FM19 Performance Benchmarking Thread

[Gee_Simpson]

I'm deciding between the i9 9900k and the i7 9700k, purely for FM. By the looks of this thread, the 9900k makes no difference vs the 9700k so it seems pointless to spend over £100 extra on the 9900k. The 9700k is probably easier to keep cool as well so will overclock better? 

[Gee_Simpson]

On 07/05/2019 at 18:09, Higgo said:

Computer Type: PC

CPU: Intel 9900k (Stock)

GPU: Nvidia EVGA 2080 XC Ultra

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809

Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 04 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 20 sec

Benchmark C: 4 min 44 sec

 

I will also try this again tomorrow with some new 32gb RAM @3200 MHz to see if it makes a difference

The i9 9900k may be worth it based on this benchmark

On 27/09/2019 at 16:13, Jakobhg said:

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 sec

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. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Abaddon879]

8 hours ago, 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. 

Very much depends on how the test was performed. Lots of different factors could be at play... Other applications running, CPU core temperature at start of test, cooling solution, how long the computer had been running, how stable the overclock was and whether it maintained the supposed 5.0 GHz OC (I know from my test with a 4.9GHz All Core OC  9700K that I often saw the frequency dip below 4GHz due to thermal throttling).

We know the 9900K is a better CPU than the 9700K in terms of base speed and thread count. The question for you is can you justify the extra cost of the CPU. Considering you sold the exact same CPU previously, suggests you perhaps were reluctant to spend that much? I ended up spending around £700 in total for my upgrade, but that was from a 10 year old i5-750 so I was happy with that expense.

[Ursid]

On 17/11/2019 at 06:57, jwchriste said:

I wonder if differences in cpu cooling affect this.  A lesser cooler may allow you to hit peak boost frequencies, but only for a short time, while a better cooler may allow for sustained peak boost frequencies.

Im using Acrtic Freezer II 240 AIO.

During gaming (any game) temps dont go above 65C.

Not at home so cant run A & B atm.

Came from a gen 8 i7 and have to tell you the Ryzen feels much faster even before i did the test.

Very pleased with the 3900X!

Edited November 18, 2019 by Ursid

[Jakobhg]

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

[Gee_Simpson]

On 17/11/2019 at 14:03, Abaddon879 said:

Very much depends on how the test was performed. Lots of different factors could be at play... Other applications running, CPU core temperature at start of test, cooling solution, how long the computer had been running, how stable the overclock was and whether it maintained the supposed 5.0 GHz OC (I know from my test with a 4.9GHz All Core OC  9700K that I often saw the frequency dip below 4GHz due to thermal throttling).

We know the 9900K is a better CPU than the 9700K in terms of base speed and thread count. The question for you is can you justify the extra cost of the CPU. Considering you sold the exact same CPU previously, suggests you perhaps were reluctant to spend that much? I ended up spending around £700 in total for my upgrade, but that was from a 10 year old i5-750 so I was happy with that expense. 

 

4 hours ago, Jakobhg said:

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

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. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Jakobhg]

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  

[Gee_Simpson]

1 hour ago, Jakobhg said:

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  

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 

[Jakobhg]

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.

[Robioto]

I'm building a new PC early next year which I aim to have last me the next generation of games. Looking forward to see how well a 9900ks gets on compared to my 4790k.

[Gee_Simpson]

7 hours ago, Jakobhg said:

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.

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 

[Jakobhg]

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!

[Gee_Simpson]

Yeah I'll most likely wait although I've read that PC parts aren't usually affected by the sales unfortunately.

2 hours ago, Jakobhg said:

Good luck on you purchase!

Thanks 

[hocco]

My old Toad still can compete...

Computer type: PC
CPU: Intel Core i7 4770K @3.5 GHz Stock
GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080
RAM: 16GB (6 years old)
OS: Windows 10 Pro X64 version 1903
Storage: SSD

Benchmark A: 3 min 08 sec
Benchmark B: 6 min 19 sec
Benchmark C: 10 min 02 sec

[Tiger666]

I can't see a similar thread for FM20 so, apologies for the necro.

I was wondering about the ability of FM20 to utilise all cores on a CPU. I tend to run most leagues with about 130,000 players. Does anyone know if the game will make good use of all cores when processing matches in the background?

[Feriboy2]

2 hours ago, Tiger666 said:

I can't see a similar thread for FM20 so, apologies for the necro.

I was wondering about the ability of FM20 to utilise all cores on a CPU. I tend to run most leagues with about 130,000 players. Does anyone know if the game will make good use of all cores when processing matches in the background?

nope, it is about the same as FM19 in this regard

[Tiger666]

3 minutes ago, Feriboy2 said:

nope, it is about the same as FM19 in this regard

Well that's disappointing.

[EdL]

Well we have processed all matches in threads since cm4... but if you don't have a lot of full matches to play its not particularly noticable, as the quick matches are very quick.

[Tiger666]

1 minute ago, EdL said:

Well we have processed all matches in threads since cm4... but if you don't have a lot of full matches to play its not particularly noticable, as the quick matches are very quick.

Hmm I'm at work at the moment so can't check my settings. Remind me what full matches are please?

[Feriboy2]

19 minutes ago, Tiger666 said:

Hmm I'm at work at the moment so can't check my settings. Remind me what full matches are please?

it's when you change the "Detail Level" settings in the game. 

[Tiger666]

Just now, Feriboy2 said:

it's when you change the "Detail Level" settings in the game. 

I assume mine is whatever the default is then as I don't recall changing it.

[Brother Ben]

36 minutes ago, Tiger666 said:

I assume mine is whatever the default is then as I don't recall changing it.

The default will literally only be whatever league you are managing in and the main rounds of the main cups.  Even if you have other leagues "active"

[Tiger666]

1 minute ago, Brother Ben said:

The default will literally only be whatever league you are managing in and the main rounds of the main cups.  Even if you have other leagues "active"

I have the top division in every country playable but I assume I need to look at the "Detail Level" as well then.

[Brother Ben]

3 minutes ago, Tiger666 said:

I have the top division in every country playable but I assume I need to look at the "Detail Level" as well then.

Yeah if you set full detail level for all the leagues you run then it will be more realistic but you will take a massive hit in processing time

[Tiger666]

3 minutes ago, Brother Ben said:

Yeah if you set full detail level for all the leagues you run then it will be more realistic but you will take a massive hit in processing time

Righto, I have an i9 9900k so will have to do some testing to find a setting I'm comfortable with. Thanks.

 

[Brother Ben]

2 minutes ago, Tiger666 said:

Righto, I have an i9 9900k so will have to do some testing to find a setting I'm comfortable with. Thanks.

 

Give it a go, its the only thing that will really test those extra cores.  I often wonder what kind of NASA like super computer would be needed to run every single league and player Active and in full detail.

The reality is though that 99% of people, like yourself, won't even be aware of the full detail option 

[Gee_Simpson]

On 18/12/2019 at 17:16, Tiger666 said:

Righto, I have an i9 9900k so will have to do some testing to find a setting I'm comfortable with. Thanks.

 

Do you play any other game outwith FM on the PC or is it the only game you play? I have bought the i9 9900k for the 2nd time after sending it back in the summer and I'm having second thoughts again as I ran FM20 on my current i7 3770 and it ran pretty well. I have yet to build my new PC and can still send the i9 back as I haven't opened it yet. FM is the only PC game I play, the rest is done on console, I'm trying to justify this purchase here In fairness my old GT 640 struggles with the 3D match engine now (plays ok on low settings) and I'm not upgrading this system as it's too old. Maybe I should move on

@roykela again I'm in the same situation but 6 months on  How big a difference is there between the i7 9700k vs your old i7 3820k? Is there such a difference that you notice it instantly? I'm leaning towards keeping the i9 9900k this time around. 

FWIW, I done the FM19 benchmark test on my i7 3770, 16gb RAM, Nvidia GeForce GT 640 and the results were as follows:

Benchmark A: 3:48
Benchmark B: 8:46
Benchmark C: 12:12

Edited December 23, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Gee_Simpson]

1 hour ago, Gee_Simpson said:

as I ran FM20 on my current i7 3770 and it ran pretty well.

I take that back. It isn't running 73 leagues too well, started ok but the waiting times seem a tad much.

Edited December 19, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[roykela]

2 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Do you play any other game outwith FM on the PC or is it the only game you play? I have bought the i9 9900k for the 2nd time after sending it back in the summer and I'm having second thoughts again as I ran FM20 on my current i7 3770 and it ran pretty well. I have yet to build my new PC and can still send the i9 back as I haven't opened it yet. FM is the only PC game I play, the rest is done on console, I'm trying to justify this purchase here In fairness my old GT 640 struggles with the 3D match engine now (plays ok on low settings) and I'm not upgrading this system as it's too old. Maybe I should move on

@roykela again I'm in the same situation but 6 months on  How big a difference is there between the i7 9700k vs your old i7 3820k? Is there such a difference that you notice it instantly? I'm leaning towards keeping the i9 9900k this time around. 

FWIW, I done the FM19 benchmark test on my i7 3770, 16gb RAM, Nvidia GeForce GT 640 and the results were as follows:

Benchmark A: 3:48
Benchmark B: 8:46
Benchmark C: 12:12

I noticed it instantly, yes.
Can't say exactly how much of an improvement it was as i never thought about trying to time the difference or similar.
But i do remember hitting that Continue button the first couple of times and uttered a big 'wow' to myself.
I was happy with my i7 3820k. It was smooth and quick enough. I just wanted to change everything before it all started to go down south.
I'm very happy with having done it though. It made a big difference. I'm sure there's a little bit of a placebo effect as well but the effect was very much noticable.

[Gee_Simpson]

34 minutes ago, roykela said:

I noticed it instantly, yes.
Can't say exactly how much of an improvement it was as i never thought about trying to time the difference or similar.
But i do remember hitting that Continue button the first couple of times and uttered a big 'wow' to myself.
I was happy with my i7 3820k. It was smooth and quick enough. I just wanted to change everything before it all started to go down south.
I'm very happy with having done it though. It made a big difference. I'm sure there's a little bit of a placebo effect as well but the effect was very much noticable.

Thanks. The i7 3770 is running okay, but not great. It's struggling a little with 73 leagues after giving it more time, it's taking slightly longer than I'm happy with tbh so I think I'm going to keep the i9 9900k. I can't properly compare the two unless I commit to it and try the i9 9900k out for myself. Struggling in a test save in the first season doesn't bode well for the old i7 3770, I'm sure it could run under 50 leagues and run well though, but I'm not sure if I want to run fewer leagues than that. How many leagues do you load?

Edited December 19, 2019 by Gee_Simpson

[Higgo]

On 17/11/2019 at 05:22, 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 i just ran the Benchmark C on again on 9900k and it ran it in 4:39, I don't know why there is a big difference compared to the other guys 9900k, i had HWMonitor open during the benchmark and my CPU was locked at 4.7Mhz the whole time and was at 100% use for all threads at some points.

[roykela]

8 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Thanks. The i7 3770 is running okay, but not great. It's struggling a little with 73 leagues after giving it more time, it's taking slightly longer than I'm happy with tbh so I think I'm going to keep the i9 9900k. I can't properly compare the two unless I commit to it and try the i9 9900k out for myself. Struggling in a test save in the first season doesn't bode well for the old i7 3770, I'm sure it could run under 50 leagues and run well though, but I'm not sure if I want to run fewer leagues than that. How many leagues do you load?

I have all the leagues loaded.

[Tiger666]

11 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Do you play any other game outwith FM on the PC or is it the only game you play? I have bought the i9 9900k for the 2nd time after sending it back in the summer and I'm having second thoughts again as I ran FM20 on my current i7 3770 and it ran pretty well. I have yet to build my new PC and can still send the i9 back as I haven't opened it yet. FM is the only PC game I play, the rest is done on console, I'm trying to justify this purchase here 

I do play other games yes, I also do some multimedia work so the encoding power of the i9 is invaluable to me. I went from a 3770k to this and it's night and day for things like encoding/rendering. As for FM, that's kind of why I bumped the post in the first place, I was noticing the i9 was barely being used when processing matches but it seems I'm using the default level of detail so maybe I'd see it being tested more if I switch more over to the full detail engine.

[Gee_Simpson]

14 hours ago, Higgo said:

So i just ran the Benchmark C on again on 9900k and it ran it in 4:39, I don't know why there is a big difference compared to the other guys 9900k, i had HWMonitor open during the benchmark and my CPU was locked at 4.7Mhz the whole time and was at 100% use for all threads at some points.

That's interesting, thanks. Wow, that's another quick time!

13 hours ago, roykela said:

I have all the leagues loaded.

Thanks. 

13 hours ago, Tiger666 said:

I do play other games yes, I also do some multimedia work so the encoding power of the i9 is invaluable to me. I went from a 3770k to this and it's night and day for things like encoding/rendering. As for FM, that's kind of why I bumped the post in the first place, I was noticing the i9 was barely being used when processing matches but it seems I'm using the default level of detail so maybe I'd see it being tested more if I switch more over to the full detail engine.

I think I remember you mentioning you run all leagues, is that right? Since you had practically the same processor as me (non k being the small difference), how big of a difference is there between the two when it comes to FM? I usually just leave things on default level of detail as well, it would be interesting to see how the i9 9900k handles full detail processing. 

[Brother Ben]

Is anyone looking to do this for this year?  I'd do it myself but i'm a bit crap with graphs and the like

[Gee_Simpson]

I have my i9 9900k set up and running smoothly. Unfortunately I can't hit 5ghz on all cores using a 280mm AIO so looks like I got unlucky in the silicon lottery. Kind of makes me think I should have gone for the KS instead. I may return it and get it replaced for another one. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Gee_Simpson

[ajt]

Got my 9600k to a safe 4.8 ghz after my 2600k died and boy what a difference. I thought the 2600k was alright but now it seems like running through treacle

[Gee_Simpson]

Would a 5ghz all core overclock make much of a difference vs a i9 9900k at stock for FM? Especially when at stock it hits 5ghz on 2 cores anyway, plus I don't use full detail processing for leagues outwith my own. @EdL

So maybe I should just keep this one instead of going through the hassle of getting it replaced. 

[BMNJohn]

7 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Would a 5ghz all core overclock make much of a difference vs a i9 9900k at stock for FM? Especially when at stock it hits 5ghz on 2 cores anyway, plus I don't use full detail processing for leagues outwith my own. @EdL

So maybe I should just keep this one instead of going through the hassle of getting it replaced. 

IME on old Intel CPUs (and as I've probably posted in an older benchmarking thread), FM scales fairly linearly with frequency. Going from 4.0GHz to 4.5GHz was around a 10% increase in performance for a 12.5% increase in frequency. I wouldn't beat myself up if I were missing 100 or 200MHz to get 5.0Ghz on a 9900K if you have reasonable voltages (most likely 1.35V and below). But you make it sound like you built your PC specifically for FM instead of general gaming, so only you can tell if you're happy with "great" instead of "absolute best" gaming performance. It's getting pretty costly; perhaps you should complain more to SI about how FM performs on modern CPUs with higher core/thread count...

Please don't ban me.

[Gee_Simpson]

13 minutes ago, BMNJohn said:

IME on old Intel CPUs (and as I've probably posted in an older benchmarking thread), FM scales fairly linearly with frequency. Going from 4.0GHz to 4.5GHz was around a 10% increase in performance for a 12.5% increase in frequency. I wouldn't beat myself up if I were missing 100 or 200MHz to get 5.0Ghz on a 9900K if you have reasonable voltages (most likely 1.35V and below). But you make it sound like you built your PC specifically for FM instead of general gaming, so only you can tell if you're happy with "great" instead of "absolute best" gaming performance. It's getting pretty costly; perhaps you should complain more to SI about how FM performs on modern CPUs with higher core/thread count...

Please don't ban me.

 Yes, I'm that crazy, I bought this PC for FM. I do the rest of my gaming on console 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Gee_Simpson

[BMNJohn]

3 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

 Yes, I'm that crazy, I bought this PC for FM. I do the rest of my gaming on console 

Sell those consoles and get a decent GPU instead, the silky smooth gaming experience will take a bit of the sting off from you knowing that you're missing 0.1 or 0.2GHz. Yeah, I'm not much of a console enthusiast; really gonna need exclusives I care about to get me on board, otherwise...

That said, if you're mad enough, you could sell a kidney and head to Silicon Lottery. They do sell thoroughly tested CPUs, and when they say it's stable, it's rock stable. The result will be the same: FM doesn't process well on modern CPUs, but at least you got the best there is. Can I suggest a GPU instead of selling a kidney again?
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r

[Gee_Simpson]

1 hour ago, BMNJohn said:

Sell those consoles and get a decent GPU instead, the silky smooth gaming experience will take a bit of the sting off from you knowing that you're missing 0.1 or 0.2GHz. Yeah, I'm not much of a console enthusiast; really gonna need exclusives I care about to get me on board, otherwise...

That said, if you're mad enough, you could sell a kidney and head to Silicon Lottery. They do sell thoroughly tested CPUs, and when they say it's stable, it's rock stable. The result will be the same: FM doesn't process well on modern CPUs, but at least you got the best there is. Can I suggest a GPU instead of selling a kidney again?
https://siliconlottery.com/collections/coffeelake-r

Lol, nope, I'm a console man, always have been! I'll be buying the PS5 this winter, which will have Ray tracing for a fraction of the price of even just a top desktop GPU. Tbf the GPU I bought is decent enough for me, and should last ages for FM, it's the GTX 1660.

Lol I'll think I'll pass on that kindey selling venture  I have been considering returning the current CPU to get it replaced with another one from Amazon, I have until 31st January to send it back. I think it seems rather hopeful and silly though as the replacement could be even worse. I think I should be content with stock settings as the i9 9900k boosts to 5ghz on 2 cores which is still great for FM. I don't play other leagues in full detail outwith my own league of course, so I doubt a 5ghz overclock would take advantage of FM when it boosts to that anyways. 

Even if I got to a 5ghz all core OC it may not be that stable. Higgo's stock i9 9900k actually beat Jakobhg's 5ghz all core OC by quite a bit. 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Gee_Simpson

[EdL]

10 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Would a 5ghz all core overclock make much of a difference vs a i9 9900k at stock for FM? Especially when at stock it hits 5ghz on 2 cores anyway, plus I don't use full detail processing for leagues outwith my own. @EdL

So maybe I should just keep this one instead of going through the hassle of getting it replaced. 

Not wouldn't be worth it unless you wre playing loads of leagues in full detail and even then I doubt it would make a huge difference

[BMNJohn]

8 minutes ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Lol, nope, I'm a console man, always have been! I'll be buying the PS5 this winter, which will have Ray tracing for a fraction of the price of even just a top desktop GPU. [...]

Never mention that stuff, it's marketing hype. You'll attract generous amounts of thread derailing nonsense... just like mine.

4 minutes ago, EdL said:

Not wouldn't be worth it unless you wre playing loads of leagues in full detail and even then I doubt it would make a huge difference

With the general move towards higher core counts and thread count on CPUs, can we imagine (very conservatively) that it may have an influence on how SI might envision (I'm really walking on eggs there) how FM is built to exploit those new CPU resources?

[Gee_Simpson]

23 hours ago, BMNJohn said:

Never mention that stuff, it's marketing hype. You'll attract generous amounts of thread derailing nonsense... just like mine.

Is there a bug in FM? Been like this for a few editions now, when I go to the game status the power scheme always says 'Balanced'. It was like this with my old desktop and now my new one too, I have power settings set to 'High performance' in Windows btw. 

[BMNJohn]

5 hours ago, Gee_Simpson said:

Is there a bug in FM? Been like this for a few editions now, when I go to the game status the power scheme always says 'Balanced'. It was like this with my old desktop and now my new one too, I have power settings set to 'High performance' in Windows btw. 

Switching from Balanced to High Performance changes very little. It basically means that instead of throttling down when there's less/little activity, the CPU will stay at its maximum speed at all times regardless of load. It's not a magic switch that will make FM (or any game/software) perform any better than it does for 99% of users. For serious benchmarking and hardware testing, it can help removing some inconsistencies in results; but for 99% of people, it changes absolutely nothing so forget it. You're not missing out on performance you should have.

If you're curious, people testing hardware for a living would not only enable this but also control every voltage available in BIOS, control room temperature, control fan speed, cooler and thermal paste application, control for any software/firmware update, retest multiple times, control for... it's an extremely tedious job to make sure your results are accurate. You should only worry about getting an adequate motherboard, an adequate cooling solution, a decent case that doesn't run hot, and that's about it; not any of this nonsense. Motherboard manufacturers barely respect Intel's specs anyway...

Edited January 18, 2020 by BMNJohn

[Gee_Simpson]

2 hours ago, BMNJohn said:

Switching from Balanced to High Performance changes very little. It basically means that instead of throttling down when there's less/little activity, the CPU will stay at its maximum speed at all times regardless of load. It's not a magic switch that will make FM (or any game/software) perform any better than it does for 99% of users. For serious benchmarking and hardware testing, it can help removing some inconsistencies in results; but for 99% of people, it changes absolutely nothing so forget it. You're not missing out on performance you should have.

If you're curious, people testing hardware for a living would not only enable this but also control every voltage available in BIOS, control room temperature, control fan speed, cooler and thermal paste application, control for any software/firmware update, retest multiple times, control for... it's an extremely tedious job to make sure your results are accurate. You should only worry about getting an adequate motherboard, an adequate cooling solution, a decent case that doesn't run hot, and that's about it; not any of this nonsense. Motherboard manufacturers barely respect Intel's specs anyway...

It's just a little annoyance that the power scheme status on FM doesn't change no matter what you do, and it's been like this for years now for some reason. Maybe I should raise it as a bug.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Gee_Simpson

[Gee_Simpson]

On 07/05/2019 at 18:09, Higgo said:

Computer Type: PC

CPU: Intel 9900k (Stock)

GPU: Nvidia EVGA 2080 XC Ultra

RAM: 16 GB DDR4 @3000 MHz

OS: Windows 10 X64 Version 1809

Storage: SSD - PCIe M.2 SSD

 

Benchmark A: 2 min 04 sec

Benchmark B: 4 min 20 sec

Benchmark C: 4 min 44 sec

 

I will also try this again tomorrow with some new 32gb RAM @3200 MHz to see if it makes a difference

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: 7:15

Stock:

Benchmark A: 2:13
Benchmark B: 4:41
Benchmark C: 7:17

Edited January 18, 2020 by Gee_Simpson

[Brother Ben]

6 hours ago, 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: 7:15

Stock:

Benchmark A: 2:13
Benchmark B: 4:41
Benchmark C: 7:17

Looking at your numbers I really wouldn't bother with an overclock, it doesn't seem worth the extra strain, at least not for the current version of the game

[Gee_Simpson]

13 hours ago, Brother Ben said:

Looking at your numbers I really wouldn't bother with an overclock, it doesn't seem worth the extra strain, at least not for the current version of the game

I agree mate. I then followed the advice in the OP and ran only FM, my results were better with no overclock. 

I didn't do test A & B with only FM running but managed to get test C done (most demanding one). 

Benchmark C: Before: 7:17 After: 5:40.

Disappointed that the overclock isn't making much of a difference and I have no idea why. Pretty stable at 5ghz dropping to 4.97 sometimes but I thought that would be enough to at least match Higgo's times. I have until 31st to return it, should I get a replacement or am I being too picky? 😬

Edited January 18, 2020 by Gee_Simpson