Intel/Nvidia Build CPU/GPU Questions

[Rainman2020]

Hey yall

I am ordering a new computer that i will be using with a Valve Index and sim racing (and non racing games too)

I want it to be an Intel and Nvidia build, and have the following questions:

1) I was getting an i9-9900k with a Z390 MB. However, I am not sure if i should go ahead and get the newer 10th gen i9-10900k with the Z490 MB. It is only about $120 or so more to get the i9-10900k, and it has the Z490 MB, so maybe that is more future proof, and also a tad faster (not much)?

Should i get the i9-9900k/Z390 combo or get the newer i9-10900k/Z490 combo? The answer may be tied to question 2 below

2) I am going ahead and getting a RTX 2080 Super now. Yes, i do know all about the new Nvidia 3000 cards coming out soon, but a) i don't want to wait on them and b) i want to give them time to sort out after they come out before buying one.

I do plan on upgrading to one of the 3080/3090 cards after they have been out a little while, say within the next year, and then sell my 2080S.

The question is, 'What kind of MB do i need to get now to be ready to pop in one of the new 3000 Nvidia cards?' Note that i am getting a 850W Power supply to be sure and be ready for whatever power needs the newer Nvidia 3000 card will require, but what else do i need to be getting now to be fully ready and compatible with the new Nvidia 3000 cards when they arrive?

Thanks!
Randy

 

[Squared Circle]

Computers are never future proof
Having said that, the main differences between Z390 and Z490 chipsets seem to be:
- Higher max. RAM freq. and
- PCIe 4.0 support

The i9-10xxxx does not support PCIe 4.0, neither will the upcoming 3xxx-generation of nvidia cards. Support will be there with intel's 11th generation of CPUs and projected nvidia cards obviously not available in the near future.
If you are now buying everything new, I would suggest the Z490 route as it will leave you with more options once those silicone masterpieces are available

Regarding PSU: Don't worry, the 3xxx-generation of nvidias are rumored to use more than 300W but this is still way inside the possibilities of your PSU. Although the cards are said to utilize a new power connector, I highly doubt that this will require a new PSU (there will be adapter cables) as rendering gamers' holy PSUs unusable for their new cards would be a stupid business decision.

 

[AmazingReflex]

I believe the 11th gen Intel CPU's will also be compatible with Z490 boards so you could always upgrade the CPU later (rare thing for Intel and not sure how much practical gain in performance, you might get eg 15%?).

I also think the 11th gen CPU's will support PCI gen4.0 on the Z490 boards and will enable PCI gen4.0 on the first M.2 slot if you put in an 11th Gen Intel CPU (10th gen CPU's don't support PCI gen4.0). I believe the first M.2 slot will be covered up on Z490 boards as it is a PCI gen 4.0 slot for future use (check this as I am 90% sure).

I don't know if the Z490 boards will also support PCI gen4.0 on the GPU slot if you run an 11th gen CPU later. In any case, PCI gen4.0 won't give you any performance boost on GPU as PCI gen3 has loads of head room anyway. It will be a long time before gen3.0 is the bottleneck (probably Nvidia 50 series / 5 years from now?).

I'm in the same boat regarding GPU. I have a 9900k and have the money for a new GPU now around £500. I have been waiting for 3 months already to buy a new GPU and if I wait for 30 series I'm looking at end of year probably before available. I currently have an AMD RX580 which does amazingly well and only cost me £110 on ebay. I manage to get 1440p with medium on most settings so looks pretty decent ( I think the 9900k is helping things along, the GPU is always maxed at 100%). It's serviceable but I want all the bells and whistles on the graphics.

Good luck with your build. I would be surprised if any other CPU's came along in the next few years that would surpass what you are planning in regards to gaming.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

Why don't you go with the i7-10700K instead, it would in any case be a better choice than i9-9900K as it's using the newer socket and has the same number of cores. If you strictly want to game, even a highly clocked 4 core eight thread CPU will do, but obviously 6C12T gives some future proofing and everything above that is just extra. 10C20T CPU's would only give benefits in non-gaming tasks.

 

[AmazingReflex]

10700k is 8 core 16 thread I think. Basically a re-packaged 9900k. The 10900k is 10 core 20 thread.

The future has to be more games making more use of multi thread. Keep chasing the highest clock speed is diminishing return.

I think if you are building a new PC today the minimum should be 8C16T. Look at the new consoles, they will have 8C16T with no overblown OS to worry about. To compete as a PC it would need to have more cores than a console so a 10900k that is able to achieve 5Ghz on all 10 cores has to be taken seriously as a choice.

 

[AmazingReflex]

I suspect in a year or so we will see new consumer desktop CPU's going up to 16C32T and beyond. We already have it with AMD Ryzen 3950X at 16C/32T but it's clock is not that high on all cores and it's a Ryzen so a bit fussy with RAM, also expensive.

 

[John-Eric Saxén]

More threads was the argument for buying AMD FX CPU's, yet 10 years later here we are and the 4C/8T Ryzen 3 3300X is performing just as well in games as the Ryzens with more cores. Consoles will indeed have 8C16T, of which a couple will most likely be locked to console OS use just like with PS4 / Xbox One, so with a 8C16T CPU you are just as well off as with the next gen console CPU's. Actually better, since consoles CPU's are clocked to lower frequencies (around 3.5 Ghz), so a 4.5 GHz Intel will be ahead in gaming compared to Zen 2 architecture used in consoles.

 

[Rainman2020]

I watched a number of videos last night putting up FPS in many different games, etc in side by side comparison of the i9-9900k, i7-10700k and i9-10900k.

Yes, the i7-10700k is basically a i9-9900k but 10th generation, it has identical numbers of cores/threads to the i9-9900k and also needs the Z490 MB.

The comparison videos i watched showed that there is basically zero difference in frame rate between the 3 CPUs when playing games. At least, today's games that is, maybe future games would take advantage of more cores/threads like the 10th generation i9 has?

I frankly doubt i will ever make use of the Z490 MB features, given that i will likely not upgrade my CPU for 5 years or so, and by then 11th gen CPUs will be long gone, as will PCIe4.0, so i am not seeing any reason to go to a Z490.

Given that i don't care about the ability to upgrade to a 11th gen CPU or care about PCIe4.0 much, and that the frame rates are essentially identical in games between the 3 CPUs above, it makes sense to just get the least expensive combo CPU/MB of the above, and that is probably the i9-9900k running on a Z390 MB.

So, given how much i am spending on all the sim racing gear, VR headset, etc all at once, i think i am going to save the extra $$$ and just get an i9-9900k/Z390

I don't think that those extra cores/threads on the i9-10900k (10/20 vs 8/16) will really ever make a difference with me.

Note that i don't do any intensive graphic art rendering programs or anything like that, just play games and do basic home todo tasks like banking, surfing, etc.

I DO want the best CPU/MB/GPU combo though for getting high frame rates on sim racing games and also in VR on the Valve Index (want 120fps whenever i can when running VR). So, don't want to skimp on the CPU if it would help, but thinking that i am really not gaining much of anything spending the extra $120 to jump from the i9-9900k to the i9-10900k.

Am i missing something in my analysis?

Realize that until yesterday, i didn't even know of the i7-10700k, so i just know enough to be dangerous

Randy

 

[Rainman2020]

Why don't you go with the i7-10700K instead, it would in any case be a better choice than i9-9900K as it's using the newer socket and has the same number of cores. If you strictly want to game, even a highly clocked 4 core eight thread CPU will do, but obviously 6C12T gives some future proofing and everything above that is just extra. 10C20T CPU's would only give benefits in non-gaming tasks.

Yes, i don't think i would ever make use of the i9-10900k's extra cores and threads, since they don't seem to matter at all in today's games and i don't do intensive graphic work or something like that that would make use of them. Maybe games 3 years from now would make use of the 10C20T of the i9-10900k. Again, worth the extra $120 or so to go to the i9-10900k over the i9-9900k...i kinda doubt it.

Plus it runs a tad hotter and consumes more power, although i don't think that really affects me at all.

Hmmm, still not sure which direction to go here.

 

[Fennario]

After many years and lots of burnt fingers, I purchase top spec of what can be reasonably utilized - never in anticipation of future functionality. Far too often the future functionality is wasted $$$ and never gets properly utilized, cheaper/better options appear, etc. Other strategy is to drop the budget and shorten the purchase cycle accordingly (eg. ½ the $, but upgrade every 2 yrs vs. 4). Given the total lack of PCIE4.0 support, suggest going for the Z390 and putting the money in an upgrade fund.

 

[fwyflyer]

Just make sure you have good cpu cooling so that you can OC. I have my i9-9900k OC'd on all cores to 4.8ghz. Would have gone higher but ambient temperature is usually 80 plus. Regardless, OCing the cpu from 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz can make a very large difference in frame rate in games like Forza Horizon 4 as well as VR applications like ACC, etc. For the record, I didn't really expect the frame rate jump since I was already running a 2080ti (which I haven't OC'd)...

 

[Rainman2020]

Just make sure you have good cpu cooling so that you can OC. I have my i9-9900k OC'd on all cores to 4.8ghz. Would have gone higher but ambient temperature is usually 80 plus. Regardless, OCing the cpu from 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz can make a very large difference in frame rate in games like Forza Horizon 4 as well as VR applications like ACC, etc. For the record, I didn't really expect the frame rate jump since I was already running a 2080ti (which I haven't OC'd)...

May make the best sense to get the i9-9900k and OC it as you said (which is $50 extra for the PC builder i am using to do), rather than getting a i9-10900k and not OC'ing it. What do you think? I find i am wanting to save the money and get the i9-9900k, and OC'ing it would make it better than getting the i9-10900k and not OC'ing it i would think, right?

Plus, the i9-10900k i read numerous times yesterday runs very hot when OC'ed. Haven't read that about the i9-9900k.

 

[GagarynGaribaldi]

Just make sure you have good cpu cooling so that you can OC. I have my i9-9900k OC'd on all cores to 4.8ghz. Would have gone higher but ambient temperature is usually 80 plus. Regardless, OCing the cpu from 3.6ghz to 4.8ghz can make a very large difference in frame rate in games like Forza Horizon 4 as well as VR applications like ACC, etc. For the record, I didn't really expect the frame rate jump since I was already running a 2080ti (which I haven't OC'd)...

You really should OC your 2080ti - using afterburner to set a OC curve automatically is the easiest way. Mine is air-cooled (FE) and in games it now runs between 2010 - 2025 Mhz which is a decent boost for almost zero effort. It's stable at this speed - I'm power limited and not temp limited. You should also be able to boost VRAM speed by 1000 Mhz without any issues.

 

[Rainman2020]

You really should OC your 2080ti - using afterburner to set a OC curve automatically is the easiest way. Mine is air-cooled (FE) and in games it now runs between 2010 - 2025 Mhz which is a decent boost for almost zero effort. It's stable at this speed - I'm power limited and not temp limited. You should also be able to boost VRAM speed by 1000 Mhz without any issues.

I am getting a 2080 Super, not a 2080ti. I am planning on selling the 2080S and getting whatever new 3000 series Nvidia card is the best bang for the buck when all that sorts out during the next year, so might not makes sense to spend money OC'ing the 2080S when i am planning on using it for less than a year most likely.

 

[Rainman2020]

This video shows that OC'ing a i9-9900k has basically no effect on gaming performance/FPS. Runs hotter without any benefits as to games. Hmmm. Is that correct? I would think that OC'ing the i9-10900k would have the same result and then a cause a really hot running CPU.

 

[Deleted member 197115]

When you become CPU bound, which is a very real scenario with single rendering thread sims and esp. in VR, every single bit of extra clock counts
You need to pay $50 to OC? Just learn some basics and do it yourself.

 

[RasmusP]

I'll just drop this in here:
ACC, everything on maximum but 1280x720 with resolution scale at 50% to keep my gtx 1070 from becoming the bottleneck.
A lot of AI's, starting towards the back.

My long post at the acc forums:
https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/...pu-benchmark-thread.53720/page-9#post-1142430

And a brilliant thread by Dan who could test with more than 6 cores on his 9900k:

Test: CPU Core count and RAM scaling in ACC, AC1 and R3E

Hello guys Couldn't find decent data so I did these tests myself during the holidays. Max settings @ 720P (Max distances, Max shadows, Max mirrors etc) to push for the max cpu drawcalls. Heavy duty multiplayer race replays were used, with 20~30 cars. 1 entire lap per test. With the camera set...

www.racedepartment.com

In the end I'd say getting a 9600k(f) or a 9700k(f), overclock it to the absolute maximum and then sell it and get a ryzen 4700x or 11600k in the future will give you the budget to upgrade to the future cpu's while giving you very close to the maximum VR fps right now.

I don't believe in "future proofing" right now. 7 nanometers are coming, IPC boosts with it.
And it will probably take another 10 years for simracing titled using more than 4 cores...

Only reason to buy a 9900k or 10900k would be the binning. My 10600k won't run more than 5.1 GHz, while probably any 10900k will run 5.3 GHz on all cores.

About chasing the highest clocks:
Very well worth it if you're right at the edge of for example the "magic 90 fps". Dropping to 89 and you'll get interpolation kicking in. So even 2-3 fps can make a difference.

Gpu however.. Just sell your current one and throw a better one in if you need it. Or lower graphic settings.

Building a new cpu+mobo+ram combo and overclocking it + new windows install is what's a pain in the a**.

Anyway, imo no reason to get more than 6 cores that will simply do nothing. Same for z490. Nothing to gain there apart from "maybe pci-e 4.0 and next gen cpu support in the future but probably not, because Intel".

Also nothing to gain from going future proof for multi core usage of future games.
For vr you'll need a new cpu generation anyway to get the single thread performance.
Or should I say "2-4 thread performance".

BTW, I bought a 10600k and you know what? I disabled hyperthreading to get 5.1 GHz stable instead of 4.8 GHz.
I gain more from 300 MHz than from getting 6 virtual cores.

Fun fact:
- Adobe lightroom: single thread
- Sony Vegas: gpu accelerated via nvenc and ht on/off don't even give me a second of lower rendering times over 5 minutes
- cubase audio mixdown: no difference ht on/off either

And in all simracing titles, the 300 MHz are better.

Could've saved 70€ on the mobo (Gigabyte Gaming X, z390 vs z490) and 80€ on the cpu.

But I wanted to have the new stuff and not the same 9600k a friend has since over a year...

 

[RobertR1]

@RasmusP his mem timings and speeds are pretty terrible and holding back his system notably. He'd pick up another 10% easily with bdie maxed out with the 9900k

5ghz on a 9900k is "ok" at best

 

[RasmusP]

@RasmusP his mem timings and speeds are pretty terrible and holding back his system notably. He'd pick up another 10% easily with bdie maxed out with the 9900k

5ghz on a 9900k is "ok" at best

Guess that's true! Although it shouldn't change the core scaling as far as my knowledge goes?

 

[RobertR1]

Guess that's true! Although it shouldn't change the core scaling as far as my knowledge goes?

Not core scaling but we know already the sims are frequency and mem performance hungry from @Dan Costa 's great work.