CPU suggestions for simulation games?

[-Ice]

As I mentioned, I still benefit from more cores even from my single-core-heavy sims simply because I run other programs alongside my sims and that is moved to other cores so better workload spread out. Moot point anyway as most high-end CPUs are at least quads, if not hexa/octa cores. I just made my initial statement in case there was a dual-core CPU that had higher clocks than current i5/i7 CPUs. IIRC, this was the case about 10 years ago where an older dual-core had higher clocks than the newly released quad cores. I guess this isn't true today.

Even the linked thread, they state that software does not keep up with hardware and so while a game may come out tomorrow that fully saturates a hexa/octa core, I'm sure they'll have stuff in place to work with quad cores as well otherwise they're just limiting their customers to those who have the latest and greatest hardware.

I did some reading about XP11 and it seems that it has sliders that affect CPU demands and another set of sliders that affect GPU demands to users that experience CPU bottlenecks can lower the items that put pressure on the CPU and those with GPU bottlenecks can lower eye candy to put less pressure on the GPU. I also take that to mean that they can utilize multi core CPUs better so that's a good thing. DCS is more of an issue since the dev process is very messy so I doubt if anyone really knows with that sim. Might as well look at pCars2 and AC requirements for now.

 

[trents]

I think bmwbaxter made a good point in that the CPU manufacturers tend to use their best silicon for their highest end chips. That can often mean that an i7k will overclock just a tad higher than an i5k and therefore give better per core performance, assuming the quality of the motherboard and the cooling covers the extra power draw. Whether the extra cost justifies a wee bit more overclock potential is another story.

 

[EarthDog]

I think bmwbaxter made a good point in that the CPU manufacturers tend to use their best silicon for their highest end chips. That can often mean that an i7k will overclock just a tad higher than an i5k and therefore give better per core performance, assuming the quality of the motherboard and the cooling covers the extra power draw. Whether the extra cost justifies a wee bit more overclock potential is another story.

Well.......

FWIW taking a look at silicon lottery tells a bit of a different story. For example, the highest bin 9900k/kf they have is 5.1 ghz (7%/4% make the cut respectively) while 9700k is 5.2 ghz (of which 10% can do it). Some of that is heat, but we all face the same hurdles/limits.
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/all

 

[trents]

But I wonder what the differential would be between he 9600k and the 9700k. I don't even see a 9600k on SL now. It is also true that the factory clocked 9900k CPUs are binned a little higher than the 9700k's are.

 

[EarthDog]

Yep. They are binned to reach those clocks and tdp. Above that is a guess. But we can see the silicon has its limits. In this case the part that is easier to cool can reach higher clocks. I'd imagine the 9600k is around 9900k results.

 

[trents]

I believe you are making my case. The 9600k, 9700k and the 9900k are all rated at 95W TDP yet the turbo speeds of the 9900k are a tad higher than t he 9700k and the turbo speeds of the 9700k are considerably higher than the 9600k. That is either a marketing ploy or it suggests to me that the silcon of the higher binned chips is better. And they are all soldered chips.

 

[EarthDog]

Its marketing and product stack separation too. It's not like a 9990k and 9600k use the same power regardless of the same tdp. Using anandtech 9900k review, a 9900k uses a lot more power than 9700k. Look at 7600k and 7700k..etc.




You also need to remember not all 'bad' 9990k are 9700k or 9600k... they all have their own variable quality from the wafer they came from. Again the SL stats show a higher clock reached by a higher percentage of samples for the non HT parts...I'd imagine disabling ht on 9o00k would give another 100 mhz...

Your case was talking about a 9900k overclocking better than 9700k. But were not seeing a 9900k do that at least according to silicon lottery.

 

[-Ice]

I think I am starting to see where this is going. I guess there's no competition from AMD with regards to a 9600K or a 9700K? I don't think I'm comfortable making the further price jump to a 9900K just yet, maybe just move from i5s to i7s for now.

I think maybe a case may be made for AMD being better in price-to-performance rating, but I have a healthy budget and don't mind paying more price for higher performance, so Intel still wins?

 

[Bustos]

https://www.microcenter.com/product/512483/core-i9-9900k-coffee-lake-36-ghz-lga-1151-boxed-processor

If you live near a MicroCenter, I noticed these have been discounted.

 

[trents]

He's not in USA I don't think.

 

[Bustos]

He's not in USA I don't think.

Oh. Didn't catch that.

 

[-Ice]

Converting to £££, that's about £100 cheaper than I can get a 9900K here, and even £10 cheaper than a 9700K, so if I had a friend taking a holiday to the USA, I just might make him bring one back!

 

[EarthDog]

I think maybe a case may be made for AMD being better in price-to-performance rating, but I have a healthy budget and don't mind paying more price for higher performance, so Intel still wins?

No? Assuming IPC is on par, the only difference would be clock speeds. If you think it's worth it to pay an additional whatever (a lot) for that difference which may or may not make a difference in your case... that's up to you. We're quite deep in your minutia.

 

[UltraTaco]

Btw, I noticed increased cache speed(uncore) provided noticable boost in fps, which probably means flight simulator (x in my case) would benefit from big cache, which MDM has! It was so dramatic actually that you could get same fps with lower clock, but faster cache speed.

 

[-Ice]

No? Assuming IPC is on par, the only difference would be clock speeds. If you think it's worth it to pay an additional whatever (a lot) for that difference which may or may not make a difference in your case... that's up to you. We're quite deep in your minutia.

No clue what you just said there, EarthDog.

Btw, I noticed increased cache speed(uncore) provided noticable boost in fps, which probably means flight simulator (x in my case) would benefit from big cache, which MDM has! It was so dramatic actually that you could get same fps with lower clock, but faster cache speed.

MDM? Or did you mean AMD? How much fps did you have at first and how much did you gain?

 

[UltraTaco]

Sorry, long day, I meant AMD.
My fps were like 28 and with boosted cache speed, it went to like 34. It was intense difference. Back when I was on i7 920.

 

[-Ice]

Yeah, but the i7 920 was a long time ago.... I wonder if that's still the case now.