Jakobhg
-
Posts
69 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Articles
FAQs
Online Manual
Support: Blocks
Support: Games
Bug Tracker
SIGames Manual (beta)
Profiles
Posts posted by Jakobhg
-
-
Vejle Boldklub have two First-choice keepers in the game, however, Alexander Brunst is a clear backup keeper in real life.
0 -
On 04/03/2020 at 02:49, Gee_Simpson said:
Ah yeah, you mean activating the XMP Profile to run it at advertised speeds. I thought you had actually manually overclocked your RAM but that's not the case. I bought 3200mhz RAM as 3600mhz cost much more so I didn't think it was worth it. I was thinking of manually overclocking my RAM but like I decided with the processor after advice from @Brother Ben, I don't think it's worth the extra strain. I think I'll wait to overclock those when this PC starts getting old to squeeze more life out of it.
Yes that is what I meant - sorry for the confusion.
I fully agree that overclocking your RAM or optimizing your timings are not worth it.
3200MHz RAM should be fine. But when I was buying the sweet spot was 3600MHz. Above that was really expensive and not worth it. But this depends on the time of buying and the country of purchase i guess.0 -
On 23/02/2020 at 20:06, Gee_Simpson said:
What is the default speed of your RAM, and how much of a difference did it make? Did you change any of the timings or did you only change the frequency?
The default speed is 3600 Hz and bought like that. But you still have to unlock it in BIOS. Think it ran 1800 or 2000 Hz before that.
I did not change any timings. It is very time consuming and might not be worth the effort.
It's been awhile now, so I can't remember the exact time saved by pushing the RAM to 3600 Hz and I haven't noted it anywhere. Sorry. But somewhere between 10-30 seconds would be my guess for these kind of tests.0 -
On 18/01/2020 at 03:51, Gee_Simpson said:
Well, after some tweaking, it seems I can hit a 5ghz OC afterall.
I'm really not sure how your 3rd test is that quick?
@Jakobhg and my new i9 9900k are very close, and we both have overclocked to 5ghz all cores. I even tested stock just to see if I could match your numbers but there's no way I can get near that. Here's my benchmarks with the overclock and without it:
i9 9900k, 16gb DDR4 3200mhz RAM, GTX 1660, Corsair MP510 NVMe SSD.
5ghz OC:
Benchmark A: 2:14
Benchmark B: 4:30
Benchmark C: 7:15Stock:
Benchmark A: 2:13
Benchmark B: 4:41
Benchmark C: 7:17Sorry man! Haven't checked the forum in a long time. My bad!
Yeah, our CPUs sound similar now. The overclocking part does not grant much extra performance, but a little.
However, you can try to increase your clock speed on your RAM. That actually gave me quite good results. Might be the difference between our two tests. I run 3600 Hz on my RAM.0 -
1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:
Thanks mate. I will most likely wait for the Black Friday sales anyway to see if any parts are selling for less than their usual price. Hopefully the FM20 benchmark thread is posted up soon
Yeah you should definitely wait for black friday and maybe cyber monday (the following monday - might depend on your country though) to see if you can catch some discount.
And I will of course run the FM benchmark again this year, when it's been standardized.
Good luck on you purchase!1 -
8 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:
That's interesting regarding the other games, I didn't know about that as FM is the only PC game I play, I play all my other games on my PS4 Pro. I'm guessing you play other games on your PC?
I agree with the rest of your post
I had a look at a bunch of reviews and benchmark, before I went and bought my new PC. And Shadow of the Tomb Raider is always used for benchmarking due to the strain on the CPU (also the GPU). Also Battlefield V and GTA V are often tested. I don't play Shadow of the Tomb Raider (at least not yet), but I've played Battlefield V and GTA V and at some point will play Red Dead Redemption 2 as well (haven't seen any benchmarks on this yet though). So yes, I do play a variaty of games, but most common is FM and CS:GO - for these games the 9700K would do just as well as the 9900K (or at least very close to).
So if you don't plan on playing anything else than FM, the extra money might not grant you too much extra performance. But hopefully SI will be better at utilizing all threads available in the future and then the 9900K should be a beast!
You could also wait to see if another post like this comes for FM20 (I would imagine it does). Then you might get more information. Hopefully you can have results for more than two 9900K's that scores very different.1 -
1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:
Thanks guys. I've decided if I do go for it, I will go for the i9 9900k again just purely based on it being slightly more future proof, maybe FM will utilise the hyperthreading more than it currently does in a couple of versions time, it is around £137 more than the 9700k but what's that over say 7 years or so? Only £19.50 a year so that's not much when considering that's how long I'll be keeping it for.
Yeah, that was sort of my point as well, when buying it. If you look at games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider, it already utilize 8 real cores with 16 threads pretty well, so I would expect games to follow this trend. So the 8 cores from the 9700K might be out of fashion in a couple of years. Also might be not - who knows. It's definitely a great CPU as well. But as you said - if you have the money available now (don't miss out on your rent mate!) and a 9900K last you somewhere between 5-8 years, you might never notice that little bit of money. But you might notice the performance difference.
Anyway, as long as you are critical and know what you are paying for, you will be fine
1 -
On 17/11/2019 at 06:22, Gee_Simpson said:
The i9 9900k may be worth it based on this benchmark
But then strange how there is over 2 and a half minute difference on benchmark C here!? On the other hand this benchmark says that the 9900k isn't worth it. How can this one with an overclock and faster RAM be slower than the one above? It doesn't make sense.
So my test is the one with the 7 min. C Benchmark.
I recently bought my computer and also looked at these forums for tests on the 9700K and the 9900K. When I saw the 4 min (nearly 5 min) on the C benchmark i doubted it, as it seems very fast! But as I can use the extra cores for other stuff as well, I decided to go with the 9900K. It is really good, but yes, really expensive! For pure FM I'd think that the 9700K is just as good (or at least very close to).
My results are a mean of five runs for each benchmark. On a newly build computer (hence, not a lot installed) and with absolutely nothing but steam and FM19 running. I've overclocked my 9900K, but only a tiny bit, as it gets really hot! So I have assured that while running FM19 and other benchmarks and games, my CPU would not start to clock down.
So I really can't explain why the two 9900K's here are so different. Hopefully the other guy can reply sometime so he can explain what he did
0 -
47 minutes ago, Soviet said:
Yes of course. You can keep the players that start in the club and you can extend their contracts as long as you need. It would be quite impossible otherwise :).
Thanks man!
Yeah I thought so as well
0 -
I'm looking to maybe do this challenge this year (but might go with the dafuge challenge or the pentagon challenge instead)
Are there any rules towards the players in the squad at the beginning of the save who are not from the academy.
Can you keep them for the first couple of seasons, until you have had a couple of youth intakes to make up a squad, or should you let them go as soon as possible (even though you will be left with a small squad).I'm just curious on how to start out the game
0 -
Computer type: PC
CPU: Intel Core I9 9900K @5.0 GHz OC.
GPU: Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER WINDFORCE OC 8G
RAM: 16GB DDR4 @3600 MHz
OS: Windows 10 Pro X64 version 1903
Storage: SSD
Benchmark A: 2 min 21 sec
Benchmark B: 4 min 29 sec
Benchmark C: 7 min 20 sec0
[Denmark] Data Issues
in Database and Research (Early Access Beta)
Posted
That may do the trick - thanks!