• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

8700k single core performance

Skunk-Works

Skunk-Works

Senior member
I need the best single core performance possible. Right now I have an i5 6600K. Even though it is a pretty good CPU, I still see about 14 FPS in NY while playing FSX, even OCing. I was thinking about just building a whole new rig. Well, all I need is the MOBO, RAM and CPU. My PSU is a new Antec 750 watt Gold, I just bought a GTX 1050 TI 4GB version and I can reuse my HDDs and case.

I looked at the Bench link on the home page, but I can't compare this CPU to my i5 6600k. How much single core performance can I expect to gain? I don't want to move beyond 1151as I'm trying to stay with Win 7 for as long as possible. But that's a WHOLE new conversation.
 
Skunk-Works said:
I need the best single core performance possible. Right now I have an i5 6600K. Even though it is a pretty good CPU, I still see about 14 FPS in NY while playing FSX, even OCing. I was thinking about just building a whole new rig. Well, all I need is the MOBO, RAM and CPU. My PSU is a new Antec 750 watt Gold, I just bought a GTX 1050 TI 4GB version and I can reuse my HDDs and case.

I looked at the Bench link on the home page, but I can't compare this CPU to my i5 6600k. How much single core performance can I expect to gain? I don't want to move beyond 1151as I'm trying to stay with Win 7 for as long as possible. But that's a WHOLE new conversation.
Click to expand...
Your GPU is your weak link there. Single threaded, there is little to no difference between your 6600K and an 8700K.
 
No, the GPU really isn't. The game FSX is largely CPU-based. Only about 25% of the processing power for FSX utilizes the GPU. I did want a 1060, but the flipping price was so high thanks to miners. I may sell it latter and just by a 1060 though.

So you're saying the 8700K as no single core benefit at all vs my current CPU? Damn.
 
Skunk-Works said:
No, the GPU really isn't. The game FSX is largely CPU-based. Only about 25% of the processing power for FSX utilizes the GPU. I did want a 1060, but the flipping price was so high thanks to miners. I may sell it latter and just by a 1060 though.

So you're saying the 8700K as no single core benefit at all vs my current CPU? Damn.
Click to expand...
As far as the core goes, Skylake=Kabylake=Coffeelake. Process changes let you overclock a bit more, but not worth spending money on an entire new rig. It wouldn't make a perceptible difference.
 
Skunk-Works said:
What kind of website is this?
Click to expand...

They delid and bin processors to find the highest stable OC, then mark up the price accordingly.

For Coffee Lake, if you want to OC to 5GHz+ you will likely want to delid anyways.

Otherwise, if you are fine with a stock chip, the 8700K will boost from 4.3GHz on all cores to 4.7GHz on a single core out of the box.

But again, there are no real IPC gains between Skylake (6xxx series) and Coffee Lake (8xxx series) as they are basically the same core design. So if you can OC your 6600K to 4.8GHz+ you are already most of the way there.
 
IEC said:
But again, there are no real IPC gains between Skylake (6xxx series) and Coffee Lake (8xxx series) as they are basically the same core design. So if you can OC your 6600K to 4.8GHz+ you are already most of the way there.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I have a Gigabyte MOBO and it has an OC profile in BIOS and I think I set it to 4.8 GHz. I was thinking the architecture was different in the 8700 and thus I'd have better single core performance.

Well, I guess I will just save my money and stick to what I have then. No sense in putting together a new rig.
 
Skunk-Works said:
I need the best single core performance possible. Right now I have an i5 6600K. Even though it is a pretty good CPU, I still see about 14 FPS in NY while playing FSX, even OCing. I was thinking about just building a whole new rig. Well, all I need is the MOBO, RAM and CPU. My PSU is a new Antec 750 watt Gold, I just bought a GTX 1050 TI 4GB version and I can reuse my HDDs and case.

I looked at the Bench link on the home page, but I can't compare this CPU to my i5 6600k. How much single core performance can I expect to gain? I don't want to move beyond 1151as I'm trying to stay with Win 7 for as long as possible. But that's a WHOLE new conversation.
Click to expand...
If you get the same FPS at idle and while overclocked then it's obviously not the CPU.
(unless you get even lower FPS when not overclocked)
 
TheELF said:
If you get the same FPS at idle and while overclocked then it's obviously not the CPU.
(unless you get even lower FPS when not overclocked)
Click to expand...


I have a lot of FPS issues in New York where there are lots of buildings and scenery of course. So that's my testing grounds. Everything else no matter where I fly works pretty well. Well, in Vegas with my paid-for airport upgrade the frames can fluctuate. I set the FPS to 25 in the Sim. No need for 30. And using FRAPS I see in Vegas go from 25 and down to around 19 sometimes. In NY it's 14. I did a compare and contrast with the OC in NY and no OC in NY and I got maybe a 3-4 FPS boost. Hardly worth it and I said forget it. I'm not going to put strain on my computer for an extra 3-4 frames.

I didn't do that much testing though. Maybe I'll try the overclock again and see what happens.
 
Skunk-Works said:
I have a lot of FPS issues in New York where there are lots of buildings and scenery of course. So that's my testing grounds. Everything else no matter where I fly works pretty well. Well, in Vegas with my paid-for airport upgrade the frames can fluctuate. I set the FPS to 25 in the Sim. No need for 30. And using FRAPS I see in Vegas go from 25 and down to around 19 sometimes. In NY it's 14. I did a compare and contrast with the OC in NY and no OC in NY and I got maybe a 3-4 FPS boost. Hardly worth it and I said forget it. I'm not going to put strain on my computer for an extra 3-4 frames.

I didn't do that much testing though. Maybe I'll try the overclock again and see what happens.
Click to expand...
Do you have it installed on a SSD? It made a huge difference on my system when I did. (I like FSX as well)
 
scannall said:
Do you have it installed on a SSD? It made a huge difference on my system when I did. (I like FSX as well)
Click to expand...


Yep! A Crucial MX300 256GB. My spill over is a Hitachi 750 GB or something. LOL Can't even remember. That's not the issue though. Terrain loads fast. It's the rendering in the CPU. I really wish M$ didn't make FSX and FS2004 so CPU orientated. And I wish it utilized the GPU more like modern games do. I have read the thinking back then was that CPUs were going to get faster and faster single thread wise, thus the reason why they never made the game multi-threaded.
 
Skunk-Works said:
Yep! A Crucial MX300 256GB. My spill over is a Hitachi 750 GB or something. LOL Can't even remember. That's not the issue though. Terrain loads fast. It's the rendering in the CPU. I really wish M$ didn't make FSX and FS2004 so CPU orientated. And I wish it utilized the GPU more like modern games do. I have read the thinking back then was that CPUs were going to get faster and faster single thread wise, thus the reason why they never made the game multi-threaded.
Click to expand...
I usually fly over rural areas, but I'll try NYC a little later today. That seems really low to me, but I haven't really used it in big cities.
 
scannall said:
I usually fly over rural areas, but I'll try NYC a little later today. That seems really low to me, but I haven't really used it in big cities.
Click to expand...


Run FRAPS while you do it and monitor your frames. I think FS has a built-in FPS viewer, but I can't remember how to activate it. I need to look again.
 
FSX loves fast low latency memory. If you are using slower DDR4, it will hurt performance. What speed and CL is your RAM?

Windows 10 also runs older games a bit better, but that is your call.

I also highly suggest to dump FRAPS in favor of Rivatuner, but that is up to you.
 
2666 CL16 is quite slow compared to 3200 CL14. This really hurts your performance.

This will provide a small boost, but we are probably a decade away from playing FSX at a minimum of 60fps.

Overclocking your 6600k with super fast RAM will be more difficult, but it is worth it imo.

In your case, I'd overclock your i5 as much as possible, and get a cheapo 4k monitor or TV instead of the pricey RAM. This will make FSX look prettier, and make your GPU do something. A 1050 ti for FSX at 4k is a pretty decent match.

I don't know how high a speed your motherboard supports for DDR4, but even 3200 CL16 isn't too pricey compared to your current set.
 
Skunk-Works I OC'd my 6700k to 4.6 Mhz and my ram to 2933 on my Asus Z170 Hero mb and am VERY happy with the performance. From what I read, Coffeelake has some additional overclocking headroom BUT at the expense of increased heat production.

I'm using a new EVGA 280mmAIO liquid cooler that keeps my cpu nice and cool at 4.6.

IF I was building new now and wanted a Coffeelake I would definitely spend the $$ for a binned SiliconLottery 8700k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top