Noel

Members
  • Content Count

    5,237
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

100 Excellent

1 Follower

About Noel

  • Rank
    Member - 5,000+
  • Birthday 02/23/1953

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Paradise, CA
  • Interests
    Golf, music, too many others to mention!

Recent Profile Visitors

5,122 profile views
  1. Thanks Rob I will go w/ 32GB then.
  2. Is there a significant downside to 32GB? It's so inexpensive compared to the rest of the box. I know you can have some reduction in overclockability and there is some sort of processing overhead the more ram you have, but as I say, is there a significant downside? I put 32Gb in my now 6 y/o box but I know I've never come close to using it.
  3. What is an optimal amount of system ram for P3D V4.x and/or XP11.x? I'm looking at a GPU w/ 8-11Gb of GDDR and also wanted to know if one of the new Turing RTX GPUs will be a better match for P3D V4.x/XP11.x over 1080 Ti if anyone has some thoughts on that. Thanks in advance!
  4. Once again, I have no idea why this particular comment. I'm exceedingly aware of exactly how the sim performs, what impacts the CPU, the GPU, and both combined, and I predict it will be very easy to quantify the difference between the current system and 142% of the current system.
  5. I couldn't tell what you were trying to say because the 3930K is not Ivy Bridge, it's Sandy Bridge-E! Anywho, the dang thing just isn't dying! Waiting 6y between systems is great nowadays because improvements in thruput have been so relatively paltry. I am looking forward to an ~ 42% increase in total performance w/ a new I9-9900K and NVidia RTX 2080 Ti, which is really substantial so very happy I have waited this long.
  6. As I stated, I've learned well you have to live within your means, just like you do, and that is why RobA reminds you you will not be running everything maxed out. I run all of the scenery sliders to hard right, except when in dense large terminals at which point I might put autogen down to Dense as the lowest. I am most often flying in FTX regional sceneries. I use ActivesSky out to 100m w/ variable cloud density according to what I'm after. I would venture to say if two people walked by our two screens they would be hard pressed to see much difference, truly! I'm in no hurry my friend because I'm real happy w/ the liquid smooth performance I get, near instant texture update rate at 3440x1440. The biggest impairment I have is actually out of the GTX Titan. I frequently have to dial back cloud and terrain shadowing do to GPU load. Once again, it's easy once you fully understand what impacts what in P3D how to live within your means. I get off on using FSCaptain, aiming for perfect flights, and use the super easy to process Majestic Q400, f/b PMDG NGX & 777. I don't get off on a wee bit more complexity--it's hardly worth the cost!
  7. This I've always completely understood, hence I live w/in my means as it were w/ that old 3930K and original GTX Titan and prior systems and continue to use P3D almost daily and enjoy it greatly still. From guestimates derived from this source or that I think I can expect about a 42% increase in total performance for me by going to one of these two new processors and GPUs, which will be a very significant improvement, so I'm really looking forward to it! In the end i'm also aware the total experience will ultimately be very similar to what I do every day right now, but with a bit more complexity, but not really all that much. My 3930K seems to want a little more juice these days so I'm thinking it won't be too long before I have to upgrade so perfect timing!
  8. Yes Greg I understood your point, which had nothing to do with my question. My question is based on the premise that IPC varies between processor models. Doesn't it? I was looking for an answer to the question which can be objectively evaluated at least in terms of an average of several benchmarks that might corroborate theoretical improvements in IPC that Intel was trying to accomplish with this iteration of processors. I know how to evaluate HT ON/OFF very clearly, so this once again has nothing to do w/ my question. One can compare the IPC of my 3930K and someone's 8700K, right? For example, here's one from PassMark looking at single-threaded performance: 3930K@3.7Ghz = 2,239 8700K@3.7Ghz = 2,704 For practical purposes though I'm sure not technically 100% valid we can attribute the 24% increase to improvements in the architecture of each CPU. IPC increases PLUS clockspeed increases translate roughly into comparative performance expectations for one CPU over another on a given task. So the question remains, is there anything inherently superior in IPC of I9-9900 over I7-9700 w/ regard to IPC? I've assumed but never known if Intel's naming one 'I9' meant there implied something fundamentally different between the two. Is there?
  9. The HT on or off I already have a clear grip on thanks to SteveW's approach in how to evaluate that. In using his method I determined my 3930K performed significantly better w/ HT on than off, so I run HT on. That could well change w/ an 8 core CPU for several reasons I can think of. What I do not know about is if I9's architecture is fundamentally faster in terms of IPC than I7's for this series of CPUs. It sounds like you are saying the 4mb additional cache will have some positive effect. Is there otherwise any differences in architecture from I7 to I9 that would improve IPC beyond the cache effect?
  10. Yes that's true but says nothing about the question. It would be nice to know if there are any differences in IPC when HT is off. It's called I9, versus I7. Are there any differences in architecture that would make the I9 do better than an I7, all else (ie clockspeed, and HT off) being equal? Or are they identical beyond HT and binning?
  11. Soldered IHS is half the reason to upgrade now. I am happy to have never had to succumb to the silly putty they have been using since my beloved SB-E chip which now 6y later still runs at 4.42Ghz w/ HT enabled on an air cooler day in an day out, w/ a little help from my a/c unit, which as Martin says was hardly necessary. So it's I7 9700K or I9-9900K. Beyond HT enabling, and it appears maybe a little better binning, are there any advantages of going the 9900K route? Is their IPC identical when HT is not enabled?
  12. Best of all IMO soldered IHS appears to be very close to fully confirmed thankfully it's about time. I thought it would happen out of necessity to meet the needs of TDP in an 8 core part w/ those turbo speeds.
  13. No worries Brett I'm sure we can get right back into the 9900K now. The entire topic began to deviate after someone brought up the idea of tariffs potentially impacting PC building costs at some point, after which I made one offhanded comment re the source of tariff policy and who it will affect most, this opinion being mirrored by 99% of economists. Rather than let this comment die of its own accord a few folks here decided to respond w/ a personal attack or two, even though I never personally attacked anyone here, and even though they're very careful to always remain on topic, cough cough. So yes, by all means let's get back into talking nice and safe politically sterile commentary and save reality for another place. I plan on building my next box w/ a 9900K, air cooled, and an 1100 series GPU. I think I will see a full 40+ increase in total performance and that is exciting since I already enjoy P3D immensely even on old hardware.
  14. I used PassMark Single Thread Perf to compare [my] 3930K@4.42 against 8700K@5.0Ghz, except I added 100 to the 8700K's result for what I9-9900K might do at the same clockspeed, but that is just a wild guess. So my result was I will see a 42% increase in single thread performance which will be a very respectable bump up in performance. And then there's the other cores. Now if my 3930K would just stop working! I guess it's time to start ramping up the overclock but I think I will wait until parts have arrived for the new build before going down that road. It's given me a huge number of hours over its 5.5y service life so far. I'm curious to know when they say 9900K can hit 5.0Ghz on two cores or something like that, what happens to the clock speed on the remaining cores? Can one set that in the BIOS or is this all managed by the BIOS w/ no user control?
  15. Yes thanks again SteveW I appreciate it! I've been at flight simming for a very long time and when I went to that AM w/ HT enabled I have a performance quality that I believe is pretty close to as good as it can be for my old hardware and I could tell because when I'm living w/in my means as it were its always perfectly smooth w/ clear terrain textures. If and when I get around to building a new box w/ a 9900K or what have you what I would like to do is put the main thread on a core that is running as fast as it can, and clock the others lower to manage heat etc. I'm guessing clocking those terrain texture loaders down won't hardly impact their ability to keep up w/ their work loads.