Jump to content

9900KS versus future 10900K, worth to wait?


Recommended Posts

SvAF/F16_radek

Geting back to topic. Would not ddr5 (eta 2021 afaik) be a rather big performance step In regards to what we need here? I suppose the 10900k could be the last ddr4 generation. Worth to consider unless in a hurry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One could always wait for the latest and greatest, however if they did would not get upgraded very often.

I think the main thing is what they would gain for going from their current platform to the new platform currently available.

I went from an X-79 MB with 4820k cpu and DDR3 ram to what I have now, and was very pleased with the difference.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

Seems they will arrive in April/May...

 

https://wccftech.com/intel-10th-gen-comet-lake-s-desktop-core-i9-i7-i5-cpus-listed-online/

 

In any case , I don´t think they will improve IL-2 performance over the 9900K or 9900KS.

 

Doesn't sound like they are going to be much better if any in terms of core clock than the 9900k series chips. 

Will have to wait and see how the overclocking runs along with the thermals.

Obviously with my Z390 9900k setup I am not looking to upgrade MB/CPU  for a few more years.

 

It takes a good AIO or Custom Water cooling solution to keep the 9900 chips cool amongst the 8 cores, and I am sure the same would hold true

if not more so with the new 10 core processors.

I am running a Corsair H150i Pro 360mm AIO on my 9900k.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
1.JaVA_RoodeDuivel

I upgraded my system..(well, i kept the case, the ssd and graphics card...) and switched to the new Ryzens...

They really do rock it...

 

5094zv.png

ryzen.png

Edited by 1.JaVA_RoodeDuivel
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
SeaW0lf
On 2/2/2020 at 1:12 AM, SeaW0lf said:

Perhaps the 10000 series is a bit better on voltage due to the 10 cores, and perhaps a better solution for the soldered IHS and the die thickness

 

It looks to be confirmed. For a gaming / simulator solution, the 10000 series is looking good. There is an i9-10900K (10 cores / 20 threads) out there running at 5.4Ghz on all cores with a regular cooling solution. If true, it is darn impressive.

 

Considering we were hitting heat output limits with the 9900K, Intel has made a few tweaks to help this situation with the Core i9-10900K. They’ve made the die itself thinner and the IHS thicker to improve thermal transfer, they’re calling this “Thin Die STIM,” so we are still getting a soldered chip but with the thinner silicon die it’ll be easier for the heat to transfer out and into the IHS then the cooler.

Edited by SeaW0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites
ZachariasX
21 minutes ago, SeaW0lf said:

There is an i9-10900K (10 cores / 20 threads) out there running at 5.4Ghz on all cores with a regular cooling solution.

In your dreams. The „thermal velocity boost“ is something that allows for momentary OC beyond what regular boost does. You get that for seconds or so. Also I have no idea what you consider regular cooling, but getting rid of 250 W is not that.

 

What 10th gen gives you are thinner dies and the solder, both of which increase cooling efficiency. Bottom line is that Skylake v5 (that is what Comet Lake is) gives you about 100 MHz over what you had in the previous generation.

 

Here, Intel about „running on all cores“:

 For the unlocked 10th Gen Intel® Core™ i9-10900K desktop processor, Intel’s configuration recommendation are PL1 = 125, PL2 = 250 and Tau = 56 seconds.

 

There you go. You really think the mobo manufacturers wouldn‘t push this limit? Then kiss goodbye even 250 Watts. If Intel wanted to do gamers a favor, they had made a hexacore CPU that runs 5 GHz on all cores with the stock cooler. Yet that CPU would look like crap in benchmarks, hence you never have an affordable solution that does what you want.

 

Still, the 10900 probably will be the most potent gaming processor. But if, say, 10% net gain is worth going to a new platform that conceptually shares the flaws of Socket1151, then go ahaead... provided you ever come across such a CPU in the first place.

 

That CPU is listed at Intel for some time now for the Socket 2066 platform. It is available in such numbers that those parts even got delisted on large retailers. In fact, I can‘t find a single available Socket 2066 CPU anymore besides old leftovers. This just tells you how much seal clubbing AMD does to Intel, when Intel opts to just walk away and let the entire market segment rot on the ice. Remember, AMD can sell at profit where Intel is TCO underwater! I would buy a 10980XE, but it doesn‘t really exist for customers.

 

As demand is clearly there, Intel must decide what to manufacture. They can make two small dies or a single large one and that large one had to be sold cheap as well as it is still only marginally competitive. So guess what they are doing. That Comet Lake has HT enabled in ALL CPU variants just shows you that the product is broken to the point where good old customer segmentation by fusing off CPU capabilities can no longer be perpetuated. Also Intels business is shifting away from the desktop to the cloud where capacity and longer, planned cycles are often more important than 20% added performance.

 

Thus, I have little hope for widespread availability of larger die CPUs for gaming boxes for the forseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaW0lf

Anyways, best CPUs for most games, especially for simulators. An i7-10700K will be a juicy option. 

 

When I went from 4.7Ghz (i7-3700K) with high temps to 5Ghz (i5-9600K) with abysmal temps, I think I was sold for another decade. I also felt a visible difference both in ROF and FC. The level of refinement of the Intel chip (voltage / clock) is still unmatched, still running on a 10 years old architecture. I know some people consider the price prohibitive by normal standards, but in some cases you do get what you paid for (every cent of it).

Link to post
Share on other sites
blue_max

I switched to AMD for upgrading my computer, 3600x, and it’s awesome. If I were building a new PC now I would 100% wait a few months for the next gen AMD Zen 3 processors. Intel is basically recycling the same chips now for what, 5 years and counting?

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ZachariasX
14 minutes ago, blue_max said:

Intel is basically recycling the same chips now for what, 5 years and counting?

As @SeaW0lf said, in principle their best chips are the best gaming chips. But at an ever shrinking margin, not considering how much worse the Socket 1200 platform is in literally every other aspect than gaming.

 

One thing for sure, any high end gaming rig today will most likely remain a high end gaming for the next year. Thus, if I had to upgrade and I would actually come across the possibility of buying one of those high end parts from Intel now, then I wouldn't consider it a bad time to change. If you have the extra cash to spend for parts that are in very short supply. But If you have to wait until end of the yearto get a hold of a 10900K, then things will start to look different, as Zen3 the will further up efficiency should hit the market.

Link to post
Share on other sites
skline00

Chiliwili69:

 

If you have waited this long to upgrade I would wait for the CometLake to be released since you have to buy a new MB even for the 9900k/ks. The new CometLake MB will be a bit more expensive but then you are set.

 

BTW. my 9900k has been OC to 5GHZ almost from the start on my Asrock Z390 Taichi and has been rock solid. The Kraken X72 AIO has been excellent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
chiliwili69
18 hours ago, skline00 said:

If you have waited this long to upgrade I would wait for the CometLake to be released since you have to buy a new MB even for the 9900k/ks. The new CometLake MB will be a bit more expensive but then you are set.

 

Yes, I know. I will need to change the whole thing.

I acquired the 4790K exactly 3 years ago (replacing my non K 4790), went to fastest RAM and did OC to 4.8GHz.

With my current settings I can run IL-2 VR moderately well with my Index, but I checked with the remagen test that the 9900K/KS will bring some extra fps.

 

The only reason to upgrade is to enjoy even more the IL-2 VR. No other apps or games matter here. (My son has more than enough PC for his games).

 

So yes I can wait with no problem. My my real doubt with this post is if the new cometlake will be better for IL-2 VR in absolute terms.

 

The candidate chips are 9900KS or 10900K.

If I go with the 9900KS I will disable for sure 2 cores and will run with just 6 cores.

If I go with the 10900K I will disable for sure 4 cores and will run with just 6 cores.

 

And depending on performance I would even disable two more cores and will go for 4 cores active.

 

Both chips has the same cache per core, so the only "theoretichal" advantage is that the Cometlake would go further in OC, but this is still to be checked by reviewers.

 

In any case, If I decide to go to the Cometlake I will go first to the lowest K chip (i5-10600K, no i3-10350K will exist), just to test it. Then upgrade to i7-10700K (with only 6 cores active) and finally i9-10900K (with just 6 corea active). Just to check if they influence IL-2 VR performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sevenless
12 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

So yes I can wait with no problem. My my real doubt with this post is if the new cometlake will be better for IL-2 VR in absolute terms.

 

I´m also still holding back with my invest to replace my trusty old i7 2600 K. My gut feeling tells me I should go for the 9900K once the 10x is released because most likely 10x will not offer significant improvement over 9900K, but I wait for the benchmarks and final pricings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ZachariasX
15 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

In any case, If I decide to go to the Cometlake I will go first to the lowest K chip (i5-10600K, no i3-10350K will exist), just to test it. Then upgrade to i7-10700K (with only 6 cores active) and finally i9-10900K (with just 6 corea active). Just to check if they influence IL-2 VR performance.

Just keep in mind that "It’s worth noting that only the Core i9 parts have Intel Thermal Velocity Boost. The Core i7 hardware and below only have Turbo Max 3.0 ‘favored core’ arrangements."

 

Intel is pulling the last straw here on the binning game. If you want candidates for 5.3+ GHz, I would look in the very, very top bins that also use solder and have sanded down silicon.

 

There are some i7 variants of Comet Lake that do 5.1 GHz on a single core, but in general thise parts have considerably more than 500 MHz less top frequency. The 10900K has 5.3 GHz on a single core if that core is below 70°C. Good luck with constant load. PL2 is 250 Watts, Mainboards are from what i read designed for 320+ Watts. This means even though it is easier to do as on 9th gen, you still have to get rid of that power.

 

Taken together, I think with a HUGE cooler, you can squeeze out a bit more from the 10900K than a 9900K would give you. But I'd be surprised if it was more than 10%.

 

 

12 minutes ago, sevenless said:

My gut feeling tells me I should go for the 9900K once the 10x is released because most likely 10x will not offer significant improvement over 9900K, but I wait for the benchmarks and final pricings.

As of now, the 10 series CPUs we are looking for just don't exist in the market. If they are hitting the shelves in reasonably quantity and price only toward the end of the year (my current guess), then they might be DoA, as AMD's Zen3 CPUs are expected around that time. From what I read now, It would not only far exeeed Intels offering as a platform, but also quiet likely surpass Intel at the last metric (the one we care for) which is sheer net single core performance.

 

The Intel 9 series chips currently are rather good for IL2. And you can actually buy them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SvAF/F16_radek

Chili why disable cores? I can see a reason if trying to reach as high a clock as possible for an all core stresstest. But For il2 and the way it utilizes cores, you should get lower heat/more oc headroom by having more of them for that thread to jump around on.
 

Am I missing something? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
dburne
41 minutes ago, SvAF/F16_radek said:

Chili why disable cores? I can see a reason if trying to reach as high a clock as possible for an all core stresstest. But For il2 and the way it utilizes cores, you should get lower heat/more oc headroom by having more of them for that thread to jump around on.
 

Am I missing something? 

 

 

 

Exactly. Plus there are lots of other things running that can be stretched across the cores.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
chiliwili69
2 hours ago, SvAF/F16_radek said:

Chili why disable cores? I can see a reason if trying to reach as high a clock as possible for an all core stresstest. But For il2 and the way it utilizes cores, you should get lower heat/more oc headroom by having more of them for that thread to jump around on

 

I have not facts in my hand for IL-2 VR, since my CPU has only 4 physical cores.

 

But I have some facts from a mainly single-thread application (like IL-2) that we are using in the office. More details here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54687-disabling-some-cores-to-get-more-overclock/

 

My point is, with less cores you can reach a higher stable OC since less total power/heat is demanded/generated.

Anyone with an 8-core or 6-core CPU can test themselves by disabling 4 or 2 cores. Just in the name of the science and mankind progress.

 

So if I can squeze 200MHz or 300MHz more from the OC, then IL-2 will be less CPU limited amd fps will improve.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ZachariasX
3 hours ago, SvAF/F16_radek said:

Chili why disable cores?

IL2 runs EXACTLY e.g. as fast on 5 cores as it does on 10  cores. The speed of the slowest core, meaning the max speed of all cores active simultaneously, define your FPS. In other words, single core (even 7 out of 8 cores) frequency is irrelevant.

 

Making OC presets with fewer active cores might enable you to push frequencies higher if you are temperature limited in your setup.

 

It depends on the whole setup, but the fewer cores you set at higher frequency, the easier that is.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
chiliwili69
3 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

Making OC presets with fewer active cores might enable you to push frequencies higher if you are temperature limited in your setup.

 

It will not run exactly because the CPU with only 4 cores active (all of them fixed for example at 5.3Ghz) will run faster than the CPU with all 8 cores active (all of them at fixed 5.1 GHz).

 

Most of the OC limits are due to temperature at the very end. It is heat that you have to remove, if you don´t do it your temps go high and you get unstable.

That´s why people using liquid nitrogen reach crazy frequencies over 7GHz!

 

So whatever cooling solution is used, disabling some cores (having always 4) will help to reach higher OC.

 

Your CPU i9-7900X has 10 cores and you run at max 4.6GHz. Have you tried to disable 6 cores (having only 4 active) and try to OC more?  Just for the shake of science

Link to post
Share on other sites
dburne
22 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

It will not run exactly because the CPU with only 4 cores active (all of them fixed for example at 5.3Ghz) will run faster than the CPU with all 8 cores active (all of them at fixed 5.1 GHz).

 

Most of the OC limits are due to temperature at the very end. It is heat that you have to remove, if you don´t do it your temps go high and you get unstable.

That´s why people using liquid nitrogen reach crazy frequencies over 7GHz!

 

So whatever cooling solution is used, disabling some cores (having always 4) will help to reach higher OC.

 

Your CPU i9-7900X has 10 cores and you run at max 4.6GHz. Have you tried to disable 6 cores (having only 4 active) and try to OC more?  Just for the shake of science

 

Not necessarily, stability plays a large role and that is not always related to temp at all. You can be stable with increasing high core temps, and it will remain stable until it reaches TJMax and starts to clock itself down. Likewise you can be running with core temps in mid 70's and not be stable at all.

 

Also severe voltage can significantly degrade a chip no matter how cool one can keep it.

But if you want to run liquid nitrogen then by all means go for it.

Edited by dburne
Link to post
Share on other sites
Jaws2002
On 5/9/2020 at 9:21 AM, ZachariasX said:

But If you have to wait until end of the yearto get a hold of a 10900K, then things will start to look different, as Zen3 the will further up efficiency should hit the market.

 

 

  It's actually quite possible, Zen 3 may take the gaming crown from Intel in all games.  While now, in most games the difference is very small, many older games, like BOS, still give Intel the advantage.

On top of more cycles per clock, more clock speed and better thermal eficiency,  one of the main upgrades, between Zen2 and Zen 3 is going to be the Infinity fabric and memory connections. IF you look closely at the subtle differences in results in Chilli's benchmark, you'll notice how important memory and FSB speed are. Probably more important than boost clock.

  A major redesign in the Infinity fabric, that allows the FSB to run at much higher speeds, could make enough difference to compensate for the lower single core boost clock of AMD chips, even for those few old games. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo

The other thing we need to think about is the new deferred rendering coming in the IL2 engine. I don't have any insider info on when exactly, but it's looking like 'soon' is probable (developer thread posts with screenshots etc). As I understand it, deferred rendering is designed to push more work onto the GPU, which is exactly what we want for IL2. But it's a major change to the engine, so it could have improvements or degradations to other things the CPU is doing.

 

Might be worth re-benchmarking before the deferred rendering patch, so we can do a before/after comparison.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ZachariasX
2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

Your CPU i9-7900X has 10 cores and you run at max 4.6GHz. Have you tried to disable 6 cores (having only 4 active) and try to OC more?  Just for the shake of science

I did, but I have to re-bench as my cooler had to be exchanged. The tries I did with that were still temperature limited due to a cooked off cooler. But 4.7 GHz is really riding the edge on Skylake-X, even on few cores. It can work on IL-2, but on prime95, it’s like as if it burned a hole through my 280mm water cooler... In general, I must say the Socket 2066 are a bit of a pain to OC as the NB draws a lot of power with its four channels as well.

 

So far I was just down to 5 cores. But I will post my results when I rebench.

 

You know, despite me not being all that friendy with Intel, I would buy a 10th gen CPU for my system. Especially the 10980XE. Should be a nice and simple bump for productivity. As for IL-2, we’d see. Those CPU‘s are out for months now... Unavailable.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
JG7_X-Man

The Frames Per Second we get in games are derived from both of CPU, RAM and GPU choice. The time it takes to load the game/mission is dependent on CPU, RAM and HDD/SSD speed.

focusing solely on the CPU will result in disappointment.

 

However, let me add this little bit to the conversation

A guy I know is running the i9-9900KS OC'ed @5.2GHz at 1.35v and getting 55 fps with max of settings

I am running i9-7700K OC'ed @4.9GHz at 1.28v ans getting 50 fps with max settings

 

So as you can see, my 2 yr old system is about at par with his 2020 build.

 

I will upgrade at some point, my guess is is when MS202 comes out.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to post
Share on other sites
jollyjack
18 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

I´m also still holding back with my invest to replace my trusty old i7 2600 K. My gut feeling tells me I should go for the 9900K once the 10x is released because most likely 10x will not offer significant improvement over 9900K, but I wait for the benchmarks and final pricings.

 

I have upgraded to a 9700K about 7 months ago. because of a nice upgrade kit with among things a RTX 2080ti. Haven't OCd it yet.

A good friend and commercial gaming PC building expert went for the Ryzen system last moth, and says it's a better choice nowadays;

intel is still using the same i7 technology for far too long.

But Intel has proven to me as reliable stuff; my 3rd i7 system. The first 10 years old one, a 920, still runs fine. I miss it's PCI slots omitted nowadays.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo
13 hours ago, jollyjack said:

I have upgraded to a 9700K about 7 months ago. because of a nice upgrade kit with among things a RTX 2080ti. Haven't OCd it yet.

 

A simple performance boost is to enable the motherboard "multicore enhancement" feature. This simply allows all the cores to boost to the top (non-overclocked) core speed. In most cases it's a 1-setting option to get more performance out of a K-series chip. Of course if you have more time on your hands I'd definitely recommend running the 9700K harder than stock, they're good chips and you're leaving 'free' performance on the table if you don't overclock.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaW0lf
13 hours ago, jollyjack said:

 

I have upgraded to a 9700K about 7 months ago. because of a nice upgrade kit with among things a RTX 2080ti. Haven't OCd it yet.

A good friend and commercial gaming PC building expert went for the Ryzen system last moth, and says it's a better choice nowadays;

intel is still using the same i7 technology for far too long.

But Intel has proven to me as reliable stuff; my 3rd i7 system. The first 10 years old one, a 920, still runs fine. I miss it's PCI slots omitted nowadays.

 

You should OC the chip. It makes a clear difference and it is easy in general to get to 5Ghz if you have a good cooler.

 

I'm also sticking to Intel due to its reliability, low voltage and way higher clocks. I still see posts out there with people having trouble with Ryzen, and I work with my rig. Once you start doubting the hardware, it is hard to go back. When I had Radeon cards, I had to make some workarounds to use some of my software. Once I went Nvida, the problems were gone. So for me to go back to a Radeon card will be almost impossible.

 

That's why I'm sticking with Intel. I'm also a bit of an aficionado about coolers and temps and Intel has a more precise system in place. From the Bulldozer times, the AMD temps were almost like a gimmick. It could have changed with Ryzen, but Ryzen Master seems to follow the same path of the AMD Overdrive. Intel on this regard gives you more options and control, even check individual core temps to see if the thermal paste was correctly applied for example. Plus it is always fun to overclock a chip past 4.8Ghz and get some custom cooling. The plastic socket of Ryzen is also unappealing. When I was testing coolers, the Intel socket with its metal cap and no pins on the chip made a difference. When I tried to test a few coolers on my AMD backup rig, I gave up on the first cooler. I felt like I was coming from pro chef / kitchen tools to plastic plates. 

 

But the Theadripper socket seems to be good stuff. I saw a video and I was impressed. I just don’t see use for that many threads in my case.

 

But that’s just me.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SvAF/F16_radek
On 5/11/2020 at 3:02 PM, chiliwili69 said:

 

I have not facts in my hand for IL-2 VR, since my CPU has only 4 physical cores.

 

But I have some facts from a mainly single-thread application (like IL-2) that we are using in the office. More details here:

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/54687-disabling-some-cores-to-get-more-overclock/

 

My point is, with less cores you can reach a higher stable OC since less total power/heat is demanded/generated.

Anyone with an 8-core or 6-core CPU can test themselves by disabling 4 or 2 cores. Just in the name of the science and mankind progress.

 

So if I can squeze 200MHz or 300MHz more from the OC, then IL-2 will be less CPU limited amd fps will improve.


I see chili. 
I’m sure you will methodically test this with il2 as well. But does seem my theory of distributing a workload across more cores vs have fewer more heavily loaded, is wrong, in regards to heat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 7:13 AM, JG7_X-Man said:

However, let me add this little bit to the conversation

A guy I know is running the i9-9900KS OC'ed @5.2GHz at 1.35v and getting 55 fps with max of settings

I am running i9-7700K OC'ed @4.9GHz at 1.28v ans getting 50 fps with max settings

 

What resolution/settings are you using? 

 

I easily get 60+ fps i 4K with everything maxed out in settings. I'm running 9900kf@5ghz, 32GB DDR4, 2080TI ROG OC.

 

I chose the 9900 because of single core performance which is relevant in games like IL2, DCS, Graviteam, Steel Beasts, Cities Skylines, Steel Fury and many others. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernard_IV

I have the 7700k with the lid removed and paste changed to liquid metal at 5.1ghz with the Corsair AIO water cooler.  AVX to zero.  I wonder if the new chip could do 5.4ghz with similar treatment.  I'm going to try to direct die cool my chip to go for 5.2ghz or maybe even 5.3ghz if I'm lucky.  I think I'll have to wait for the DDR5 systems to come out for a meaningful CPU upgrade for gaming performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SvAF/F16_radek
15 minutes ago, Bernard_IV said:

I have the 7700k with the lid removed and paste changed to liquid metal at 5.1ghz with the Corsair AIO water cooler.  AVX to zero.  I wonder if the new chip could do 5.4ghz with similar treatment.  I'm going to try to direct die cool my chip to go for 5.2ghz or maybe even 5.3ghz if I'm lucky.  I think I'll have to wait for the DDR5 systems to come out for a meaningful CPU upgrade for gaming performance.


What voltage are you running  Bernard? And does it pass stresstests? The 7700k’s are a few years old now so I’m surprised to hear of one still chugging along at 5.1. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernard_IV

I think it is up around 1.45 volts.  I game on it all the time reliably but have not done any legitimate stress tests.  It will run at 5.2 for a bit but crashes.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SCG_Fenris_Wolf

Remember guys, there'll always be some degradation when raising voltages up. I could run this 7700K at 5GHz in late 2017, at 4.9GHz in 2018, and now at 4.8GHz since late 2019. It isn't reaching higher temps, but it gets unstable when pushing it higher. Avoid too high voltages and you'll be fine, don't force and overdo it. The last few ten percent of voltage belong to the chip! It can run at 1.4? Let it have a max of 1.3. Mine has degraded, but expected, I'd say though that it has served me well so far. Just be aware of what you're doing is the message. 😁

 

I'm looking at the next Intel generation during autumn, and Nvidia for Christmas. One can just hope.

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernard_IV

I think I've run it over 4.8 for at least 1000 hours.  If it dies I'll replace it.  Well worth it to me to be getting high frame rates in VR.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
SvAF/F16_radek
19 hours ago, SCG_Fenris_Wolf said:

Remember guys, there'll always be some degradation when raising voltages up. I could run this 7700K at 5GHz in late 2017, at 4.9GHz in 2018, and now at 4.8GHz since late 2019. It isn't reaching higher temps, but it gets unstable when pushing it higher. Avoid too high voltages and you'll be fine, don't force and overdo it. The last few ten percent of voltage belong to the chip! It can run at 1.4? Let it have a max of 1.3. Mine has degraded, but expected, I'd say though that it has served me well so far. Just be aware of what you're doing is the message. 😁

 

I'm looking at the next Intel generation during autumn, and Nvidia for Christmas. One can just hope.

Interesting reading a first hand and long term oc experience with this chip. What voltage are you at today running 4.8?
 

My approach was more modest though I question it now 3 years later. Started running my 7700k @4.8ghz with a voltage of 1.25, passing avx enabled Version of prime95. Today, I need 1.33v to pass that exact same Version of p95 @4.8. So, been upping voltage over the years but maintaining frequency.
 

Adding to your advice even a careful 1.25v oc ‘degrades’ a chip over a few years. Likely regular no-oc usage as well considering intels 3-year warranty @stock speeds. I am definitely considering a bit more aggressive approach with the next chip.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Alonzo

With the new patch to deferred rendering, it may be less critical to reach the absolute highest single core and memory performance for IL2. That said, here's a review of the new Intel 10-series chips: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15785/the-intel-comet-lake-review-skylake-we-go-again

 

Interestingly the chips feature TVB - Thermal Velocity Boost - where if the chip is below 70C you get an extra +100mhz on the cores. So the top chip will turbo to 5.3ghz, out of the box, depending on motherboard, if you keep it cool enough. It looks like picking the right motherboard is going to have a large impact on the ability to run these chips at max clocks. The chips also feature "die thinning" which is taking silicon off the top of the chip in order to get to the heat spreader better. It does sound like Intel have been listening to enthusiasts.

 

From a single-threaded, out-of-the-box configuration, it looks like the 10700K is a little faster than the 9900K, at least with Anandtech's tests:

 

116021.png

116046.png

116044.png

 

So, should Chili wait for the 10000-series chips? I think it's still too early to say, for IL2. Here's why:

  • The new Intel chips are definitely faster than the old ones, but if the price of (say) a 9700K goes down, that (plus good cooling) might be the best bang-for-buck Intel chip for IL2.
  • The deferred rendering patch has people with AMD chips saying they are getting much better VR performance. We still don't know how AMD and Intel chips compare now.
  • It's very possible that IL2 is now GPU limited in VR. If this is true, then we 'just' need a fast enough CPU to supply data to the GPU, then buy the fastest GPU we can afford and match it to our VR headset. This might mean that something like a 9600K, or even an older generation of chip, is fast enough.

We need more benchmarks!

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Voyager

I do need to update my driver's for everything and re-run the tests. I do believe I'm seeing a significant performance improvement in this patch in VR (Zen 2), but it's been several months since I formally tested it. 

 

On going with a 9700, I'd recommend against that. The platform has reached its end of life. The Z490 boards are expected to support the Rocket Lake parts, and we really have no idea of that's going to turn out to be a massive performance jump or nothing. 

 

Also, if AMD has caught up to Intel this patch, and you do decide to go Ryzen, you'll want to get an X570 or B550 motherboard. I know AMD back tracked on dropping B450 support, but due to the technical issues, unless you have no plans of ever using Zen 3, it will likely be a logistics nightmare. Not the best briar patch to go tossing oneself into. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaW0lf
1 hour ago, Voyager said:

and we really have no idea of that's going to turn out to be a massive performance jump or nothing. 

 

Single threaded performance will remain the same. The only boost we'll get is core / thread count. They just updated the i5-9600K to the i7-9700K and the i7-9700K to the i9-9900K. And the i9-10900K got two extra cores. All the rest should remain the same.

 

I personally might get the i7-9700K in a sale, because it is 8 physical cores and I won't need to change my motherboard. In fact I should have gone with it in the first place instead of the i5-9600K. Then I would not be talking about update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Voyager

@SeaWolf Rocket Lake is going to be a completely new architecture, not just another wave of Sky Lake. We really don't know what it's going to do. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
SeaW0lf
2 minutes ago, Voyager said:

@SeaWolf Rocket Lake is going to be a completely new architecture, not just another wave of Sky Lake. We really don't know what it's going to do. 

 

Ah, sorry, I was mistaking by Comet Lake (face palm).

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
×
×
  • Create New...