Best CPU based on clock speed

[Franck]

I need to figure out the best CPU per clock speed with at least 4 cores with minimum 6 threads. which means 4c/4t is not good while 4c/8t and 6c/6t are both good option.

The computer array (multiple perfect clones) will be running 24/7 with real load during 8 to 12 hours a day at 100%.

 

Right now we have an array of I7-7700K @ 4.5ghz on all 4 cores

 

I was looking at the 8086K and the 8700K. price is NOT an issue, why ? because a simple jump from 4.2ghz to 4.5ghz is still shaving easily one extra hour work for what it does each day which pays back the whole computer in 2-3 weeks.

 

We have not tested this successfully yet but we are interested of going with virtualization on rack mount if we can make it work but the major wall we hit is that we did not any CPU in the Xeon family than give us at least 4.5 ghz on all cores or we don't know how.

 

Any thoughts and suggestion are appreciated. Anything that would run under 4.5 ghz it's a waste of our time.

If you know a good cooler to pair with these 2 processors i mentioned let me know we were thinking a kraken x62 but not sure as none of the cooler spec the wattage it can cool down.

 

Also any other CPU that could fit either the single computer or virtualization i would like to know the model and specs and if overclock is required for the runtime i have described and what cooling solution should be.

 

 

Thanks

[knightslugger]

you don't need us to tell you what to buy. Sounds like you KNOW you need 6c/6t or 4c/8t based on whatever the hell you're doing (and not sharing) with a minimum all-core clock speed of 4.5 or greater because your current 4.5GHz 7700k's aren't doing to job (somehow)...

[TheRandomness]

Why is there such a focus on clock speeds, rather than performance as a whole? Clock speed isn't the only thing to indicate performance. If you want clocks, the 4.7GHz base, 5Ghz boost FX 9590 does that. However, its performance is terrible, so...

[Franck]

Just now, TheRandomness said:

Why is there such a focus on clock speeds, rather than performance as a whole? Clock speed isn't the only thing to indicate performance. If you want clocks, the 4.7GHz base, 5Ghz boost FX 9590 does that. However, its performance is terrible, so...

The softwares that are running have a perfect 1 to 1 ratio performance based of the CPU clock speed. 10% more clock speed = 9.999% faster. We started with 2.3 ghz a long time ago and now we are on 4.5 ghz (but not all can run at 4.5, not all chips are perfect). The softwares have bottleneck over some libraries on the computer than allow 100% performance over 3 access at a time (3 application running) and about 70% efficiency at 4 application running. So we know the compiled source code hit it's maximum capacity at around 3.5 threads running but since that is not possible 3 is the best while 4 technically gives better overall but each thread end up locking the next all the time.

 

Also there is a quite heavy cpu intensive app running so we needed 1 core for that one to not "suck" the juice from the 3 other ones.

[Franck]

9 minutes ago, knightslugger said:

you don't need us to tell you what to buy. Sounds like you KNOW you need 6c/6t or 4c/8t based on whatever the hell you're doing (and not sharing) with a minimum all-core clock speed of 4.5 or greater because your current 4.5GHz 7700k's aren't doing to job (somehow)...

Actually no, it doesn't matter. if there is a 12c/12t that can go faster, i don't care that we only use 4 cores on the chips and the rest are useless.

I don't know if it's better said like this but i need the most IOP i can get with current technologies. as long as it 64 bits

[Derrk]

Wait for the 9700k or 9900k. Otherwise overclock your 7700k to 5.0ghz, or get an 8700k and overclock that to 5ghz

[Franck]

1 minute ago, Derrk said:

Wait for the 9700k or 9900k. Otherwise overclock your 7700k to 5.0ghz, or get an 8700k and overclock that to 5ghz

Our best 7700K got stable at 4.6ghz on a H100i nothing more

[TheRandomness]

3 minutes ago, Franck said:

The softwares that are running have a perfect 1 to 1 ratio performance based of the CPU clock speed. 10% more clock speed = 9.999% faster. We started with 2.3 ghz a long time ago and now we are on 4.5 ghz (but not all can run at 4.5, not all chips are perfect). The softwares have bottleneck over some libraries on the computer than allow 100% performance over 3 access at a time (3 application running) and about 70% efficiency at 4 application running. So we know the compiled source code hit it's maximum capacity at around 3.5 threads running but since that is not possible 3 is the best while 4 technically gives better overall but each thread end up locking the next all the time.

 

Also there is a quite heavy cpu intensive app running so we needed 1 core for that one to not "suck" the juice from the 3 other ones.

There is also the metric of per-core performance specifically (IPC). With equivalently clocked 7700ks and 8700ks, you'll find the 8700ks to perform better despite having the same clock speeds. I'm going to agree with the post above and say wait for the 9700k, which will perform better than the 8700k whilst at the same clock speeds.

[Derrk]

Just now, Franck said:

Our best 7700K got stable at 4.6ghz on a H100i nothing more

delid, get a better cooler, throw more volts, etc etc

[Franck]

1 minute ago, TheRandomness said:

There is also the metric of per-core performance specifically (IPC). With equivalently clocked 7700ks and 8700ks, you'll find the 8700ks to perform better despite having the same clock speeds. I'm going to agree with the post above and say wait for the 9700k, which will perform better than the 8700k whilst at the same clock speeds.

Okay yes, i was thinking the 9000 where not out yet to check it out but no info on their IPC yet ?

 

And i see that for the 8700K i was pretty much spot on as the fastest i could find

[Derrk]

Just now, Franck said:

Okay yes, i was thinking the 9000 where not out yet to check it out but no info on their IPC yet ?

 

And i see that for the 8700K i was pretty much spot on as the fastest i could find

yeah intel i7s still have the best single core performance. 9700k will beat the 8700k, but if you don't want to wait a month or two, grab an 8700k 

[Derrk]

Just now, Derrk said:

yeah intel i7s still have the best single core performance. 9700k will beat the 8700k, but if you don't want to wait a month or two, grab an 8700k 

edit: 9700k launches in like 3 days. nevermind. just wait

[hitbox_pl]

Simple if price dosnt matter buy a i9 7/8/9*** and a motherboard xd

[Franck]

Just now, Derrk said:

edit: 9700k launches in like 3 days. nevermind. just wait

It can wait that be perfect. Probably 2 weeks and we should have reasonable benchmarks.

 

I really need the most IPC as these softwares are only single threaded apart from the fact there is some shared resources on the drive that are loaded into memory into a single shared thread which isn't very fast and doesn't allow to scale to more than 3 or 4 individual threads. And gain in ram speed is so superficial here that we could not see a difference in our tests.

[Derrk]

1 minute ago, Franck said:

It can wait that be perfect. Probably 2 weeks and we should have reasonable benchmarks.

 

I really need the most IPC as these softwares are only single threaded apart from the fact there is some shared resources on the drive that are loaded into memory into a single shared thread which isn't very fast and doesn't allow to scale to more than 3 or 4 individual threads. And gain in ram speed is so superficial here that we could not see a difference in our tests.

have you tested memory above 3200mhz?

[Franck]

35 minutes ago, Derrk said:

have you tested memory above 3200mhz?

2133mhz, 2400mhz, 3200mhz. did not have the chance to have a test computer with 4000mhz in it. when you need at least 32 gb it's very expensive. especially nearly 2 years ago.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Franck
updated with actual ram i tested