when half the threads wont even be used.

8 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

More than 8 cores seems like a questionable investment at this time..

I agree. And for that reason, I am leaning more toward the 9700k. However, will it still be a sound investment in 2 years with the improvements in the FS world? I remember way back when I got my 3rd gen i5 that in FSX I was able to get 30-50 FPS in New York with a ton of addons. Granted I could never land because of OOM and 32-bit FSX. But after switching to P3Dv4 and as addons have improved, I'm now getting only 6-10 FPS in places like Atlanta, and last time I tried to fly in to LGA in FSL A320, I hit a WHOPPING 2 FPS ... that's right - 2, TWO, 2. Unflyable. But 3 years ago, it was flawless. That's where my concern is. Do I get a CPU that will be great now, and MAY be great 2 years from now, or do I get a CPU that will be great now but half the threads wasted and hope that in 2 years I'll need those extra threads so I don't have to upgrade again.

7 hours ago, Nyxx said:

Spent months looking into this myself for my next PC.

Bang for bucks imo a pre binned 9700k @ 5.1 is the way am going.

9900k has better cash but needs a lot more cooling power for very little gains and at 40% more here in the UK for a pre binned 9900k is simply a wast of cash....imo ofc. Also P3D does not need HT.

I don't think I can get a 9700k @ 5.1 in the USA. Per Intel website for the 9700k -  "Max turbo frequency: 4.9GHz". And yes, you are correct, that with the extra heat, I'd likely have to look into a hydro-cooler CPU fan which could easily add in an extra $120 ... however, I will likely have to get one for the 9700 also. I have never felt comfortable with overclocking tho. If something goes wrong, its a lot of money to replace. With this upgrade, I'll be getting a new MB, a new CPU, and new RAM ... $750-$1,000 for those 3 parts depending which CPU I get and where I purchase from. I figured now would be a good time to buy because we have Labor Day sales going on, then shortly after that is Black Friday which has turned into Black November for the most part, continued sales thru New Years also. So I have a bit of time to decide and shop around for the best price. ... And I've just decided since I'm putting so much $ into this upgrade, I'm getting a hyrdo-cooler regardless of which CPU I get.


Steven Destazio (DVA12924)

 

"There's not reason to be alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of the fight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?" - Elaine Dickinson

We all started learning a product/feature at some point in our tenure within the flight sim community. Please understand that and understand that people come here to learn how to solve problems, not be harassed because you feel you are better than everyone else. We are all equal. Show respect and you'll get respect. Please don't guess at a solution unless trial/error and remember we are here to help each other and learn/teach from each other. Check your ego at the door. We should be interacting as if we will be sitting next to each other on the flight deck, not grade school bullies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While P3D is better optimized than FSX in overall performance and with regards to CPU and GPU usage, you're still suffering from the same old bottleneck: CPU bound (less GPU usage than you'd want) and not utilizing all the cores efficiently. When running P3D you can see the overall CPU usage being at low levels mostly, but when you take a closer look at the individual cores it's core 1 which is doing most of the work and the other cores are much less utilized. FSX was designed for single core CPUs with up to 10 GHz but that never became reality. I'm not sure if LM will ever get P3D to make use of multi core CPUs as modern games do nowadays. There is definitely a limited benefit in terms of multi core CPUs here.

Now we know MSFS is coming up next year. At this point we don't know anything about performance, system requirements and if there will be streaming involved for the scenery which would obviously make it much less taxing on the system. But if you don't rule out going with MSFS depending on what will become of it, I'd suggest you take the future into account as well. It will most certainly utilize multi core CPUs much better than P3D or FSX.


Microsoft Flight Simulator | PMDG 737 for MSFS | Fenix A320 | www.united-virtual.com | www.virtual-aal.com | Ryzen 9 7950X3D | Kingston Fury Renegade 32 GB | RTX 3090 MSI Suprim X | Windows 11 Pro | HP Reverb G2 VR HMD

Share this post


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

Now we know MSFS is coming up next year. At this point we don't know anything about performance, system requirements and if there will be streaming involved for the scenery which would obviously make it much less taxing on the system. But if you don't rule out going with MSFS depending on what will become of it, I'd suggest you take the future into account as well. It will most certainly utilize multi core CPUs much better than P3D or FSX.

MSFS is going to be a subscription service ... meaning you pay a monthly fee for having the scenery on Microsoft's Clouds. That's pretty crappy right off the bat because that failed with Microsoft Flight, and I don't see many people wanting to pay a monthly fee for the simulator platform. The only subscription I have for anything in my sim is my Navigraph subscription which is a pretty good deal since I have all the charts and it keeps all my aircraft and other addons up to date on AIRAC cycles. That's $100 a year, or $8.33 a month ... I can assure you Microsoft will be charging more than $8 a month for the sim.

so here's where I'm at with MSFS: 1) if you want to pay a monthly subscription to get nice looking scenery but no addons, then go for it, but not my cup of tea. 2) Since the subscription would be to have the scenery on the Azure Public Cloud (Microsoft owned cloud service), and streamed to the user, would you still need a high end computer since the info isn't even being stored on the computer, but instead being injected into it? 3) If a high end computer is still needed, it would take a quantum computer with alien technology and an Intel i382 99999999999999999999k CPU @ 642.8GHz with a few trillion threads to give a constant 30+ FPS using real world photo scenery and satellite images and tons of 3D both in and out of populated areas, all being rendered without a stutter while flying at 100+ knots 1,000 feet above the ground (every MSFS preview trailer is a GA plane flying low around a city or mountains). Yes, the trailers look amazing, but lets face it, you can achieve the same level realism and even more in P3D and not have to pay every month for it. I dropped a ton of cash into P3D, but once it's done, it's done. I don't have to pay every month to LM, PMDG, Aerosoft, GSX, REX, Active Sky, ChasePlane, FSL, FSUIPC, Flight 1, ORBX, etc. ... I buy them 1 time, and it's done. Yes, LM and XP11 have their current limitations, but they are constantly adding more and updating. Until we start using 128-bit simulators, there really isn't much updating that needs to be done with the codes for existing add-ons to keep working with P3D.

I guess it's a safe bet to say that I will look into MSFS after it's been on the market for a bit and see how people are reacting to it and if developers are even doing anything for add-ons (if only a small handful of people are subscribing to MSFS, why would a developer spend money for something the users may not even get?) ... but I can guarantee that I will NEVER make a subscription service my base simulator for flying. If LM and XP11 decided to go that route, I'd be done with this all together.


Steven Destazio (DVA12924)

 

"There's not reason to be alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of the fight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?" - Elaine Dickinson

We all started learning a product/feature at some point in our tenure within the flight sim community. Please understand that and understand that people come here to learn how to solve problems, not be harassed because you feel you are better than everyone else. We are all equal. Show respect and you'll get respect. Please don't guess at a solution unless trial/error and remember we are here to help each other and learn/teach from each other. Check your ego at the door. We should be interacting as if we will be sitting next to each other on the flight deck, not grade school bullies.

Share this post


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

I will of course be keeping P3D updated. I did indicate that in the post title, but also most addons I use REQUIRE P3D to be kept updated. That's precisely why I'm questioning which CPU to get. HOWEVER, as stated in the OP, most modern games and simulators do not even go above 8 threads of usage as of now. P3D MAY get there some day, but for right now, I don't think it would make a difference in the current and foreseeable future versions to have too many threads if they are just going to sit there idle.

I have a 3rd gen i5 ... It's WAY past time to upgrade. That being said, I don't want to upgrade to be able to run the sim as it is NOW, I want to be able to upgrade to be able to run the sim 1 or 2 years from now. The FS world has made massive changes since P3Dv4 came out. We have GSX Level 2 which has animated pax, we have PBR, we have more high level study level aircraft coming out. All of these would require a good CPU. the 9700k will EASILY run P3Dv4 with all my addons right now, but will it be able to keep up with the changes to come in the next year or two?

Both the 9700k and 9900k are multi-core and multi-thread ... the only difference is the 9700k is 8 threads and 8 core, while the 9900k is 16threads and 8 core. Both have 8 core. However, as stated already, most modern games and sims do no even use anything above 8 threads right now. So unless P3D can or at some point in the next 2 years (if it does not already) utilize more than 8 cores, then it would be a waste of money to buy the 9900k when half the threads wont even be used.

I agree. And for that reason, I am leaning more toward the 9700k. However, will it still be a sound investment in 2 years with the improvements in the FS world? I remember way back when I got my 3rd gen i5 that in FSX I was able to get 30-50 FPS in New York with a ton of addons. Granted I could never land because of OOM and 32-bit FSX. But after switching to P3Dv4 and as addons have improved, I'm now getting only 6-10 FPS in places like Atlanta, and last time I tried to fly in to LGA in FSL A320, I hit a WHOPPING 2 FPS ... that's right - 2, TWO, 2. Unflyable. But 3 years ago, it was flawless. That's where my concern is. Do I get a CPU that will be great now, and MAY be great 2 years from now, or do I get a CPU that will be great now but half the threads wasted and hope that in 2 years I'll need those extra threads so I don't have to upgrade again.

I don't think I can get a 9700k @ 5.1 in the USA. Per Intel website for the 9700k -  "Max turbo frequency: 4.9GHz". And yes, you are correct, that with the extra heat, I'd likely have to look into a hydro-cooler CPU fan which could easily add in an extra $120 ... however, I will likely have to get one for the 9700 also. I have never felt comfortable with overclocking tho. If something goes wrong, its a lot of money to replace. With this upgrade, I'll be getting a new MB, a new CPU, and new RAM ... $750-$1,000 for those 3 parts depending which CPU I get and where I purchase from. I figured now would be a good time to buy because we have Labor Day sales going on, then shortly after that is Black Friday which has turned into Black November for the most part, continued sales thru New Years also. So I have a bit of time to decide and shop around for the best price. ... And I've just decided since I'm putting so much $ into this upgrade, I'm getting a hyrdo-cooler regardless of which CPU I get.

You have some obvious misunderstandings about the difference between CPU cores and threads.  A thread is an independently-executed section of program code, and even a single-core Pentium CPU can run hundreds of threads.  The difference in core configuration between the 9700K and the 9900K is hyperthreading--the ability in hardware to keep two separate instruction pipelines loaded and alternate between them so that instead of wasting time idling, for example when waiting for data, the other pipeline can be quickly swapped into execution.  These separate pipelines are called "virtual" cores, as they actually share one physical processing core, with some supporting hardware to keep separate instruction registers and such.  Most games, and simulations such as P3D do not make efficient use of hyperthreading...on my two sim computers I have HT disabled, so each core is actually a physical CPU core with no swapping going on.

There's one other important difference between the 9700K and the 9900K: the 9900K has 33% more level-3 memory cache (16MB vs 12 MB), which can make a difference in situations where memory throughput matters.  RAM latency and bandwidth has not improved at near the pace of CPU throughput, so having your data preloaded into super-fast cache can help.  The difference in performance is not tremendous, but it does help smooth things out in situations where a PC with a really fast CPU and GPU might still see micro-stutters.

By default, turbo frequencies on both CPUs are scaled based on the number of cores actively in use...4.9GHz is the turbo frequency on a 9700K with only a single core active, which is not representative of the loads with P3D running.  With all cores active the default 9700K turbo boost is more like 4.6GHz.  A 5.1GHz binned CPU is certainly available in the US from Siliconlottery.com--they buy batches of CPUs, test them, and sell them based on how they bench out.

Intel CPUs are very bulletproof when it comes to overclocking--you really have to go out of your way to damage one.  If you're worried about the expense of replacing an overclocked chip, Intel actually offers an overclocking warranty for something like $30...easy money for them, since the protections built into the chip are so good.

Either the 9700K or the 9900K are good choices for P3D.

Regards


Bob Scott | President and CEO, AVSIM Inc
ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System1 (P3Dv5/v4): i9-13900KS @ 6.0GHz, water 2x360mm, ASUS Z790 Hero, 32GB GSkill 7800MHz CAS36, ASUS RTX4090
Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz,
3x 2TB WD SN850X 1x 4TB Crucial P3 M.2 NVME SSD, EVGA 1600T2 PSU, 1.2Gbps internet
Fiber link to Yamaha RX-V467 Home Theater Receiver, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf speakers, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro
PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensor retrofit, Thermaltake View 71 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Sys2 (MSFS/XPlane): i9-10900K @ 5.1GHz, 32GB 3600/15, nVidia RTX4090FE, Alienware AW3821DW 38" 21:9 GSync, EVGA 1000P2
Thrustmaster TCA Boeing Yoke, TCA Airbus Sidestick, 2x TCA Airbus Throttle quads, PFC Cirrus Pedals, Coolermaster HAF932 case

Portable Sys3 (P3Dv4/FSX/DCS): i9-9900K @ 5.0 Ghz, Noctua NH-D15, 32GB 3200/16, EVGA RTX3090, Dell S2417DG 24" GSync
Corsair RM850x PSU, TM TCA Officer Pack, Saitek combat pedals, TM Warthog HOTAS, Coolermaster HAF XB case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a rambling last post that was, based on nothing but guesses.

Why not wait until MSFS details are released? It could be as early as September per the development roadmap. That way, you'll have the benefit of knowing for sure which way to go with your new build and you're more likely to see further price drops on Intel CPUs (even more so if you can hold out until Black Friday sales).

A ray-tracing capable GPU is going to be required if you want to get the best out of MSFS. But if you're planning on staying with P3D, CPU is the *most* important component for performance.


AMD Ryzen 5800X3D; MSI RTX 3080 Ti VENTUS 3X; 32GB Corsair 3200 MHz; ASUS VG35VQ 35" (3440 x 1440)
Fulcrum One yoke; Thrustmaster TCA Captain Pack Airbus edition; MFG Crosswind rudder pedals; CPFlight MCP 737; Logitech FIP x3; TrackIR

MSFS; Fenix A320; A2A PA-24; HPG H145; PMDG 737-600; AIG; RealTraffic; PSXTraffic; FSiPanel; REX AccuSeason Adv; FSDT GSX Pro; FS2Crew RAAS Pro; FS-ATC Chatter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried the 9700K last week. Did perform well. But for some reason it could not be overclocked to more than 4,7 GHz. Probably just a bad CPU from the silicon lottery. But 9700's are 9900's with defects and downgraded to 9700 That way Intel gets more chips from one wafer. Therefore the 9700 are worse in overclocking. But that's the point of buying a K-model processor.

If you are not into overclocking, a plain 9700 would do, if you do want to get the most out of it, a 9900K will be the best option.

I returned the 9700 and will go for a 9900K, which has more cache indeed which will always help (noticable or not :-))


René Moelaert

PMDG 744 Tech Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, w6kd said:

You have some obvious misunderstandings about the difference between CPU cores and threads.

All my info comes from other forum topics on the same CPUs, and from tech websites ... if my knowledge of it is therefore a "obvious misunderstanding" you'll need to take that up with the ones who wrote the comparisons and the articles on the products.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/

" we have the Core i9-9900K" ... " and we also have the i7-9700K which is basically the same CPU, but crucially, with Hyper-threading disabled."  -- "Basically the same CPU"

"The Core i7-9700K packs the same eight cores but can only process 8 simultaneous threads." -- wanted to point out that the terms "treads" and "hyper-threading" were used by the same author, in the same article, referring to the same thing.

" Overclocking these 8-core parts to 5.1 GHz wasn’t easy, it required 1.375v and a massive liquid cooler, you aren’t hitting this frequency with a 240mm closed loop cooler, 5 GHz is probably off the table as well" -- Why bring up if the 9900k is better because it can hit 5GHz if it can hardly do it with a custom industrial cooling system?

" Looking at the multi-threaded results the 9900K saw an 8% performance boost while the 9700K saw a 7% boost. I should also note that I have two 9900K samples and both struggled with the 5.1 GHz overclock. They could boot into Windows at 5.2 GHz and run a few basic tests but anything more would result in the blue screen of death, even at 1.45v."  --- Again, mentioning that yes, the CPU can hit 5GHz but only to boot into windows and not much else before BSOD.

Due to time and how much we already have to cover, we’re going to show the gaming performance of just half a dozen titles. Starting with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey the 9900K boasts frame time performance by just 4% at 1080p when compared to the 8700K while the 9700K was slightly better providing a 7% increase."  --- 9700k actually gives better frame time performance in some cases.

" test gaming performance with the 9900K and 9700K overclocked to 5.1 GHz. Interestingly we see no performance gain when testing with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, even at 1080p. We’ve found in the past overclocking the 8700K lead to almost no performance gains at 1080p with the 1080 Ti and the same appears true with the RTX 2080 Ti." -- overclocking shows to make almost no difference so why do it and risk damage?

That's just 1 of the MANY articles and reviews I have been reading ... so again, if its an "obvious misunderstanding" you'll have to blame them, and blame Intel for listing the comparison as "Cores/Threads" which is what I was referring to as "the difference" in the chips ... 9700k = 8 core/8 threads   9900k = 8 core/16 threads ... see the difference?


Steven Destazio (DVA12924)

 

"There's not reason to be alarmed, and we hope you'll enjoy the rest of the fight. By the way, is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?" - Elaine Dickinson

We all started learning a product/feature at some point in our tenure within the flight sim community. Please understand that and understand that people come here to learn how to solve problems, not be harassed because you feel you are better than everyone else. We are all equal. Show respect and you'll get respect. Please don't guess at a solution unless trial/error and remember we are here to help each other and learn/teach from each other. Check your ego at the door. We should be interacting as if we will be sitting next to each other on the flight deck, not grade school bullies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, samisahusky said:

All my info comes from other forum topics on the same CPUs, and from tech websites ... if my knowledge of it is therefore a "obvious misunderstanding" you'll need to take that up with the ones who wrote the comparisons and the articles on the products.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/

" we have the Core i9-9900K" ... " and we also have the i7-9700K which is basically the same CPU, but crucially, with Hyper-threading disabled."  -- "Basically the same CPU"

"The Core i7-9700K packs the same eight cores but can only process 8 simultaneous threads." -- wanted to point out that the terms "treads" and "hyper-threading" were used by the same author, in the same article, referring to the same thing.

" Overclocking these 8-core parts to 5.1 GHz wasn’t easy, it required 1.375v and a massive liquid cooler, you aren’t hitting this frequency with a 240mm closed loop cooler, 5 GHz is probably off the table as well" -- Why bring up if the 9900k is better because it can hit 5GHz if it can hardly do it with a custom industrial cooling system?

" Looking at the multi-threaded results the 9900K saw an 8% performance boost while the 9700K saw a 7% boost. I should also note that I have two 9900K samples and both struggled with the 5.1 GHz overclock. They could boot into Windows at 5.2 GHz and run a few basic tests but anything more would result in the blue screen of death, even at 1.45v."  --- Again, mentioning that yes, the CPU can hit 5GHz but only to boot into windows and not much else before BSOD.

Due to time and how much we already have to cover, we’re going to show the gaming performance of just half a dozen titles. Starting with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey the 9900K boasts frame time performance by just 4% at 1080p when compared to the 8700K while the 9700K was slightly better providing a 7% increase."  --- 9700k actually gives better frame time performance in some cases.

" test gaming performance with the 9900K and 9700K overclocked to 5.1 GHz. Interestingly we see no performance gain when testing with Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, even at 1080p. We’ve found in the past overclocking the 8700K lead to almost no performance gains at 1080p with the 1080 Ti and the same appears true with the RTX 2080 Ti." -- overclocking shows to make almost no difference so why do it and risk damage?

That's just 1 of the MANY articles and reviews I have been reading ... so again, if its an "obvious misunderstanding" you'll have to blame them, and blame Intel for listing the comparison as "Cores/Threads" which is what I was referring to as "the difference" in the chips ... 9700k = 8 core/8 threads   9900k = 8 core/16 threads ... see the difference?

I read that aliens landed in Washington and took over Congress, too...that doesn't make it so.  If i posted here that aliens were in control of Congress, nobody would let me off the hook just because I provided a link to the National Enquirer article where I read it.  Research entails more than just reading what someone else wrote.

Regardless of the source, wrong is still wrong.  I already pointed out the differences in L3 cache between the 9700K and 9900K...you can certainly verify that by looking at Intel's tech data.  So the 9700K is not simply a 9900K with HT disabled.  There's more to it than that, and that's easily confirmed with a quick review of the manufacturer's specs.

I run a 9900K at 5.0 GHz on my portable rig with a Noctua NH-D15 air cooler...in a LAN box.  Not exactly a "custom industrial cooling system."  Most...perhaps all...of these tests you're reading about are overclocking the 9900K with HT enabled and running AVX-enabled stress tests across all 16 virtual cores.  With HT disabled and a low or no AVX duty cycle load--a load that much more closely resembles P3D--the heat dissipation drops considerably, and the cooling system requirements with it. 

Test results running Assassin's Creed are not representative of performance with P3D.  It uses a completely different game engine, DX12 vs DX11...lots of important differences.  Those differences are what drive us to have these FS-specific discussions here rather than just reading Tom's Hardware or Anandtech's reviews and going from there. 

Regards

  • Upvote 1

Bob Scott | President and CEO, AVSIM Inc
ATP Gulfstream II-III-IV-V

System1 (P3Dv5/v4): i9-13900KS @ 6.0GHz, water 2x360mm, ASUS Z790 Hero, 32GB GSkill 7800MHz CAS36, ASUS RTX4090
Samsung 55" JS8500 4K TV@30Hz,
3x 2TB WD SN850X 1x 4TB Crucial P3 M.2 NVME SSD, EVGA 1600T2 PSU, 1.2Gbps internet
Fiber link to Yamaha RX-V467 Home Theater Receiver, Polk/Klipsch 6" bookshelf speakers, Polk 12" subwoofer, 12.9" iPad Pro
PFC yoke/throttle quad/pedals with custom Hall sensor retrofit, Thermaltake View 71 case, Stream Deck XL button box

Sys2 (MSFS/XPlane): i9-10900K @ 5.1GHz, 32GB 3600/15, nVidia RTX4090FE, Alienware AW3821DW 38" 21:9 GSync, EVGA 1000P2
Thrustmaster TCA Boeing Yoke, TCA Airbus Sidestick, 2x TCA Airbus Throttle quads, PFC Cirrus Pedals, Coolermaster HAF932 case

Portable Sys3 (P3Dv4/FSX/DCS): i9-9900K @ 5.0 Ghz, Noctua NH-D15, 32GB 3200/16, EVGA RTX3090, Dell S2417DG 24" GSync
Corsair RM850x PSU, TM TCA Officer Pack, Saitek combat pedals, TM Warthog HOTAS, Coolermaster HAF XB case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion. I'm flagging this one!

I am in the same position as Steven.  I purchased an i7 2600k back in 2011 when PMDG released NGX.  It has served me well for the last 8 years, but is getting long in the tooth. Not to mention that I am having frequent BSD related to the stop code WHEA_UNCORRECTABLE ERROR.  I'm going to guess that a memory module or something on the MB is giving out. 

I'm looking at the 9900K if for no other reason that longevity.  I use P3D primarily, but also getting more into X-Plane.  What these programs don't/can't do today may be able to do tomorrow.  I don't want to build a new computer every 2 to 3 years.  I want some legs.  

Over-building with the future in mind is not a bad thing.

Rich Boll


Richard Boll

Wichita, KS

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
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...