How is simspeed lag in 2018?

[____]

As a related note, I have a question to anyone reading this thread: How much of a simspeed improvement, in %, is enough to rationalise temporarily breaking most unit/game (non-UI) mods? 10%? 50%? What would you say?

Making all those mods work again would be a lot of work. In the long run of course, the simspeed improvement would really pay off, but I am not sure if it is worth it when the improvement is under like ~10%, considering that there is an insane number of mods available.

Though if only some of the less popular mods break, and those are easily fixed, I would welcome even a 5% improvement .

On the other hand, if it's possible to fix the most popular mods like phantom beforehand, meaning that this player base can still play the mod after that patch, it should be less of a problem. But again, I am not sure if that's not too much work for too little people.

[SpoCk0nd0pe]

i7-7700K vs 2700X OC'd on all sides with modern titles that are CPU intensive... yeah... that's an easy call. The i7-8700K will still beat that since it does away with the core shortage.

I wouldn't be so sure. Cache misses are often more important when looking at frametime experience. Most people won't notice 10% average fps, but they will notice laggy frames. Those 1% lows are usually due to the CPU waiting for memory, not because a limit in raw processing power.

The 8700K is currently the fastest gaming CPU.

Are you sure? Do you know benchmarks? Are you talking average FPS or frametimes (especially 1% low)?

My i3-4160 hyperthreaded @3.6ghz gets a CPU score of 170 and I am literally never the slowest in a game, do what you want with that info

Well, has anyone tried how accurate the CPU score test is? Does replay time scale with the score?

Problems like pathfinding of lots of units is hard to program in a way that doesn't result in lots of cache misses. Dwarf Fortress (even though notoriously unoptimized) is an excellent example where more instructions do not help, cache size and latency is everything (as well as memory latency). I'd be surprised if SupCom really doesn't have this problem.

[IceDreamer]

The 8700K is currently the fastest gaming CPU.

Are you sure? Do you know benchmarks? Are you talking average FPS or frametimes (especially 1% low)?

So to clarify, I am certain of this assessment across a broad variety of games released over the last decade. I keep up extremely closely with hardware advances and benchmarks, and they concur across many respected reviewers. The 5+GHz OC available on the 8700k is simply insurmountable in most titles. I suggest you look up Gamers Nexus, HardOCP etc. One channel does a series of brilliant investigations where they do head to heads across 30+ games, might be Hardware Unboxed.

FA itself has not been tested. It MAY be an outlier that really likes the Zen+ architecture. But I would be surprised.

Edit - Regarding average fps vs lows, the i7 is ahead of the R2 less frequently with lows than with averages, but it is still ahead in more tests.

[____]

The 5+GHz OC available on the 8700k is simply insurmountable in most titles. I suggest you look up Gamers Nexus, HardOCP etc. One channel does a series of brilliant investigations where they do head to heads across 30+ games, might be Hardware Unboxed.

Not every 8700k can reach 5GHz, god forbid 5GHz+. I am sure you know this already, but this really depends on the silicon lottery.
When you are considering the 8700k and want to overclock it, you should take into account that you will need a strong cooler, since the IHS is not soldered, and good VRM cooling. Yes it is the best, but you will certainly spend a lot of money

So does the 8700k have a good value if you only game? - Probably not Imo.
It's alright AMD propaganda department, just transfer the money to my bank account

Generally I would take the 8600k over the 8700k or the 2700x any day of the week since it is'nt as hot and is much cheaper. If you only game, that is

Value wise it should be:
Only gaming: 8600k with a good cooler
Everything but only gaming: 2700x (other ryzen CPUs will have a much better value for gaming though)
Gaming, and light nultitasking: 8700k?

[IceDreamer]

That depends entirely on the person who is building. Firstly, if you're building an 8700K machine which you intend to OC heavily, you are already an enthusiast, and already spending a lot of money. A bit more on a CLC or even a custom loop isn't out of the ordinary for these people. Secondly, if you're on that bandwagon, you are likely to delid your 8700K and apply liquid metal as TIM. While you need a good chip to hit 5GHz out of the box even on water, the majority of chips hit 5GHz on water after a delid. Even if not 5GHz though, 4.8 is totally normal, and plenty to be ahead of the 2700X in most games.

Nobody ever claimed it was better value. They just said it was faster. They were right. It is.

Just an FYI so nobody accuses me of bias, I'm saying all this as someone preparing to spend at LEAST £2000 on an AMD system. I'm making this decision in spite of the fact my main game is TF2, a title which runs approximately 30% faster on the i7. The 2700X has close the gap _enough_ for me to be OK with it. Currently planning a 2700X, but depending on how rich I'm feeling when the time arrives, that might turn into a TR2 build with a fully custom hardline water loop. The all-around power-to-cost ratio across games, rendering, productivity and everything else is just too damned good from AMD right now to even consider Intel's offerings, and I love the idea of dropping a Zen2 or Zen3 chip in next year. They also didn't just try to choke the media with a 5GHz 28 core fake because they're running scared of the competition...

[____]

That depends entirely on the person who is building. Firstly, if you're building an 8700K machine which you intend to OC heavily, you are already an enthusiast, and already spending a lot of money. A bit more on a CLC or even a custom loop isn't out of the ordinary for these people. Secondly, if you're on that bandwagon, you are likely to delid your 8700K and apply liquid metal as TIM. While you need a good chip to hit 5GHz out of the box even on water, the majority of chips hit 5GHz on water after a delid. Even if not 5GHz though, 4.8 is totally normal, and plenty to be ahead of the 2700X in most games.

Nobody ever claimed it was better value. They just said it was faster. They were right. It is.

Well, that ofc is true. I did not want to criticice you in any way, I just wanted to note that for people who are not spending insane amounts of money on something that will probably be slower, than a much cheaper rig in a year or so (which is the overwhelming majority) is generally a stupid idea . It is much better to wait for a newer and better product, or to just buy the product with the better value in this point in time.

My point is, that being an "enthusiast" does not have to be all about spending money, but also making the right choices. And that choice is (at least for FAF) the 8600k or some Ryzen 6 core chip for games that favor ryzen. Imagine you are an enthusiast and built a 7700k system in early 2017. Must have sucked, to spend so much money on a chip that almost gets beaten by a 160€ chip now. But hey, that rig was the fastest for like 10 mounths... great.

The rig you listed will get you the best performance for less than half a year now. So is it really fair to say, that it is faster? Yes. For now. And when new chips come out it will get trashed. And the guy who bought a better value chip will laugh his ass off and will be faster, since he can now use the money he saved on a CPU of the newer generation .

Those are just my 2 cents. Again, am not saying you are wrong, I just have a problem with buying something just because it is faster NOW. In the real world, where money matters, doing this will NOT get you the fastest rig in the end most (not all) of the time, even if you bought the "best" processor .

But ofc this will not apply if you just spend 300 bucks on a CPU every year, like some people do. For the majority of people though, the strategy I listed will give you the faster system most of the time (exept when you always by the best and newest CPU when it comes out). And this is what it is all about is'nt it?
The "strategy" that those enthusiasts use will give them the best system all the time in a perfect world, where money does not matter. But for most (not all)people it does matter, and for those people this is both ineffective and inefficient .

[E8400-CV]

i7-7700K vs 2700X OC'd on all sides with modern titles that are CPU intensive... yeah... that's an easy call. The i7-8700K will still beat that since it does away with the core shortage.

I wouldn't be so sure. Cache misses are often more important when looking at frametime experience. Most people won't notice 10% average fps, but they will notice laggy frames. Those 1% lows are usually due to the CPU waiting for memory, not because a limit in raw processing power.

Why wouldn't you be sure? It has been tested by everyone and his dog and the only way the AMD comes close is if you pair it with a set of Samsung B-die that was packaged under a clear sky with full moon and then overclock the hell out of the RAM.

The 8700K is currently the fastest gaming CPU.

Are you sure? Do you know benchmarks? Are you talking average FPS or frametimes (especially 1% low)?

Always the lows. I don't give one rats a$$ about the averages, you already know why I see

My i3-4160 hyperthreaded @3.6ghz gets a CPU score of 170 and I am literally never the slowest in a game, do what you want with that info

Well, has anyone tried how accurate the CPU score test is? Does replay time scale with the score?

Not that I know of. Do you have a suggested replay to test with?

That depends entirely on the person who is building. Firstly, if you're building an 8700K machine which you intend to OC heavily, you are already an enthusiast, and already spending a lot of money. A bit more on a CLC or even a custom loop isn't out of the ordinary for these people. Secondly, if you're on that bandwagon, you are likely to delid your 8700K and apply liquid metal as TIM. While you need a good chip to hit 5GHz out of the box even on water, the majority of chips hit 5GHz on water after a delid. Even if not 5GHz though, 4.8 is totally normal, and plenty to be ahead of the 2700X in most games.

Nobody ever claimed it was better value. They just said it was faster. They were right. It is.

Well, that ofc is true. I did not want to criticice you in any way, I just wanted to note that for people who are not spending insane amounts of money on something that will probably be slower, than a much cheaper rig in a year or so (which is the overwhelming majority) is generally a stupid idea . It is much better to wait for a newer and better product, or to just buy the product with the better value in this point in time.

My point is, that being an "enthusiast" does not have to be all about spending money, but also making the right choices. And that choice is (at least for FAF) the 8600k or some Ryzen 6 core chip for games that favor ryzen. Imagine you are an enthusiast and built a 7700k system in early 2017. Must have sucked, to spend so much money on a chip that almost gets beaten by a 160€ chip now. But hey, that rig was the fastest for like 10 mounths... great.

The rig you listed will get you the best performance for less than half a year now. So is it really fair to say, that it is faster? Yes. For now. And when new chips come out it will get trashed. And the guy who bought a better value chip will laugh his ass off and will be faster, since he can now use the money he saved on a CPU of the newer generation .

Those are just my 2 cents. Again, am not saying you are wrong, I just have a problem with buying something just because it is faster NOW. In the real world, where money matters, doing this will NOT get you the fastest rig in the end most (not all) of the time, even if you bought the "best" processor .

But ofc this will not apply if you just spend 300 bucks on a CPU every year, like some people do. For the majority of people though, the strategy I listed will give you the faster system most of the time (exept when you always by the best and newest CPU when it comes out). And this is what it is all about is'nt it?
The "strategy" that those enthusiasts use will give them the best system all the time in a perfect world, where money does not matter. But for most (not all)people it does matter, and for those people this is both ineffective and inefficient .

You should consider the re-sale value at the end of your use of a system. i7-K's used price stays pretty much at a fixed distance from the i5-K's, meaning that you only lose the interest on the difference while enjoying the extra's of the i7. I sincerely now regret buying the i5-2500K instead of the i7-2600K. Same goes for my i5-6600K, but I got that one for 100 bucks less than normal.

And let me tell you about what must have really sucked... buying an FX-8350 in 2012 with the promise that the socket would see upgrades... hahaha. First real upgrade... 2017, on another socket.

[____]

You should consider the re-sale value at the end of your use of a system. i7-K's used price stays pretty much at a fixed distance from the i5-K's, meaning that you only lose the interest on the difference while enjoying the extra's of the i7. I sincerely now regret buying the i5-2500K instead of the i7-2600K. Same goes for my i5-6600K, but I got that one for 100 bucks less than normal.

Yes, it is true that i7 CPUs tend to hold their value for longer, but when selling a CPU after like 2.5 years (which my theory suggests) the price difference (on ebay at least) should stay about the same. From my point of view, you (and me in fact I also bought a 6600k) made the right choice, and following my suggestions would mean, that I should buy a 9600k or whatever when it comes out. That CPU would destroy the 6700k in every aspect and will probably make up for the lower resell value of the 6600k. But again, this kind of depends on a lot of things, not saying my concept is perfect

And let me tell you about what must have really sucked... buying an FX-8350 in 2012 with the promise that the socket would see upgrades... hahaha. First real upgrade... 2017, on another socket.

Well, all things considered, Intel is not much better in that aspect, with mobos only being compatible with ~2 generations of CPUs. And historically that was not really useful, since 1 gen upgrades were not a good idea most of the time. So yes, the option was there, but it was very restricted and not really useful.
Ofc AMD was not better in that aspect, the FX line-up was disappointing and almost destroyed AMDs CPU segment. I did not completely despise them though, some definitely had their place.

The CPU maket from 2012-2017 was really bad anyway. Intel made those insane "4%" performance jumps like from the 4790k to the 6700k and well AMD... they did nothing at all pretty much. So, my concept only applies to 2018 and onward .

[E8400-CV]

You should consider the re-sale value at the end of your use of a system. i7-K's used price stays pretty much at a fixed distance from the i5-K's, meaning that you only lose the interest on the difference while enjoying the extra's of the i7. I sincerely now regret buying the i5-2500K instead of the i7-2600K. Same goes for my i5-6600K, but I got that one for 100 bucks less than normal.

Yes, it is true that i7 CPUs tend to hold their value for longer, but when selling a CPU after like 2.5 years (which my theory suggests) the price difference (on ebay at least) should stay about the same. From my point of view, you (and me in fact I also bought a 6600k) made the right choice, and following my suggestions would mean, that I should buy a 9600k or whatever when it comes out. That CPU would destroy the 6700k in every aspect and will probably make up for the lower resell value of the 6600k. But again, this kind of depends on a lot of things, not saying my concept is perfect

If the price difference in $ between i5 and i7 stays the same over time... that means the i5 loses value faster percentage wise. So for the cost of once spending $100 more you can enjoy an i7 over an i5 for the rest of your life... or for as long as that used-value thing persists at least

And let me tell you about what must have really sucked... buying an FX-8350 in 2012 with the promise that the socket would see upgrades... hahaha. First real upgrade... 2017, on another socket.

Well, all things considered, Intel is not much better in that aspect, with mobos only being compatible with ~2 generations of CPUs. And historically that was not really useful, since 1 gen upgrades were not a good idea most of the time. So yes, the option was there, but it was very restricted and not really useful.
Ofc AMD was not better in that aspect, the FX line-up was disappointing and almost destroyed AMDs CPU segment. I did not completely despise them though, some definitely had their place.

The CPU maket from 2012-2017 was really bad anyway. Intel made those insane "4%" performance jumps like from the 4790k to the 6700k and well AMD... they did nothing at all pretty much. So, my concept only applies to 2018 and onward .

Upgrading only a CPU is a pretty rare thing anyway. The buyer of your older CPU needs to buy a board anyway.

[____]

If the price difference in $ between i5 and i7 stays the same over time... that means the i5 loses value faster percentage wise. So for the cost of once spending $100 more you can enjoy an i7 over an i5 for the rest of your life... or for as long as that used-value thing persists at least

I meant that the changes in price should be more or less relative (lower ofc) to their starting price, at least on ebay after the fist couple of years after the release imo. After these years, the prices get really diverse, and you will be able to find both at absolutely terrible and insanely good prices for both. But since this is pretty much impossible to test reasonably and highly depends on individuals, location and luck, it is hard to tell what will happen. In my location, the 6600k actually kept more of his value compared to the 6700k. And again, that is variance most likely.

Upgrading only a CPU is a pretty rare thing anyway. The buyer of your older CPU needs to buy a board anyway.

Exept when he already has a board with a bad CPU and want to upgrade the CPU without needing to buy a new board .