9900KS, Cascade Lake, or Wait?

[bbain1187 107]

Sorry, another 'Which CPU should I get' thread.

I've had my trusty 6700k for 4 years now, and last year upgraded to a 2080TI upon release. I'm generally satisfied with my simming experience on P3D now, albeit with some settings compromises and occasional stutters when at airports such as DD KJFK, FlyTampa KBOS and the like in the FSL A320. I've had to back my overclock down from 4.8 to 4.7 and now to 4.6, and still got an ntdll.dll crash the other day. I'm worried my chip is slowly degrading, but if it is, it's also a good rationalization for buying new expensive hardware lol.

Like all of us, I'm sure, I'd like to have top-of-the-line hardware when MSFS2020 is released. The I9900KS looks great, a guaranteed 5 ghz. But if I wait another month, the Cascade Lake chips are coming out, and allegedly they can hit 5.1 on conventional liquid cooling as well, and if so, would presumably be faster than the I9900KS due to non-clock speed related performance gains, right?

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/core-i9-10980xe-5-1-ghz-overclock-standard-liquid-cooling

And then there is 10nm Ice Lake coming at some point, and if it is for sure coming out next year I'd probably want to wait, but some rumors I read are that it's delayed until 2021. As FS2020 will presumably release in...2020...I am leaning towards waiting until the Cascade chips come out, seeing how they benchmark, and then pulling the trigger on one of those, along with a new Mobo, RAM, and possibly a new boot drive, and enjoying a great setup until the new sim comes out. I'm also hoping the FS2020 team releases some hardware recommendations in the next month or two, specifically in reference to how well the sim makes use of multiple cores, as that will be another decision point, between the 10-12-14 core versions of the Cascade Lake chips (18 core will be $2000, definitely out of my price range.)

I also haven't given much thought to the AMD chips, as they don't overclock as well, but may have to revisit that as well.

Thoughts?

Ben 

[w6kd 3,952]

There will always be something mo-better-faster up ahead.  Sometimes the promised Holy Grail appears...sometime it does not.

If you're wanting to build specifically for the new sim, well, there are precious few knowns in that equation.  Better to wait for more data to materialize if that's your raison d'être for a new build.

All we've been shown so far w/r/t hardware is that the demo systems used during Microsoft's recent influencer-influencing event in Renton were running 8-core CPUs at stock speeds, and had high-end (2080Ti) GPUs.  There's just no way to extrapolate from that one data point what we might expect in performance improvement from a faster CPU or one with more cores...or for that matter whether the new multi-threaded code might make advantageous use of hyperthreading. 

Now if your 6700K is muerto and you need a new CPU in the here and now, the 9900K is an exceptional performer running P3Dv4 (and FSX, for that matter) with good prospects for the future.  As far as the question of whether it'd be worth it to upgrade now...my observation is that 8 physical cores is a pretty major improvement over 4 cores on current ESP sims, especially at 5GHz and above.

 

[bbain1187 107]

11 minutes ago, w6kd said:

There will always be something mo-better-faster up ahead.  Sometimes the promised Holy Grail appears...sometime it does not.

If you're wanting to build specifically for the new sim, well, there are precious few knowns in that equation.  Better to wait for more data to materialize if that's your raison d'être for a new build.

All we've been shown so far w/r/t hardware is that the demo systems used during Microsoft's recent influencer-influencing event in Renton were running 8-core CPUs at stock speeds, and had high-end (2080Ti) GPUs.  There's just no way to extrapolate from that one data point what we might expect in performance improvement from a faster CPU or one with more cores...or for that matter whether the new multi-threaded code might make advantageous use of hyperthreading. 

Now if your 6700K is muerto and you need a new CPU in the here and now, the 9900K is an exceptional performer running P3Dv4 (and FSX, for that matter) with good prospects for the future.  As far as the question of whether it'd be worth it to upgrade now...my observation is that 8 physical cores is a pretty major improvement over 4 cores on current ESP sims, especially at 5GHz and above.

 

Thanks. I'd want to future-proof myself as much as possible, as historically I only upgrade my CPU every 5 years or so. If I just end up getting a 9900K, I'll end up asking myself why I didn't just do that a year ago when I got my 2080Ti. (Although that's $2000 right there, maybe that's why.) You're right; there is always something better right around the corner, but I'd feel better if that 'corner' was a year-plus away. I'll be ticked if I buy now and then the 'holy grail' Ice Lake chips come out in April or something. I guess that's how it works though.

Ben

[roarkr 104]

Quote

during Microsoft's recent influencer-influencing event in Renton were running 8-core CPUs at stock speeds, and had high-end (2080Ti) GPUs

We do not know for sure that the 8-core i7 8700K was running at stock speed @3.6GHz or was overclocked and running at @4.7Ghz on all 8 cores.

 

Edited October 8, 2019 by roarkr

[TechguyMaxC 516]

HEDT chips aren't as good for "gaming" (simming in this case) as their regular desktop counterparts.  Don't waste money on an HEDT chip unless you have other uses for the PC than just flight sim.  Get a good 9900k/kf/ks and call it a day.

[himmelhorse 890]

Hello to you all,

I was just reading an article from anandtech about the new Intel 10900 CPUs

Intel Cascade Lake-X

AnandTechCores
ThreadsBaseAll
CoreTB2TB3TDPPrice
(1ku)

Core i9-10980XE18C / 36T3.03.84.64.8165 W$979

Core i9-10940X14C / 28T3.34.14.64.8165 W$784

Core i9-10920X12C / 24T3.54.34.64.8165 W$689

Core i9-10900X10C / 20T3.74.34.54.7165 W$590

Skylake-X (previous generation)

Core i9-9980XE18C / 36T3.0 4.54.7165 W$1979

Core i9-9940X14C / 28C3.3 4.5 165 W$1387

Core i9-9920X12C / 24T3.5 4.5 165 W$1189

Core i9-9900X10C / 20T3.5 4.5 165 W$989

All  very interesting particularly with the new Ryzen 9 3950X @ 16 cores 32 threads which has no comparable Intel equivalent This is going to be released in September 2019 (LOL) and at about USD749.

I have no information on direct comparisons between the 10940 and the 3950x and cant seem to find any further info on either as neither have actually been released.

However for the OP,  given the above .... why would you not wait?. I further note that you have made no mention of the AMD product, but....I would not rule it out in the decision making process just yet. it is supposed (rumoured) to be the fastest OC processor in the AMD lineup.

I have made my decision on processor, MB and RAM to upgrade my computer three times now and having done that I am still going to wait until probably Chrismas time. My old i7 2600k is so b.....y slow but I just want the best (and last) upgrade for all my Flight Sim platforms and MSFS as well.  Damm you MS ... I suspect many simmers are sitting on the fence waiting and all the 3rd party Devs are going to suffer somewhat  because of that, but I am so looking forward to this new product.

In parting, I would suggest any decision for now would have to be somewhat of a compromise and my advice is WAIT .... maybe only a couple of months at most.

Regards

Tony

 

 

[bbain1187 107]

2 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

HEDT chips aren't as good for "gaming" (simming in this case) as their regular desktop counterparts.  Don't waste money on an HEDT chip unless you have other uses for the PC than just flight sim.  Get a good 9900k/kf/ks and call it a 

The 10900x has a suggested retail price of $590 according to the article I linked in my first post, which puts it at about the same price as the 9900KS. I'm sure many simmers don't use the full capability of the 9900K either. As long as it doesn't have worse performance for flight sim, I don't why I wouldn't get the newer chip, unless it comes out that the 9900KS has more overclock headroom.

Ben 

[howevr 31]

Intel 10th GEN. Allow for new motherboards. LGA2066 socket. X299 are pricey and quad channel. 9900KS in a Z390 board will be better value me thinks.

 

Cheers,

[TechguyMaxC 516]

13 hours ago, bbain1187 said:

The 10900x has a suggested retail price of $590 according to the article I linked in my first post, which puts it at about the same price as the 9900KS. I'm sure many simmers don't use the full capability of the 9900K either. As long as it doesn't have worse performance for flight sim, I don't why I wouldn't get the newer chip, unless it comes out that the 9900KS has more overclock headroom.

Ben 

There are a few incorrect statements here.  Skylake-X and Cascade Lake-X processors have somewhat lower performance in single-threaded, or lightly-threaded workloads than their mainstream desktop counterparts like the 9900k.  This is a function of the following:

1) lower clockspeed (9900k turbos up to 5GHz, 10900x turbos up to 4.7GHz)

2) different design intended to serve different markets, necessarily prioritizing some workloads over other workloads

1) is self-explanatory, 2) requires a bit more explanation. 

HEDT (and server) chips tend to be used to run workloads which utilize the CPU cores to a greater degree than the workloads (content creation/professional applications) generally run on desktop processors (games/productivity apps).  In order to achieve these disparate goals, Intel architects their desktop chips to achieve the highest clockspeeds possible, whilst also completing the highest number of instructions ber clock cycle.  This results in the highest single and lightly-threaded performance.  HEDT (and server) chips require a different approach.  The task of shuffling data between CPU cores in multi-threaded workloads requires a significant investment (in terms of die area and transistor count).  Intel ran into a bit of a brick wall with their mainstream desktop design when scaling beyond 10 cores, so they adopted a mesh interconnect to move data between cores (replacing the previous ring interconnect - a literally ring around all the cores).  This mesh interconnect allowed Intel to scale core count beyond the previous 10 core limit up to 18 cores (28 in servers), however there was a cost.  In order to connect more cores, the communication lanes needed to be slowed down, and run at a guaranteed rate.  The ring interconnect runs at a clockspeed determined by the "uncore" clock domain, usually somewhere in the range of 3-4.5GHz on modern desktop chips.  The mesh interconnect however, runs at only 2.4GHz. 

Single-thread performance suffered as a result of the mesh interconnect implementation.  When comparing 9900k to any Skylake-X or Cascade Lake-X CPU at the same clockspeed, there is a performance regression in lightly-threaded workloads.  This regression is generally less than 10% whereas the multi-threaded speedup is significant, so you can see why Intel chose this approach for HEDT/server chips.  I have a system with a 9900k and a separate system with a 7960x for this reason - different tools for different workloads.

Highly technical explanation I know, hopefully someone finds it useful.

 

[w6kd 3,952]

20 hours ago, roarkr said:

We do not know for sure that the 8-core i7 8700K was running at stock speed @3.6GHz or was overclocked and running at @4.7Ghz on all 8 cores.

A couple things we *do* know for sure is that an 8700K has 6 cores not 8, and the 8-core 9700K they were reported to be using in the demo machines has a stock all-core turbo speed of 4.7GHz, so all cores at 4.7 isn't an overclock, it's stock CPU performance.

[bbain1187 107]

6 hours ago, TechguyMaxC said:

There are a few incorrect statements here.  Skylake-X and Cascade Lake-X processors have somewhat lower performance in single-threaded, or lightly-threaded workloads than their mainstream desktop counterparts like the 9900k.  This is a function of the following:

1) lower clockspeed (9900k turbos up to 5GHz, 10900x turbos up to 4.7GHz)

2) different design intended to serve different markets, necessarily prioritizing some workloads over other workloads

1) is self-explanatory, 2) requires a bit more explanation. 

HEDT (and server) chips tend to be used to run workloads which utilize the CPU cores to a greater degree than the workloads (content creation/professional applications) generally run on desktop processors (games/productivity apps).  In order to achieve these disparate goals, Intel architects their desktop chips to achieve the highest clockspeeds possible, whilst also completing the highest number of instructions ber clock cycle.  This results in the highest single and lightly-threaded performance.  HEDT (and server) chips require a different approach.  The task of shuffling data between CPU cores in multi-threaded workloads requires a significant investment (in terms of die area and transistor count).  Intel ran into a bit of a brick wall with their mainstream desktop design when scaling beyond 10 cores, so they adopted a mesh interconnect to move data between cores (replacing the previous ring interconnect - a literally ring around all the cores).  This mesh interconnect allowed Intel to scale core count beyond the previous 10 core limit up to 18 cores (28 in servers), however there was a cost.  In order to connect more cores, the communication lanes needed to be slowed down, and run at a guaranteed rate.  The ring interconnect runs at a clockspeed determined by the "uncore" clock domain, usually somewhere in the range of 3-4.5GHz on modern desktop chips.  The mesh interconnect however, runs at only 2.4GHz. 

Single-thread performance suffered as a result of the mesh interconnect implementation.  When comparing 9900k to any Skylake-X or Cascade Lake-X CPU at the same clockspeed, there is a performance regression in lightly-threaded workloads.  This regression is generally less than 10% whereas the multi-threaded speedup is significant, so you can see why Intel chose this approach for HEDT/server chips.  I have a system with a 9900k and a separate system with a 7960x for this reason - different tools for different workloads.

Highly technical explanation I know, hopefully someone finds it useful.

 

That is a helpful explanation, thank you so much. 

9900KS is looking pretty good now. 5.5 on liquid cooling perhaps? Getting a little ahead of myself.

Ben 

[TechguyMaxC 516]

I won't say 5.5 is out of the realm of possibility, when 8700k was released and most chips seemed to hit between 5.0-5.1GHz and the special edition, 8086k came out a bit later it could do 5.2-5.4GHz.  If 9900ks is binned that well I might have to pick one up myself.  My 9900k does 5.0GHz comfortably with low temps but I sure won't pass up another 500MHz!

[TurboKen 119]

I too will be looking at this 9900KS chip...  As my new build the first of the year I bought the 9600K thinking the 10700K was right around the corner.. Now come to find out the new chip will be a new socket again....."Thanks intel" NOT! It would be nice to upgrade a computer chip without having to buy a new board every single time... as its not just expensive but time consuming. END RANT....   So yeah a 8 core chip @ 5.3+ sounding good to me...

[himmelhorse 890]

Hello all,

I have raised this aspect before and am wondering if there is any new information (MSFS) that could influence any CPU decisions.

Is any further information available at this time regarding the new MSFS engines. In that platform, is 12core/24 thread going to be of any benefit compared to 8/16 (I am obviously looking at 3900x compared to 9900k.) I am aware that the 9900k is able to be OC'd to 5ghz but late news regarding the Ryzen is that clock speed is far from that, and appear to be somewhat unpredictable (one article states that only 6% of 3900x CPUs can achieve up to 4.4ghz. 

That statement, believable/accurate, or not, is disconcerting to say the least. 

I am, like many others here, looking to the future (read MSFS) and am seriously wondering if investing in AMD GPU is worth any real consideration. This is based on cores/threads vs clock speed.

A simple Yes or No (regarding new information) is all that I am looking for, but anyone with both Intel and Ryzen experiences, specifically relating to Flight Sim, could chip in with their opinions.

I am about to go the 9900k route with ASRock z390 Taichi and 32gb (2 x 16) Corsair Vengeance 3200mhz Ram as my upgrade. Trigger is not pulled but Monday or Tuesday coming is D Day.

Finally, I genuinely hope that I have not hijacked this topic which has revealed some very good information.

Regards

Tony

[G-RFRY 1,217]

Tony.

Depends if you intend dumping all your present sims when MSFS comes out if not go for an all-round PC, The new ryzen parts are in short supply at the moment and some retailers are seeing a chance to make a bit more profit, it may not settle down till early next year by then you may have more info on MSFS requirements.