Only using 2 cores !

[Kek700]

just out of interest,
if I have an 8 core processor and clock 2 cores at 5Ghz and 6 cores at 4.5Ghz. In an attempt to lower temperatures, assuming that is true.
Will AC or Windows 10 select the two fastest cores for the simulator.

 

[Dan Costa]

Which cpu? Where did you select the core speeds? Was it in the BIOS?
If its like mine (9900K), you don't select which cores are at 5ghz. You simply state a rule that when a workload only needs 2 cores, the loaded cores will be allowed to reach 5ghz. And when the workload needs 6 cores, they will clock at 4.5ghz instead. Windows has no say in this. Its all between the CPU and the Bios.

 

[RasmusP]

It doesn't really matter. With modern windows, even single thread application are shuffled across all cores. So each core will very very shortly peak to full load (actually, you can't make a cpu not run at 100%. You can only make it do something and then pause for a short moment. Resulting in x % load average over the measuring intervals).

So since all cores will be used and they'll all do their task at full speed, pushing one core to higher clocks will simply result in a better overall performance.
That's why forcing windows to run a certain program only on specific cores will basically always slow things down in the end.

The rules will be: take all cores and their clocks and calculate the average clock speed.
The higher, the more fps. Doesn't matter what runs on which cores etc. Windows will do its best

You can test this with cinebench r15, doing the single thread test. You can open it, lock it to a certain core via the task manager. Maybe play around with this a little but I'm very sure, that the moment you start forcing it to certain cores you'll lose out at the cinebench score.

Overall CPU load will be the same. You'll just get stutter in the games the moment you forced it to one core and that core will hit 99%.

CPU load forcing it to CPU 0 & 1:

CPU load not forcing it at all:

 

[Kek700]

Thinking of buying 9700k, but i have to face the fact i will be struggling with temps, from what i have discovered, assuming its true, the 9700k struggles to get rid of its heat. So there is a point were the cooling beyond a certain point almost becomes irrelevant. Excluding maybe the exotic.
Yes, thats true from what i have observed in the bios, i would obviously hope that AC or Win 10 would
select the fastest cores to its own benefit. From what i have seen in task manager, it is not alway easy
to observe which cores AC is using, But in my 6600k all 4 cores are at 4.6Ghz.

 

[Kek700]

Your too bloody quick for me Rasmus, every time i compose my one fingered reply, your in there first.

 

[Kek700]

Thanks both of you for your response, that has ben of great help to me.

 

[RasmusP]

Did a quick run for you. As you can see, no freaking difference at all

Forcing it to just one core:

Not forcing anything:

 

[RasmusP]

hinking of buying 9700k

You should definitely wait with buying anything at all until there are independent benchmarks of the new AMD Ryzen 3xxx.
The Intel 8th and 9th gen would require you to buy a new Motherboard anyway so you can just as well go with a new AMD.
It will probably be cheaper, give you the same fps for simracing and will have more cpu threads to be more future proof.
Or have the same amount of threads but have a lower power drain and therefore run cooler

 

[Kek700]

l have read in some depth your past comments on this topic, i will admit it came down to a heart
decision and not a head one.
I purchased a Gtx1080 recently, and discovered the importance of a balance system, at the moment my processor lags by some 30% on my Gpu.
If i wait for Ryzen, which would be the head decision, i know i will go for the best one available, this
could possibly put me into having to buy another GPU, then i am into escalating costs, probably faced later with having to buy a mother board, processor and GPU. It may make common sense take centre stage, faced with a huge upgrade bill.
Stopping me from the constant future upgrade path. I know this is a bit of reverse psychology, but i am attempting to protect myself from myself.
With escalating research cost for ever increasing complexity, someone will have to pay, i think that will be us.
After reading what you have said in the past, i have been slowly buying the odd bit here and there,
i have some 4 months ago got my mother board, etc , etc, now just waiting on Cpu choice.

 

[RasmusP]

i have some 4 months ago got my mother board

Ah okay so you already got a motherboard for the Intels hehe.
Well, a racing buddy from mine got the 9600k and he's happily running every current sim with very high fps. Rfactor 2 at over 150 fps (lowered quite some settings though).
It has 6 cores, which are enough for I don't know, the next 5-8 years to come I'd say.

In my opinion, the moment the 9600k won't have enough cores, the 9700k won't have enough single thread performance anyway.
So if you got everything ready, just get the "cheap" 9600k and enjoy the big fat improvement

 

[RobertR1]

If I can cool a 9900k @ 5ghz on an air cooler, you'll be fine with a 9700k. Lack of HT will drop temps already.

 

[Kek700]

why is life so confusing now a-days, all i used to have was an oooop and a monkey on a stick.

 

[Kek700]

Just bought a 9600k, £210, can always get a 990Ok if i am not happy. Probably bought just before
Intel do a price cut. Time will tell, that's normally what happens.

 

[RobertR1]

Just bought a 9600k, £210, can always get a 990Ok if i am not happy. Probably bought just before
Intel do a price cut. Time will tell, that's normally what happens.

If you can swing it, get a 9700k and oc it to 5ghz+ on air. You'll be set for atleast 4-5 years with that alone. Then just upgrade the GPU only when needed.

 

[RasmusP]

If you can swing it, get a 9700k and oc it to 5ghz+ on air. You'll be set for atleast 4-5 years with that alone. Then just upgrade the GPU only when needed.

Here in Germany it's 230€ to 370€. That's more than half of the price on top for 2 cores but barely fps for any simracing title in the near future.
The 9700k is definitely the best mix right now but wow, the price difference really hurts
To be exact the i7 costs 162% of the i5
Do you think that's really worth it?
Imo the moment the i5 runs out of cores in the future, the i7 will lack single thread performance anyway so the money is better spent for a new i5 at that point.

 

[RobertR1]

Here in Germany it's 230€ to 370€. That's more than half of the price on top for 2 cores but barely fps for any simracing title in the near future.
The 9700k is definitely the best mix right now but wow, the price difference really hurts
To be exact the i7 costs 162% of the i5
Do you think that's really worth it?
Imo the moment the i5 runs out of cores in the future, the i7 will lack single thread performance anyway so the money is better spent for a new i5 at that point.

The 9700k will have a longer life span due to it being 8cores which will align well with upcoming console gen as the game engines get better at multicore. Depends on how long you want to keep it.

Intel is suppose to do some price drops also so let's see if that happens.

 

[Kek700]

Could not justify the 9700k, at this moment in time it would have been an extra £150. As Rasmus
said, we are talking about 1 to 3 core sim titles.
I just sense that technology is about to make a big shift, i am basically only thinking about 3 years,
add into this mix, software creation time and the 9600k makes sense. Plus the price drop will
be not that much on the 9600k anyway ( famous last words )
After that time i will almost certainly be out of the heavyweight financial investment that i think will
be required for the next generation of technologies.
My 6600k still manages all this very well and probably has an extended lease of life, just made the decision to upgrade my cpu to be in line with my new 1080 GPU.
( i just cannot justify £1200 for a 2080ti ).
AMD may pull the rabbit out of the hat for both GPU and CPU. Passed events say otherwise, but
as i am normally incorrect on my predictions, i will not be exactly surprised at an AMD revolution in providing gamers with cheapish high speed cpu’s and gpu’s.

in a very short time all will be revealed.

 

[Case_]

The 9700k will have a longer life span due to it being 8cores which will align well with upcoming console gen as the game engines get better at multicore.

Been hearing the same about the current (and in fact previous) CPU generations and their multithreading capabilities for like 5 years now. "Just wait, all those cores/threads will be a great benefit once the new games are out!"

Still didn't happen to this day. By the time it happens (if it happens), you'll be likely running a different setup altogether.

 

[RobertR1]

Been hearing the same about the current (and in fact previous) CPU generations and their multithreading capabilities for like 5 years now. "Just wait, all those cores/threads will be a great benefit once the new games are out!"

Still didn't happen to this day. By the time it happens (if it happens), you'll be likely running a different setup altogether.

You can literally look at the graphs posted in the most recent AMD review's and see that the 9700k already out performs the 9600k quite often and games like having 8 physical cores which perform the same.

While the 9900k get all the hype, the 9700k esp when OC'd is the real king of the hill. It's minimum frame rate 1% lows are better than a 9900k with HT on.

The gap over the 9600k will only get bigger. There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer a 9600k but the 9700k is a superior option for gaming today and into the future.

 

[RasmusP]

You can literally look at the graphs posted in the most recent AMD review's and see that the 9700k already out performs the 9600k quite often and games like having 8 physical cores which perform the same.

While the 9900k get all the hype, the 9700k esp when OC'd is the real king of the hill. It's minimum frame rate 1% lows are better than a 9900k with HT on.

The gap over the 9600k will only get bigger. There are plenty of reasons why someone might prefer a 9600k but the 9700k is a superior option for gaming today and into the future.

Don't forget that the i5 only runs at 4.3 GHz. The i7 runs at 4.9 while the i9 has a turbo of 5.0 but often throttles down a little either due to reaching tdp limit or too high temperatures.
This is why the i7 beats both when at stock settings. High turbo, no throttling and no microstutter in any game that can't properly use ht (battlefield 4 for example for me).
If you put the i5 and i7 to 5 GHz and enable the i9 to use whatever power it wants, the differences will basically vanish with the i9 being fastest, then i7, then i5 but it's like 2 fps in most games.

But there aren't many benchmarks out there which show this. You can see it from 5 GHz cinebench single thread runs though.

What this leads to though is that everybody who gets the i5 should look into overclocking it to at least 4.8 GHz all core turbo!