Is anyone interested in seeing comparisons between a 4790K and a 9700K?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Dave2150

Senior member
Jan 20, 2015
554
2
91
#26
Thanks for putting this up. I'm planning to stick to my 4790K for a while. Before that I had an OC'd 920, and found that the improvement over it wasn't very noticeable either.

Quake 1 at 700fps is impressive though. :D
I went from a 920 C0 (3.6Ghz max OC) to a 6700k@ 4.8Ghz, saw a huge difference. Plan on upgrading to a 10nm Icelake 8C/16T, as long as it's at least +5% IPC over Skylake
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#27
Take those numbers with a grain of salt. I'm starting to get horrible errors on the new system. It fails Prime95 within seconds with really wrong rounding errors. I've narrowed it down to the CPU or Motherboard. I have a cheap Celeron coming tomorrow so I can hopefully figure out which one it is (unless it's a VRM issue and the Celeron doesn't hit it).

My gut says motherboard and I'm tempted to just order another and RMA this thing.
 
Oct 10, 1999
24,468
236
126
#28
Nice, this is useful. Thanks Chaotic.

I have 4th gen i5 in one box, and 2nd gen i5 in another, I''d love better single core performance for dwarf fortress, otherwise, nothing I do really pushes the CPU too far. I'm OK with waiting for 15 minutes for a CD to encode to mp3 with lame. Beats the 20+ hours it used to take with l3enc on an old Cyrix "686" or the 10 hours with a P2, or the 12 hours with a K6.

I will keep the CPUs I have for the time being, though the 2400 is past its prime.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#29
So it turns out that my motherboard was by default undervolting my CPU. 18 hours of Prime95 with the 12k FFTs plus Furmark and it's rock solid now. Numbers are the same, so I'm not going to update.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#30
It's been a few weeks, so I thought I'd update the thread. While the numbers aren't that much better, I can say that the games I play most, Civ 6, BlackOps, and recently Medieval Engineers all *feel* a lot snappier. I still can't say it's worth the upgrade because you're looking at $800 or more, but I will say that I wouldn't go back in exchange for a refund.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,789
34
106
#31
It's been a few weeks, so I thought I'd update the thread. While the numbers aren't that much better, I can say that the games I play most, Civ 6, BlackOps, and recently Medieval Engineers all *feel* a lot snappier. I still can't say it's worth the upgrade because you're looking at $800 or more, but I will say that I wouldn't go back in exchange for a refund.
Do you happen to own Kerbal Space Program? Once past ~200 parts, the CPU is completely hammered. The cool thing is, crafts are just text files so anyone can test stuff like that.

I would love to see the performance gain on that game. If you do not, no worries.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#32
I do. If you've got a craft file in mind, post it up here and I'll let you know how it works.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,789
34
106
#33
I do. If you've got a craft file in mind, post it up here and I'll let you know how it works.
Wow, thanks! I'll post the 'code'. I am running stock 1.6. Most settings do not matter, but there is one that turns it into a CPU limited scenario for worst case performance: Aerodynamic FX Quality set to Normal instead of Minimal. This cuts FPS in half.

Basically I press space once to engage engines on the runway, press T for SAS, and hold shift for 100% throttle. On takeoff at end of runway I am around 35-40fps. The faster I go, the lower the FPS due to the Aerodynamic effects. Pressing F11 toggles it.

At 300 m/s below 1000m, I am at 18fps. GPU is at 30% usage. Pressing F11 puts it at 31 fps.

If you own it on Steam, you can go to KSP Workshop and search 'Arrowhead 2 SSTO', as thats the same one.

I tried putting the code in a spoiler tag, but the code is far too long. Here it is on Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/dLqHZQMw

Kinda wish I could just upload the craft.... But basically copy the code, go to installation folder -> saves -> your save -> SPH -> make a plane, save it, and replace the code with what is above. Or use the Workshop. Sorry this wasn't as easy as I hoped....

edit: reason I am so curious is there has not been a proper CPU benchmark for KSP yet. Only user submitted info, with tons of variables. I didn't give you my settings, but I find the only setting that affects my FPS is Aerodynamic FX Quality, even at 4k with 8x AA.

edit 2: If this is too much of a hassle to test, I don't blame you. Didn't want to derail your thread :)
 
Last edited:
Oct 10, 1999
24,468
236
126
#34
Well, I take back my recent statements about not pushing the box.

I picked up Kingdom Come Deliverance in the Steam Winter Sale. Most of the time, with 4690k and geforce 960 I get around 45-55 fps with low settings, sometimes, like when I ride into towns or castles at high speed, there is a ton of stutter and it turns into a slideshow for a few seconds.

I know a new GPU will help with avg framerate and will let me crank up the settings a bit, but, it seems like most of the sources of annoyance are due to CPU bottlenecking. That said, I have read that more or less every CPU has some stutter problems with this game.

Tempted to pick up a 9600k or 9700k, but, not really feeling urgency and also tempted to wait to see what 2019 brings. Maybe Zen 2 will be a better bang for the buck option, though I suspect that the Intel chips will still perform better in most games.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#35
Wow, thanks! I'll post the 'code'. I am running stock 1.6. Most settings do not matter, but there is one that turns it into a CPU limited scenario for worst case performance: Aerodynamic FX Quality set to Normal instead of Minimal. This cuts FPS in half.

Basically I press space once to engage engines on the runway, press T for SAS, and hold shift for 100% throttle. On takeoff at end of runway I am around 35-40fps. The faster I go, the lower the FPS due to the Aerodynamic effects. Pressing F11 toggles it.

At 300 m/s below 1000m, I am at 18fps. GPU is at 30% usage. Pressing F11 puts it at 31 fps.

If you own it on Steam, you can go to KSP Workshop and search 'Arrowhead 2 SSTO', as thats the same one.

I tried putting the code in a spoiler tag, but the code is far too long. Here it is on Pastebin: https://pastebin.com/dLqHZQMw

Kinda wish I could just upload the craft.... But basically copy the code, go to installation folder -> saves -> your save -> SPH -> make a plane, save it, and replace the code with what is above. Or use the Workshop. Sorry this wasn't as easy as I hoped....

edit: reason I am so curious is there has not been a proper CPU benchmark for KSP yet. Only user submitted info, with tons of variables. I didn't give you my settings, but I find the only setting that affects my FPS is Aerodynamic FX Quality, even at 4k with 8x AA.

edit 2: If this is too much of a hassle to test, I don't blame you. Didn't want to derail your thread :)
With the 9700K, 32GB of memory, and a 1080Ti, I didn't drop below 70 fps while flying it. Only as it slammed into the ocean was there any lag :p
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,789
34
106
#36
With the 9700K, 32GB of memory, and a 1080Ti, I didn't drop below 70 fps while flying it. Only as it slammed into the ocean was there any lag :p
That performance is basically 2x mine! I tested it on my i7 5775c and i3 6100 and get about 30fps.

Would you mind testing another plane? Search 'Voidwalker' on workshop. This time you can click launch and just look at your fps, no need to fly it, haha.This one has 414 parts and going past 500 causes game breaking glitches.

Darn, I wish we had more CPU benchmark data for this game!
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#37
That performance is basically 2x mine! I tested it on my i7 5775c and i3 6100 and get about 30fps.

Would you mind testing another plane? Search 'Voidwalker' on workshop. This time you can click launch and just look at your fps, no need to fly it, haha.This one has 414 parts and going past 500 causes game breaking glitches.

Darn, I wish we had more CPU benchmark data for this game!
It was basically pegged at 34 FPS except for when I took off and when I entered certain transition altitudes when it would drop down to 18 or 19 for a few seconds. Once I started doing tricks at about 30km, I... liberated... part of the ship and I was in the mid 50s until I decided to avoid tragedy.
 

ZGR

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2012
1,789
34
106
#38
Thank you so much Chaotic! It looks like KSP really likes those cores and high clocks. I am looking forward to upgrading a lot more now! :)

These performance gains are phenomenal and far exceed what other games show on benchmarks.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#39
Yeah, it definitely seems to like the new system. I'd be curious what would happen if I dropped a 9900K in there.
 
Jun 15, 2001
33,772
142
126
#40
I realized I posted these numbers in the encoder thread, but not here. My bad:

encoded 1806 frames in 311.03s (5.81 fps), 11820.04 kb/s, Avg QP:29.09
HandBrake 1.1.0 (2018040700) - 64bit
OS: Microsoft Windows NT 10.0.17134.0 - 64bit
CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-9700K CPU @ 3.60GHz - OCed to 5GHz
Ram: 32688 MB DDR4 3200,
GPU Information:
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti - 25.21.14.1701
 

cytg111

Diamond Member
Mar 17, 2008
8,314
481
126
#41
I dont get the Quake1 score. Quake1 is surely singlethread limited ... 3x ????
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MBrown CPUs and Overclocking 2

Similar threads



ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS