Intel 9th Gen CPUs revealed

[Kek700]

I don't see quite the same thing. I note that with acs.exe there are about 44 threads running. With my eight processes (HT switched on) CPU0 is maxed out and CPUs 1-7 are all chugging away at about 20-30%. i7-3770k@4.7ghz.

Not here , just rechecked, once AC is running all cores rise and fall about the same amount.
@ 120 fps all cores at betweem 75 and 95%.

will check to see what processes i have running, did check task manager for any
demanding programs running at the same time and found none at-all.?

 

[RasmusP]

i must then assume that if i loaded AC to a max , and i had a 9700k i would in theory see all 8
cores loaded in a simular fashion to my 6600k with its 4 cores all loaded.

This is what I find strange because I don't see the same behavior. But I'm gonna check again with ht disabled.
Whats probably the case:
With 4 cores ac is able to load them all to "scratching the maximum" but the moment you even only add one additional core, the overall cpu load would get stuck at 80% or something.
And with 6 or 8 cores it would just go down further as the few ac threads can't max out more than 4 and maybe half a core.
You seem to be somewhat special with your maxed out cpu.
Could you check the overall cpu load instead of the single core's loads for me? Because I doubt it really hits 100%. Maybe 95% but I really doubt it hits full 100...
Thing is, as long as this overall load doesn't hit full 100%, more cores won't give you big boosts. It will increase this "increasing efficiency effect" I mentioned but not really add performance.
With a 9600k you'll get a few percent single thread performance, which gets multiplied by 6 (2% single thread performance x6 cores = 12% overall increase). And a little bit efficiency boost due to more cores. So maybe 16% performance gain.
With a 9700k this effect gets multiplied by 8.

But in theory the boost with a 9700k should be more than 200% due to double the cores and a higher per core performance.. And it's absolutely not the case.

Anyway, it's difficult to explain it better. I hope things are clearing up for you though

 

[RasmusP]

cores at betweem 75 and 95%

See my above post, please tell us the overall load. Since 4x 95% mean only 80% overall load.

 

[Case_]

But what do i see, all four cores moving in a reasonable synchronized fashion to the demands of my increased fps. Not 1 core being stretched, and 3 core keeping up with the extra marginal demands that may incur.

it makes the bit about single core performance seem irrelevant.

I'm still not sure if I understand what you're asking. But, as I tried to explain (and so did Rasmus), you won't really see a situation where 1 core is being stretched and 3 keeping up with marginal demands. You will see all four cores working to a certain extent that will be fairly balanced between the cores.

It doesn't mean the single core performance is irrelevant - again, like I tried to explain, a single application thread can never exceed the limit of the performance of a single core. A single application thread can get up to 1/x of your CPU performance, where x is the number of threads (so 1/4 or 25 % of overall CPU usage in our example). It doesn't really matter if these 25 % are due to one core being maxed out or 4 cores running at 6.25 %, the point is it can never get more than that, and even if you "spread" it over multiple cores, it still technically runs as if on a single core. That is why the single core performance still matters, even if the load is technically spread over multiple cores - you still want the CPU to do as much work as possible with those 25 % of overall performance capacity it can allocate to one application thread at any given moment, otherwise your performance will suffer in one way or the other depending on what that thread actually does.

And, as mentioned, the core usage is largely irrelevant on a modern system. If you want to know if and how much CPU limited your application is, you have to look at the CPU usage of its threads, not on individual cores CPU usage. And you also have to keep in mind that while your CPU can run several threads at once, there are literally hundreds of threads running at any given time, even if you only care about one or two of them - and they all want their CPU time, even is only a small part of it mostly, and they can also add up.

 

[Kek700]

task manager shows 100% cpu usage all the time.

msi after burner shows at one point in time

cpu 1 = 50%
cpu 2 = 67%
cpu 3 = 83%
cpu 4 = 100%
overall cpu = 75%

at another point in time.

cpu 1 = 100%
cpu 2 = 100%
cpu 3 = 86%
cpu 4 = 100%
overall cpu = 96%

must be doing something silly ? all seems out of step with your conversations.
task manager say i have 54 background processes, none showing much if usage
apart from AC showing 90 or so %

 

[Kek700]

msi afterburner is using 10% which i assume is not helping??

 

[Durge Driven]

Yes. My point was that a 1080ti and a 2080 basically have the same performance

Not in DLSS titles and current benchmarks are not a true reflection of difference between the cards

You don't even have optimized drivers yet, they will concentrate on new series new games making them faster again where 1080 will get nothing to improve it over next 1.5 years

 

[Sim Strata]

msi afterburner is using 10% which i assume is not helping??

Just tried it again with a full grid. One logical processor at around 80% the remaining seven at about 40-70%. The heavily loaded logical processor seems to change each time I start acs.exe. Total CPU% for acs.exe reported as 30-40% I am using the Task Manager, Resource Monitor to view.

 

[Kek700]

task manger says mine acs.acs is 90% +

something is not right???

 

[RasmusP]

task manger says mine acs.acs is 90% +

something is not right???

I'm gonna check this by disabling hyperthreading on mine and see how my 4 cores get loaded up
It seems to be quite high. But like you said, 10% cpu usage by afterburner adds to the picture!
I'm gonna report back on Monday. Sorry you'll have to wait until then.

 

[Sim Strata]

task manger says mine acs.acs is 90% +

something is not right???

Just out of interest. Have you tried setting the number of processors Windows sees? I presume it should know, but I followed these instructions and configured it for 8 processors to match those available with HT enabled: https://www.thewindowsclub.com/configure-windws-8-multi-core-support I don't know if it has changed the behavior/performance in general.

 

[Kek700]

Basically it agreed with Msi, but at least now i can see all 4 cores in Task Manager.
hope i got the message and implemented your information correctly.
I have re-read all the comments, perhaps a dozen times, i think it is becoming clearer now.

 

[Kek700]

Still do not understand the 90% AC game cpu loading.
ACC is even worse. ( not that there is much head room on 90% )
Everyone else seems to be suggesting half of this.

 

[RasmusP]

Still do not understand the 90% AC game cpu loading.
ACC is even worse. ( not that there is much head room on 90% )
Everyone else seems to be suggesting half of this.

Did you set a longer refresh period in afterburner? 10% cpu load for msi afterburner alone is influencing the measurements.
I'd say 80% in ac and 90% in acc is fine. I'm at 50-75% with my 8 thread cpu.
It doesn't really matter in the end. The main and most important point about this is that even in 720p resolution your cpu won't clip constant 100% overall load.
Your graphics card however will do this when you run 4x dsr or resolution scale at maximum.

The important thing about this is:
When you lower your resolution to the minimum, what fps do you get then. They will be cpu limited then but with all other settings still being normal. So draw calls, shadow maps etc will all stay as demanding.
The question then is whether or not the fps you get from your cpu are enough or not.
If not there are different things to consider:
- if your overall cpu load clips a constant 100% you need more cpu cores (or hyperthreading) and you'll see a massive boost since the game can directly use the additional cpu threads.

- if your overall cpu load doesn't clip a constant 100% you'll have to decide between:
1. Getting a slight boost by a higher single thread performance that will directly increase performance
2. Getting a slight boost by increasing the efficiency with more cpu cores/threads

The single thread way will always be a bigger boost. Which is why the 9600k beats all cpus for simracing apart from the 8700k and the other 9th Gen cpus.
The 8700k evens out the single thread difference by having hyperthreading.
The 9700k has 2 real cores more which increase efficiency and the i9 has 2 real cores and hyperthreading but might throttle down due to heat.
In the end the best bang for the buck is the 9600k at the moment. Comparing fps gains vs price, the i7 and i9 aren't worth it at the moment.

Your 6600k is right on the edge. But not clipping a constant 100% and therefore you don't really need more cpu cores/threads. Would they give you a slight boost due to efficiency? Yeah probably!
Would a higher single thread performance like the 9600k give you a bigger boost than let's say a 7700k? Yeah probably!

Would a amd ryzen give you any boost? Probably not at all since the more cores but the worse Single thread performance would even each other out!

In the end, while your on the edge of needing a cpu with more cores, the boost wouldn't justify the investment.

Check the Taskmanager for other things apart from ac eating your cpu. Like 10% msi afterburner you mentioned.
If your overall load doesn't clip a constant 100% you're fine. Cores/threads wise.

Hope this clarifies things a little further

 

[Kek700]

i think i had Msi at max refresh 100ms.
just had another look without Msi and only using Task manager, still pretty much the same.


Yes it does help, i have been trying to mitigate computer spending by trying to maximise future expenditures which to me is becoming obvious. having limitless resources , then it is easy, even
though the finer details may still not make a decision that easy.
From where i am at the moment, i have marginally upgraded my graphics card to a water cooled 1080,
this has made no real difference to AC, at the moment i am cpu bound in that title, admittedly with all necessary graphics setting on max. ( i like a nice clean view ). i have completely down graded graphics
and it’s still cpu bound, but only in running 1 AI does the framerate jump up noticeably.
ACC has had a 20 fps boost, but the graphics card is on 90% were as with AC it’s on < 45%
with the cpu on ACC at 90%+.
i would look to the future, but at the moment that seems to suggest massive amounts of cash
compared to when i first start this sim journey. ( progress seems to have become a cash cow )
i could wait untill nobody wants a 9900k and a rtx2080ti and the prices are really low, by then i
will not want them either.
i am basically doing what i do, when i race , rather than maximizing my advantage i am limiting my loss.
i am also factoring in the hope that ACC will be better optimised graphically, so that means my 1080
and an upgrade to my cpu will keep me in the race. but which cpu?? luckily ? GPU prices are ridiculous enough so that i do not have to concern myself with that.
As we have previously discussed, i now have g-sync so i can tolerate a fps drop here and there,
but a maxed out cpu is another matter and i do prefer 100 + fps it jst makes for a more fluid experience.
i have had 144hz monitors and although that is very nice to have i cannot tell the difference between 144 and 100 but i do notice 60 and i definitely notice a big frame rate drop.
AC is not so bad, because, even though i get the cpu to max out, i have enough fps and gpu power to almost hide that.
ACC is another matter at the moment with the gpu and cpu maxed out at 75 fps.there is no
headroom to compensate.

To me at this moment in time, “ i have been putting a lot of effort into this of late” , A 8086k seems the best punt. Especially as the future is somewhat vague at the moment. And i have a sneaking suspicion
that the next amazing progress will come with lottery money prices, judging by the Rtx2080ti.

But it’s always money, a 9600k is still £150 less.


i did just sell my free-sync monitors for a g- sync monitor. bugger.

 

[RobertR1]

@Kek700 there's rarely a "perfect" time for an upgrade. Generally get the best you can afford given a budget and you're better off saving up for a bit and then buying things in close proximity than large gaps as that can lead to generational imbalances.

Game optimizations and so forth can happen but it's generally within small increments rather than massive upgrades unless there's been some serious flaws in development.

 

[RasmusP]

Little note: 8086k is virtually the same as the 8700k, just higher clocked at default but basically every 8700k will happily hit 5 GHz and above!
And yep, it's a better choice over the 9600k as it hides his slightly lower single thread performance with hyperthreading and gains a massive advantage when a game or program can really utilize more than 6 threads!
Sadly its costs raised to laughable values here in Germany and the 9700k is rather expensive too.
Not gonna spend 600€ (mobo etc) on an i5 that will be limited by cores/threads in a few years...
So all hopes to 3rd Gen ryzen!

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

To me at this moment in time, “ i have been putting a lot of effort into this of late” , A 8086k seems the best punt. Especially as the future is somewhat vague at the moment. And i have a sneaking suspicion
that the next amazing progress will come with lottery money prices, judging by the Rtx2080ti.

But it’s always money, a 9600k is still £150 less.


i did just sell my free-sync monitors for a g- sync monitor. bugger.

One thing worth keeping in mind is that the CPU development as of late, especially from Intel, has been very slow. Intel are still stuck with an architecture that is more or less the same as the 6th gen Skylake released in 2015. After the release of Skylake, Intel only did two things, added slightly higher frequencies and more cores. It's quite a marketing achievement to release three new generations with more or less the same fundamentals.

Frankly, they could have released an eight-core Skylake for consumers back in 2015, the only reason they didn't was due to lack of competition. So today in 2019 we have more cores, which is what should have been available several years ago. Moreover, even those extra cores don't scale with performance as most sims only heavily utilize around three cores.

IMO what is really needed is a more than marginal single-core performance increase and not just more cores for an upgrade to make sense.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

They must be busy studying computer chip from that cyborg from the future.

 

[RCHeliguy]

They must be busy studying computer chip from that cyborg from the future.

Intel's 10nm process that they invested a lot of time and effort into was a complete wash. Intel finally moved on and kept the old 14nm process going while they moved to 7nm. Hopefully the end of this year or early 2020 will be when 7nm drops and it should be more powerful, more efficient AND cheaper since it will use a smaller die size.