100% CPU usage / warning

[thepharcyde]

Anyone getting this / the red pop up top left of the screen in red.

Don't seem to make any difference the #AI on track

 

[Kek700]

Just in case I appear like a “ moany “ old git.
I can play AC at high 120 FPS stutter free frame rates.
and ACC at 60 stutter free FPS quite comfortably
too.
It’s just a concern for me with respect to ACC, as
I would like to be able to run at a 100 + FPS and not have 100% cpu usage. It just gives a smoother experience compared to 60+ FPS.
I may just have to buy a 9700k ( not happy about that )
As Rasmus suggested, I could change camp and go for the to be released AMD. ( still not cheap though )

 

[manu68]

some printscreen with scaling 70

 

[manu68]

and some more again with scaling 100 and 200, but with more information

 

[Kek700]

From these points of view your 8700k makes light work of this compared with my 6600k.

 

[RasmusP]

From these points of view your 8700k makes light work of this compared with my 6600k.

Look at the fps though and remember that my 1070 is dying at 3440x1440. He's at 2560x1080!
But yep, from 6xxx to 7xxx there was a light jump and the the 8xxx finally leaped forwards with 5+ GHz clockspeeds and 6 cores!
9xxx isn't that much better. Basically more expensive and a bit more performance... 8700k is just the best processor of the last few years!

 

[Jivesauce]

Look at the fps though and remember that my 1070 is dying at 3440x1440. He's at 2560x1080!
But yep, from 6xxx to 7xxx there was a light jump and the the 8xxx finally leaped forwards with 5+ GHz clockspeeds and 6 cores!
9xxx isn't that much better. Basically more expensive and a bit more performance... 8700k is just the best processor of the last few years!

The 8700k has almost 0 advantage over the 9600k or even 8600k for gaming though, and both are $100+ cheaper.

Edit: I should say, for VR specifically the 8700k does have a somewhat meaningful advantage; up to you whether that merits an extra $100. It's the same situation as some of the GTX 1080 era cards where the old hardware has gone up in price so much that it almost forces you to shop for the newest hardware instead of opting for something older that offers similar (or even better) performance.

 

[RasmusP]

The 8700k has almost 0 advantage over the 9600k or even 8600k for gaming though, and both are $100+ cheaper.

They are cheaper at the moment. Not compared to when the 8700k wasn't ridiculously expensive.
They are basically the same price the 8700k but have no hyperthreading.
And while that's not really needed for gaming it's 50% boost for video rendering and other productive stuff. Keeping in mind that you might keep auch a processor for a very long time you just won't know what you'll gonna use it for.

 

[Jivesauce]

They are cheaper at the moment. Not compared to when the 8700k wasn't ridiculously expensive.
They are basically the same price the 8700k but have no hyperthreading.
And while that's not really needed for gaming it's 50% boost for video rendering and other productive stuff. Keeping in mind that you might keep auch a processor for a very long time you just won't know what you'll gonna use it for.

Yes, see my edit regarding the pricing stuff. It's just that the 8700k has gone up so much in price
And yeah, I'm a professional 3D artist, if I were building a rendering computer there is no doubt I would opt for the x700 or x900, the performance of the x600 in that application is not even in the same league. Of course in that situation I would be forced to take a long hard look at a Threadripper. Fortunately I'm lucky enough to have a dual-Xeon computer and small render farm at work, so I can focus only on gaming on my PC at home

 

[Hiikeri]

Bs, HT can improve some(many) games +20-40% fps (when Gpu arent bottlenecking).

Win10 uses much better HT threads than over decade old Win7.

 

[Jivesauce]

Bs, HT can improve some(many) games +20-40% fps (when Gpu arent bottlenecking).

Win10 uses much better HT threads than over decade old Win7.

I mean, just go look at benchmarks and real world frame rates in tests:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5-9600k-coffee-lake-cpu,5922-6.html

The biggest advantage I see in any game they tested is 7 fps. Many are less than 1 fps different.

Edit: Certainly, if there are games where you get 20-40% improvement in framerate that is worth the $100 price disadvantage, I just haven't seen anywhere near those results in any testing.

 

[RasmusP]

I mean, just go look at benchmarks and real world frame rates in tests:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i5-9600k-coffee-lake-cpu,5922-6.html

The biggest advantage I see in any game they tested is 7 fps. Many are less than 1 fps different.

Absolutely right! In the current situation I wouldn't recommend the 9700k or 9900k for gaming. Even for occasional video work etc I would always recommend the 9600k!
I just wanted to say that since the 8700k did cost basically the same but got hyperthreading on top and if just slightly overclocked reaches the sarme frequencies, it was a "better" package overall.
I really hope the ryzen 3xxx will reach similar single thread performances as the Intel's. Finally a real competition for gaming, especially Sims which sadly still barely use more than 4 cores/threads...

 

[Jivesauce]

Absolutely right! In the current situation I wouldn't recommend the 9700k or 9900k for gaming. Even for occasional video work etc I would always recommend the 9600k!
I just wanted to say that since the 8700k did cost basically the same but got hyperthreading on top and if just slightly overclocked reaches the sarme frequencies, it was a "better" package overall.
I really hope the ryzen 3xxx will reach similar single thread performances as the Intel's. Finally a real competition for gaming, especially Sims which sadly still barely use more than 4 cores/threads...

Totally agree on all counts, my friend!

 

[Hiikeri]

98% on gaming "HT" tests says it wont affect at all. I say 98% of those tests are GPU bottlenecked.

After that you cant get more fps even at 1000 cores and 50000Mhz CPU becouse GPU cant draw any faster=more fps!

But to this topic, I today tested ACC CPU (9900K@5400Mhz, RAM 4500Mhz cl17) total usages on lower resolution, 1920x1080. I have 3440x1440 resolution monitor.

All tests same situation, 28 AI, Monza startline before rolling (back-straight, approx 20-30s when camera rolling on visible cars), i was #12 driver.

C = Core count
T = Thread count (=true cores + HT cores)

4C4T - 85-100%
4C8T - 46-69%
6C6T - 61-84%
6C12T - 34-59%
8C8T - 45-71%
8C16T - 22-34%

You all can see that 4C8T (=8 threads) has almost identical CPU usage than 8C8T (=8threads), so threads total count means more than just pure core count. Its UE4 engine.

So, yours gaming CPU, baby 9600K is totally bottleneck when its default clocks, i assume it hit 100% usage, at least my 2080Ti (2000+Mhz/16Gbps Vram).

Remember that all my tests are driven CPU@5400Mhz.

 

[Jivesauce]

98% on gaming "HT" tests says it wont affect at all. I say 98% of those tests are GPU bottlenecked.

After that you cant get more fps even at 1000 cores and 50000Mhz CPU becouse GPU cant draw any faster=more fps!

But to this topic, I today tested ACC CPU (9900K@5400Mhz, RAM 4500Mhz cl17) total usages on lower resolution, 1920x1080. I have 3440x1440 resolution monitor.

All tests same situation, 28 AI, Monza startline before rolling (back-straight, approx 20-30s when camera rolling on visible cars), i was #12 driver.

C = Core count
T = Thread count (=true cores + HT cores)

4C4T - 85-100%
4C8T - 46-69%
6C6T - 61-84%
6C12T - 34-59%
8C8T - 45-71%
8C16T - 22-34%

You all can see that 4C8T (=8 threads) has almost identical CPU usage than 8C8T (=8threads), so threads total count means more than just pure core count. Its UE4 engine.

So, yours gaming CPU, baby 9600K is totally bottleneck when its default clocks, i assume it hit 100% usage, at least my 2080Ti (2000+Mhz/16Gbps Vram).

Remember that all my tests are driven CPU@5400Mhz.

Oh man, I am not at all interested in having a dick waving contest with you, and that seems to be your primary interest here.

You criticize the methodology of one of the most respected hardware testing sites on the internet, then post a test showing only that the engine can utilize multiple threads, not that it actually improves the fps. Why didn't you post the average fps of each of your tests I wonder? Let's see this 40% improvement!

But really, this is ridiculous. You're comparing an overclocked chip that costs $500+ to one that costs $270, do you really think they are competitors? You seem to have forgotten, we are talking specifically about an 8700k at $380 to a 9600k at $270; I think my position is valid.

For what it's worth, my "baby" 9600k (why the condescension?) is not at 100% usage at Monza (or anywhere else that I've seen) with full AI; more like 70-80 range. Bottlenecked by my RTX 2070, I suppose? Though you do seem to be comparing it to your 4 core testing when of course a 9600k has 6 cores.

And since it seems to be your main concern, as I mentioned above my 3D rendering machine has a MUCH bigger penis than your baby 9900k, would you like to get them hard and place them next to each other? Think of all the fun we could have!

 

[RasmusP]

I woke up to be like "wtf"... Then found the "show ignored content" button and I went calm again. Apparently I sadly missed a brilliant post from someone who I've read a brilliant post from in the past
Good question though: when putting resolution scale to minimum, how high peaks the overall cpu usage with a 9600k? We know that 4 cores can be peaked to 100% but not constantly. How do 6 cores behave?
Imo 6 cores are the sweetspot currently for overall gaming!

 

[manu68]

My printscreens are made with 6 cores and minimum sale 70. But maybe are you talking about 9600k processor

 

[AJ McDaddy]

Not sure what you guys are panicking about or trying to prove to each other. Kunos has already stated that their focus was on stability and now the re-write is in the main out of the way they can focus on optimisation. Ya'll need to relax.

 

[RasmusP]

My printscreens are made with 6 cores and minimum sale 70. But maybe are you talking about 9600k processor

With 6 cores and 12 threads due to hyperthreading I thought?
Thanks for the Screenshots! I'm yet to look at them at the PC. It's a pain on the phone. Gonna reply when I did

 

[RasmusP]

Not sure what you guys are panicking about or trying to prove to each other. Kunos has already stated that their focus was on stability and now the re-write is in the main out of the way they can focus on optimisation. Ya'll need to relax.

We aren't panicking about anything. At least not here, further down the thread.
We just have a nice chat about:
- how much cores/threads are ideal or "enough" for acc
- does the warning happen when you hit the cpu fps limit or only when the cpu as a whole is loaded to 100% (not enough cpu cores/threads available)

And now we had a nice chat about what cpu is the best bang for the buck for simracing.

We're not panicking, we're having a virtual beer together, talking about stuff we're interested in

 

[RasmusP]

some printscreen with scaling 70

Thanks a lot for these! Your GPU has lots of headroom in these screens and your 8700k doesn't get used to more than 37% overall load. Shows that 12 CPU threads are definitely not necessary
Minimum fps are around 70 fps. That's kinda... "hardcore"!
I mean if I set visible opponents to "all" my 2600k just dies at around 30-40 fps at race start so you see what a beast that 8700k is, hehe.
Gonna be interesting to see what the final release after 1-2 patches will compare to this!