Question about older CPU...

[Mr_Burns]

I am still rocking the old Sandy i7 2600k with a Radeon R9 200 and with my settings I can fly happily >30fps (I am happy, I know no difference)!

 

 

 

The Sandy is stable at 4.2ghz, the machine has been solid for a number of years.

 

 

I am now ready for the upgrade, it runs everything but its time.

 

 

 

Its a stupid question but I dont understand....

 

 

the Intel Core i7 8700K 3.70 GHz Unlocked CPU Processor - 6 Cores - 12 Threads - Frequency: 3.70 GHz - Turbo Boost: 4.70 GHz - L2 Cache 1.5 MB (256 KB per Core) - L3 Cache 12 MB.......

 

 

I could push the 2600k to 4.7, its base clock is 3.6 (I think) so similar to the 8700k in both base and "turbo"...so why do we upgrade, is there more to a CPU than the GHz?

 

 

 

I know with my MOBO there are limits to PCIe, USB and Memory speed but could someone explain what the difference is between 4.2GHz Sandy (i7 2600k) and say 4.2GHz i7 8700k??

 

 

Thanks!

[Mr_sukebe]

My opinion:

- the newer CPU will be a little faster than the equivalent clock speed Sandybridge

- you’ll be moving to DDR4 ram which is significantly faster, and I believe that will reduce to amount of droops in performance whilst waiting for data

- newer NVME SSD drives are circa 7 times faster

- newer motherboards probably have more data bandwidth

 

In short, I wouldn’t expect your max frame rate to jump, I would however expect it to be much more consistently high.

[Rudel_chw]

Most of the performance difference is because of the 50% more cores on the 8700 vs 2600 ... but DCS doesnt use all cores, so if we just focus on single core performance, then the 8700 is about 35% faster because of the newer memory that it uses.

 

So, you will feel the difference, but it isnt dramatic and the cost of the upgrade is rather high ... It is possible that putting the same money on a new GPU could give a bigger improvement.

[Sn8ke_iis]

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

 

There is almost a 40% performance improvement per synthetic benchmark. Coupled with a newer chipset motherboard and DDR4 Ram. Newer generations of processors have architecture that allows them to do more faster. At the same clock speed the 8700 is a much better processor that draws roughly a 3rd less power.

 

Ideally you could upgrade to a 2060 GPU with the 8700K and see a nice performance bump. Difficult to say how much.

[Rudel_chw]

There is almost a 40% performance improvement per synthetic benchmark. Coupled with a newer chipset motherboard and DDR4 Ram.

 

Actually, the effect of the newer chipset and ddr4 is already reflected on the benchmark, so the improvement of the processor alone is lower than that, but you cant measure it as the chipset and memory are needed to use the processor on the first place.

[BitMaster]

I had the 2600k at 5G and even going from there to a 4.5-4.7G 6700k showed me how much better the i7's got. Smoother over all, no more need to set CPU to HP mode, its Ramp-Up speed is so fast you wont notice, etc..

 

The gain in speed is also there. You have roughly a 20% higher IPC, at the SAME speed. So you should not compare their MHz. A 6th,7th 8th or 9th gen Intel Core-i CPU does outperform the 2600k at equal GHz, tested that myself.

 

 

In addition, you get PCIe 3.0, USB 3.x nativ, DDR4, NVMe, DMI-3.0 and a few others, like the ramp-up speed of 7th gen and later.

 

Anyway, I would keep that 2600k and make some home box out of it. Those CPU's are a marvel.

 

 

But hey, I'd personally hang on the 2600k until Ryzen3000 hits the market. All those Intel's are real hot rice cookers, 7nm looks very promising and I wouldnt buy into 14 or 12nm anymore.

Edited January 30, 2019 by BitMaster

[Sn8ke_iis]

Actually, the effect of the newer chipset and ddr4 is already reflected on the benchmark, so the improvement of the processor alone is lower than that, but you cant measure it as the chipset and memory are needed to use the processor on the first place.

 

Thanks Captain Obvious...smh. It also needs electricity too.

Edited January 30, 2019 by Sn8ke_iis

[Mr_Burns]

I had the 2600k at 5G and even going from there to a 4.5-4.7G 6700k showed me how much better the i7's got. Smoother over all, no more need to set CPU to HP mode, its Ramp-Up speed is so fast you wont notice, etc..

 

The gain in speed is also there. You have roughly a 20% higher IPC, at the SAME speed. So you should not compare their MHz. A 6th,7th 8th or 9th gen Intel Core-i CPU does outperform the 2600k at equal GHz, tested that myself.

 

 

In addition, you get PCIe 3.0, USB 3.x nativ, DDR4, NVMe, DMI-3.0 and a few others, like the ramp-up speed of 7th gen and later.

 

Anyway, I would keep that 2600k and make some home box out of it. Those CPU's are a marvel.

 

 

But hey, I'd personally hang on the 2600k until Ryzen3000 hits the market. All those Intel's are real hot rice cookers, 7nm looks very promising and I wouldnt buy into 14 or 12nm anymore.

 

 

There is always something to wait for, damn you for mentioning Ryzen3000 but thank you as I hadnt heard of it!

 

 

 

I can wait, its been a couple of Gen since I tried AMD and that looks pretty good.

 

 

Banished isnt taking up too much processing capacity and the F/A-18C doesnt have a dynamic campaign yet! :thumbup:

[BitMaster]

There is always something to wait for, damn you for mentioning Ryzen3000 but thank you as I hadnt heard of it!

 

 

 

I can wait, its been a couple of Gen since I tried AMD and that looks pretty good.

 

 

Banished isnt taking up too much processing capacity and the F/A-18C doesnt have a dynamic campaign yet! :thumbup:

 

:thumbup:

yeah, people hire me to tell the bloody truth they always dont like but should hear,,,always da same :D

[Headwarp]

For me the biggest bonus to upgrading from an i5 2500k to 8700k was a motherboard with on going driver/bios updates, but i upgraded my system before I upgraded to my current GPU. Having done so now I'm certainly glad I upgraded the rest of the system beforehand. I may delid this thing at some point down the road and see if I can take my OC any higher, but 4.9ghz was easy to achieve without doing so using an AIO.

[Mr_Burns]

Sounds like i would be better upgrading the GPU before the rest of the system, however, if I am going to wait and see what AMD do, I may as well wait for the GPU as inevitably it will come down in price?

[Headwarp]

Sounds like i would be better upgrading the GPU before the rest of the system, however, if I am going to wait and see what AMD do, I may as well wait for the GPU as inevitably it will come down in price?

 

WHen you're talking about 1080Ti or better (2080, 2080Ti) you could well run into a CPU bottleneck at resolutions less than 4k with that 2600k.

 

When I talk about my CPU upgrade i should state I was on a 980Ti and a 3440x1440 resolution monitor. Now I'm on an 8700k with a 2080Ti just barely CPU bottlenecked in DCS in both VR and on the monitor.

 

Like 99% here and there on one cpu core and gpu usage dropping from 99% to 97%.

 

I'm not saying I think you're interested in a 2080 or 2080Ti but, I am saying there's every chance that upgrading one is going to lead you to upgrading the other >.<

[Hekktor]

Same boat here, still on i2500K@4.2GHz

But - as stated above - new cpu architecture is more efficient, in processing the same tasks. Then again DCS can't be parallelized as easy as the all times mentioned video editing software. It has to wait for so many times on new input, new results and stuff, it is very linear.

Much of the recent new CPU stuff is of getting more and more CORES into one chip - a thing DCS does not make use of much...

Because of this I do believe, single thread performance is the most important factor to find a good cpu for dcs. Like: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

-> best bang for the buck atm from what I do read there: i9600k

And this is, why I do refuse to buy AMD for DCS.

Single thread wise AMD can not compete to intel, but imho this for DCS is most important.

 

Personally I will wait for intel to get this 10nm process running, hopfully next year. Have been waiting for it to happen 3(?) years now so one more doesn't matter. With gtx1080 I still can run DCS 60+ FPS(besides fps is a almost nonsense figure..) on UW1600p.

[BitMaster]

Same boat here, still on i2500K@4.2GHz

But - as stated above - new cpu architecture is more efficient, in processing the same tasks. Then again DCS can't be parallelized as easy as the all times mentioned video editing software. It has to wait for so many times on new input, new results and stuff, it is very linear.

Much of the recent new CPU stuff is of getting more and more CORES into one chip - a thing DCS does not make use of much...

Because of this I do believe, single thread performance is the most important factor to find a good cpu for dcs. Like: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

-> best bang for the buck atm from what I do read there: i9600k

And this is, why I do refuse to buy AMD for DCS.

Single thread wise AMD can not compete to intel, but imho this for DCS is most important.

 

Personally I will wait for intel to get this 10nm process running, hopfully next year. Have been waiting for it to happen 3(?) years now so one more doesn't matter. With gtx1080 I still can run DCS 60+ FPS(besides fps is a almost nonsense figure..) on UW1600p.

 

From what has leaked so far, this will change with ryzen3.

 

Also, when Vulkan comes, make sure you have plenty cores too on top of some nice GHz values.

 

When Intel has 10nm, AMD will be running 5nm dies. Intel lost that race 2 years ago

[Headwarp]

(besides fps is a almost nonsense figure..)

 

The implementation of the vulkan API is something we're all highly anticipating and looking forward to. It's unfortunate that we don't know if it will be this year..next year or even 5 years down the road.

 

But I would say for DCS specifically that the i7 9600k is the best bang for the buck for now

 

Vulkan may very well change our feelings on whether or not an i7 is worth it for DCS.

 

Let's also keep in mind fps being a "nonsense figure" is a matter of opinion.

 

 

I started gaming back in the days where all we had were CRT monitors, which allowed for raising and lowering your refresh rate without the need for something like "g-sync" or "freesync". In certain first person shooters altering the frame rate above a certain point caused the physics of the game to behave differently. "Box jumping" Not to mention that higher frame rates coincide with less input lag, and therefore a sensation of being more responsive.

 

In DCS World, I can look at the trees at 60hz on my monitor and see a clear difference in that and say 75-85Hz/fps. You really have to look to notice it, but the only comparison I can offer is almost a slide show vs fluid motion closer to what I'd see driving a car and looking at the trees.

 

That might not bother some.. and people who don't know any better may never notice it. But once you see it. You can't unsee it. It's more a matter of what you're willing to live with, and how much it hurts your wallet to deal with it. :) 60hz monitors have been the standard for so long that most pc gamers are used to it. But some of us really love our high refresh rate monitors over 60hz anyday. Even if it's not quite as important in a flight sim vs a twitchy action packed shooter.

 

 

And then there are VR headsets, which at least the odyssey has to run at either 45fps, with frames being reprojected or 85-90fps, not lower or inbetween. Or it's a choppy mess and you're probably going to feel a little bit woozy.

Edited February 1, 2019 by Headwarp

[Hekktor]

I don't know what the fps counter is counting.

It is not frames as per definition like a full picture.

If it would be than everything better than 20 of 25 fps would be enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

 

this is why I call it 'nonsense' nowadays. Otherwise we would have fluent game experience if we had 30FPS+ all the time. It is not.

 

If any of you can give me a better definition on fps or what that number is telling me I would be glad.

[BitMaster]

I don't know what the fps counter is counting.

It is not frames as per definition like a full picture.

If it would be than everything better than 20 of 25 fps would be enough.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

 

 

this is why I call it 'nonsense' nowadays. Otherwise we would have fluent game experience if we had 30FPS+ all the time. It is not.

 

If any of you can give me a better definition on fps or what that number is telling me I would be glad.

 

 

you are kidding ! 20-25fps in llf at high speed......rethink what you wrote:book:

[etherbattx]

Question about older CPU...

 

I don't know what the fps counter is counting.

It is not frames as per definition like a full picture.

 

it’s not like a full picture hanging on the wall of your house, but it’s a full picture on your monitor.

[Hekktor]

Plz reread what I wrote, Bit...

Actually it was a (rethorical) question. But still a question I'd like to have an answer. Ah, and maybe take the time and read that wiki article, too...