Worth upgrading CPU ?

[lanmancz]

Hi,

so my current CPU is a few years old i5 3570k overclocked at 4.2 GHz. For DCS the most important factor is a single thread performance but looking at this chart it seems to me that my 3 generations old i5 still holds up pretty well :

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

When I run the benchmark software from this site my CPU scored 2321 points in the single thread performance which is actually pretty close to the top. The number one CPU there, the i7-4790k at 4.4 GHz, only scored 8% higher than my result at 2527. The second best Xeon there is only 0.7% faster than my CPU. It seems to me that investing in a newer CPU would pretty much be a waste of money that would probably be better spent on a 1070 card. What do you think please ? The only thing that might justify buying the i7-4790k might be to try to overclock it some more closer to 5 GHz if possible which might grant some benefits in DCS and Xplane. But still even with such great overclocking it seems to me that I'd be getting only at best 15% or so more performance in the sims.

Edited July 31, 2016 by lanmancz

[Hadwell]

not really worth upgrading the CPU.

 

1070 is a nice card.

[Nooch]

You'll be fine with your 3570k. The performance gains with a better CPU will be marginal.

[BitMaster]

Same,

 

rather invest in watercooling and oc even further ;)

[Devrim]

Ok. I hijack the thread.

 

What about mine CPU? :) My system is as below. It's i7-2600 3.4GHz.

Should I upgrade my CPU for better performance?

 

Thanks.

[lanmancz]

Ok. I hijack the thread.

 

What about mine CPU? :) My system is as below. It's i7-2600 3.4GHz.

Should I upgrade my CPU for better performance?

 

Thanks.

 

Heh, no probs ;) Btw I'd recommend running the CPU benchmark from that site (https://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm). Then you can compare your single thread score to the score in the chart I posted to see how much % you may get by upgrading the CPU. The i7-2600 in default does not seem that bad scoring 1921 points according to that site. Perhaps try to get some nice cooler (Scythe or Noctua are good) and try overclocking it closer or above 4 GHz (what you temperatures will allow and what will be stable). That should give you a nice boost for the price of the cooler. It would also be interesting to see how much score would BitMaster, who posted before you, get as he has the same CPU as you but clocked to 5 GHz. The 3570k is 3.6 GHz by default and I got some Scythe cooler (don't remember the exact type) with which I can keep nice temperatures on all cores under full continuous load on 4.2 GHz. Maybe I could go even a bit higher but I didn't push it, I've done this right when I bought the PC few years back and it's been working fine for years now.

 

Anyway it seems to me that the general consensus is that the single thread performance of the last gen processors is not that great so it's probably not worth upgrading it but rather squeezing some more by overclocking.

 

BTW: Does anyone have any experience with AMD processors ? Last AMD I had was Athlon like 15 years ago :-) Why I ask is that I noticed that the 8-core AMD FX-9590 which is clocked at 5 GHz has pretty bad single thread performance (1721 points) compared to Intel chips. It's way worse than my 3570k according to the benchmark. Are AMDs really that bad for our purpose or are the benchmarks on this site somehow favoring Intel chips ? Also I just noticed that the FX-9590 is already 3 years old chip and AMD is due to release next gen chips by Xmas. So I guess we will see then how they stack up, they promise much improved single thread performance. This could be interesting.

Edited July 31, 2016 by lanmancz

[Hadwell]

If the 2600 is a non-k then yes, worth an upgrade

[Devrim]

Right. It's not a "K". Thanks! :)

[SkateZilla]

2020 will be the CPU Wall, its getting harder and harder to produce efficient yields as they get smaller, and costs are going up, while soeed and performance see marginal gains.

 

Once AMD Zen and iSeries hit that wall (prolly around sub 10nm 5-7nm), attention will shift to stacking cores instead of shrinking them.

 

Speed wise, 4-5GHz is the productive wall, anything above that requires expensive and consumable cooling.

 

Silicon is pretty much tapped out.

Edited August 1, 2016 by SkateZilla

[BitMaster]

Heh, no probs ;) Btw I'd recommend running the CPU benchmark from that site (https://www.passmark.com/products/pt.htm). Then you can compare your single thread score to the score in the chart I posted to see how much % you may get by upgrading the CPU. The i7-2600 in default does not seem that bad scoring 1921 points according to that site. Perhaps try to get some nice cooler (Scythe or Noctua are good) and try overclocking it closer or above 4 GHz (what you temperatures will allow and what will be stable). That should give you a nice boost for the price of the cooler. It would also be interesting to see how much score would BitMaster, who posted before you, get as he has the same CPU as you but clocked to 5 GHz. The 3570k is 3.6 GHz by default and I got some Scythe cooler (don't remember the exact type) with which I can keep nice temperatures on all cores under full continuous load on 4.2 GHz. Maybe I could go even a bit higher but I didn't push it, I've done this right when I bought the PC few years back and it's been working fine for years now.

 

Anyway it seems to me that the general consensus is that the single thread performance of the last gen processors is not that great so it's probably not worth upgrading it but rather squeezing some more by overclocking.

 

BTW: Does anyone have any experience with AMD processors ? Last AMD I had was Athlon like 15 years ago :-) Why I ask is that I noticed that the 8-core AMD FX-9590 which is clocked at 5 GHz has pretty bad single thread performance (1721 points) compared to Intel chips. It's way worse than my 3570k according to the benchmark. Are AMDs really that bad for our purpose or are the benchmarks on this site somehow favoring Intel chips ? Also I just noticed that the FX-9590 is already 3 years old chip and AMD is due to release next gen chips by Xmas. So I guess we will see then how they stack up, they promise much improved single thread performance. This could be interesting.

 

 

Good idea, will run passmark this week and post the result, curious myself if a new 4790k clocked ace-high would pay back or just equal what I have

[BitMaster]

Did 3 runs on Passmark 8 version as of today.

 

1st run is 3.4/3.8Turbo stock setting = 2004

2nd run is 4.8GHz = 2540

3rd run is 5GHz = 2641 score

 

nice scaling

 

demo does not show results from 4790k etc cpu's of modern age...

[lanmancz]

Nice results, thanks for sharing!

[BitMaster]

I would like to see how a newer well overclocked i5/i7 performs.

 

Anyone having some results beyond the Turboboost limits ???

[pacotito]

3 runs of passmark 8 got me on I7-5820k@ 4.5

2709

2706

2707

No problems other than intel letting the bclk come into play again. It took me a while to get stable with the memory and cpu tweaking. Fortunately...the teachers werent right...and we do carry a calculator with us all the time. I had to figure out what cpu multiplier I would need for 4497mhz at 125 bclk:doh:

Edited August 3, 2016 by pacotito

[=DECOY=]

on my 4970k i did three tests:

2690

2684

2679

[BitMaster]

God damn nice to see my 2600k perform so excellent...it's a 2011 CPU !!!!!!!

 

OK, the 5GHz pay off and lifetime will for sure be shorter, but wtf :)

 

Guess you need an excellent 4790k that clocks just as high as mine to somehow justify the expense ( board and cpu, ram I could keep ).

 

but no...this rig is so sweet ;) gonna keep it until a distinct smell from a burned CPU will seperate us:P

[Konovalov]

but no...this rig is so sweet ;) gonna keep it until a distinct smell from a burned CPU will seperate us:P

 

I was going to suggest exactly that. Let it burn baby. :thumbup:

 

My regret was that I couldn't wait for Sandy Bridge but still my i7-950 is ticking along nicely at near 4.3Ghz, well over it's 3.06Ghz stock and it seems to work well paired with my GTX970.

[Andrei]

I think I'll be keeping Sandy for now. I've got i5-2500K @ 4,6GHz. Just changed card from ancient HD7950 to GTX1070.

 

In DCS the system is now able to swallow everything I can think of throwing at her nicely FPS-wise.

[Einherjer]

I also pushed my 2500k to 4,6ghz - added a 1070 and VR In the rift is fun now!

[BitMaster]

Guys, keep that high clock for a few month and then check again, if you are lucky it will OC even further towards 5GHz if you dare.

 

Sandies seem to benefit a lot from burning in over a long time as ohm-resistance lowers with aging. I went from stock use for 4 years as a server to use it as a game rig, stable at 4.2 - 4.4. Added WC and went 4.6, then 4.8 for a LONG time ( 1 year + ).

 

It never went above 4.84 GHz stable before the 1 year on 4.8GHz/1.35V until by mistake I moved the BUSCLOCK and a had a booting system at 5.245GHz...it even let me play on 104th until DCS crashed...well well...I thought if it now fires up at beyond 5.2x GHz it should be fine and save to use it at 5GHz as long as I manage to "somehow" lower the voltage it applied automatically...way beyond 1.6x Volts ehhhhhhh :(

 

I managed to bring the CPU down to 1.40Volts stable. 1.38Volts causes crashes with prime95.

 

I still have the BUSCLK to play with but for now I am happy to have it stable at 5GHz and temps that are just still OK but no notch higher. 45-65°C in DCS depending on scene and airframe is OK. With 4.8 it never goes above 49°C with normal room temp as a start.

[BitMaster]

I was going to suggest exactly that. Let it burn baby. :thumbup:

 

My regret was that I couldn't wait for Sandy Bridge but still my i7-950 is ticking along nicely at near 4.3Ghz, well over it's 3.06Ghz stock and it seems to work well paired with my GTX970.

 

 

I have a i7-920 ( 2.66GHz ) that clocks easily to 4.2GHz or maybe more if I put the right RAM in it. It is stuck with stock 1600DDR3 and thus cant oc but if needed, yes, they do OC pretty well.

 

Just the forced BUSCLK OC is more tricky than the multiplier on the K versions

[lanmancz]

So I got the WC and OCed my 3570k to 4.6 GHz. Now I'm getting 2549 score in the test. I wanted to go for 5 GHz but I'm just unable to get it stable past 4.7 GHz. At 4.7 it's stable with 1.44V which is quite high, at 4.8 it generates WHEA errors and higher it doesn't even post. When I get it down to 4.6 GHz I get it stable at 1.30V. Unfortunately this seems to be the limit of my CPU :-( The temperatures are beautiful - 77-79C in the 8K prime95 test, overall about 10C lower during the other tests. Unfortunately I fear that pushing it harder would result in frying my CPU. I read that voltages past 1.4V are not good for the 3570k :-( Congrats on your nice chip BitMaster :-)

[BitMaster]

So I got the WC and OCed my 3570k to 4.6 GHz. Now I'm getting 2549 score in the test. I wanted to go for 5 GHz but I'm just unable to get it stable past 4.7 GHz. At 4.7 it's stable with 1.44V which is quite high, at 4.8 it generates WHEA errors and higher it doesn't even post. When I get it down to 4.6 GHz I get it stable at 1.30V. Unfortunately this seems to be the limit of my CPU :-( The temperatures are beautiful - 77-79C in the 8K prime95 test, overall about 10C lower during the other tests. Unfortunately I fear that pushing it harder would result in frying my CPU. I read that voltages past 1.4V are not good for the 3570k :-( Congrats on your nice chip BitMaster :-)

 

 

 

That's very similar to how my 2600 behaved during the first year of 4.8GHz.

Run the CPU for some time at that setting and then check again.

 

I actually was quite happy with 4.8 and back then any attempt to go 4.9 or 5.0 wasn't stable, usually resulting in not booting, BSOD when booting or similar. I settled with 4.8 and was lucky.

 

About 3 month ago I thought I give it another try and went to Bios, looking at all the options again. By accident I left the FSB at above 100 and went 50x100 and whoom it booted to 5.24GHz

..into windows and straight on 104th until a WHEA stopped my Kamov after about 10minutes ;)

 

I then dialed back on the FSB to stock 100 and ever since the machine boots straight into 5.0GHz

but needs manual voltage adjustment after logging in. The Asus-AI-Suite dials in a horrifying 1.50Volts whereas the system runs absolutely stable across a dozen games ( my son when hes here ) VMware and finally DCS.

 

The temps are very high at 5.0, tho it does complete the prime95 with kombustor the temps reach high 80 tipping on the 90°C at some points. very very high and telling me that 5.0 is the stop sign.

 

In DCS I have about 48-56°C with room temp at around 24-26°C now ( summer ). In winter the system is way cooler as the radiator is placed well aside in a cold corner and I can lower the temp in DCS to below 50°C, GPU and CPU. WC still cools with air !!

 

 

The machine NEVER EVER did go to 5.0 from within Windows when it booted stock settings.

I have to boot it at 4.8-5.0, funny..but that is how mine behaves.

 

Trying to raise the clock from within windows past 4.8 causes a FREEEEEEZE if you didnt boot at 4.8 ;)

 

This seems to be a problem with lowering and raising voltages fast enough as far as I can sum this up from what I read about it. Its no biggy as I just boot it 5 and lower volts right after login.

 

the 4.8 setting needs 1.35V to be rock stable....a full whoppin 0.05 more for those 200MHz INSANE

Edited August 20, 2016 by BitMaster

[lanmancz]

I've been running it at 4.2 for 3 years (air cooled). Now with WC I can afford to go to the limit which now seems to be 4.6 but the temperatures are not the limit in my case as it runs at 4.6@1.30V with <80C during max heat stress testing in prime95. Mine is not stable at 4.8 even with 1.4V, just booting generated WHEA errors, not even running any benchmarks. It's a bit disappointing but I will try it later.

Btw did you have to change any other voltages other than vcore ? I read that at high OCs it sometimes needs to add the pll to 1.8V. Strangely that is actually where my mainboard puts it by default so I did not want to push it any higher.

The worst thing is that I've seen some screenshots of a guy running (apparently) stable 5 GHz at 1.39V, lucky bastard :-)

[BitMaster]

I have not set any other voltages on the sandybridge but the CPU Core Voltage itself but you have a newer i7 series where this may or may not apply.

 

I have even read that lowering some voltages at some point will get you further, but that is very specific, for the model, for the stepping and maybe also motherboard specifications.

 

Trial & error

 

Bit