Anyone still rocking a OC'd 3930k with a new rtx series? I was thinking of pairing a ryzen or threadripper with the 2080 ti, but single core performance at 4.6 to 4.8 still seems better on the 3930k and no games that I play are using all 6 cores yet. 4k gaming always seems to be limited by the video card anyway. Also, bios mod allowed for booting off a pcie m2, and ddr3 is cheap so upgraded to 64gb. Maybe 7nm or 14++++++++ will make it worthwhile next year?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
3930k + 2080 ti
- Thread starter mikeo
- Start date
IdiotInCharge
NVIDIA SHILL
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2003
- Messages
- 14,675
You got six real cores (no 'Dozers
) at 4.5GHz+?I say roll with it till it melts through the socket!
No way 3930k has faster single than 2950x. I had a 3930k and ha e a 2950x the AMD is hitting 185 ish single 3930k was like 140 or something if I remember. Plus the days of single thread dominance in software is becoming relic.
I do miss my 208 cinebech single threaded 7820x chip but I can't tell a damn difference between beast mode 2950x and that 7820x in gaming. Not an ounce.
I am not biased either I own Intel and AMD chips. Each have their merits and flaws.
But yeah a 3930k has the oomph to push a 2080ti. Possibly to around 80 to 85 % GPU usage and then it might fizzle out after that. Just a logical guess nothing more.
Just tested the newest cinebench (been a long time since i've run that) 1242 cpu multi and 164 single core. Ran it at 4.8ghz since I lost my bios settings for 5ghz when I did the m2 bios boot mod, but I remember superpi 1m at 5ghz was 7.546s (7.920s at the current 4.8ghz) and the few reviews of the ryzen that ran that were more in the 8.5 to 10s range. Looks like the lack of ht on the i5 8600k means at stock or oc'd it still gets beat by a 3930k oc'd in cinebench multi lol.
465 seconds for superpi mod 1.5 32m, 2950x is listed at 581 seconds, maybe the memory plays a bigger role in that benchmark.
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8706/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx-2950x-review/index5.html
https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8706/amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx-2950x-review/index5.html
FlawleZ
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2010
- Messages
- 1,691
Still using a 3970X @ 4.4Ghz and a Vega 64. If your running 4K you have nothing to worry about.
marshac
American Hero
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2003
- Messages
- 2,551
I’m still running an OC 3930k at 4.6GHz... still haven’t seen a reason to upgrade, but I only have a 1080, not the new hotness...yet...
meh if you have it works fine then rock it ...
I was very hesitant to get rid of my 3930k but many cpus later after that I settled (for now) on the 2950x.... amazing processor across the board.
Sorry to necro this thread but I too have a 3939k I’m at 4.2 (summer) and have a question if you have a minute.
Currently rocking a 3930k and a 980ti and want an upgrade. My monitor is a Acer 1440p 144-165 Gsync. Do you have any experience at this resolution and speeds (120 is fine I’d like to see what faster looks like though) with the 3930k and the 2080 TI.
I’m not sure if I should do the 2080ti with this system or drop it to a 2080 and do a new board, new cpu, ram, and eventually take advantage of the on board ssd. To get my best bang for the buck. I feel like just a 2080 or even a 1080ti might even get that 120hrz fine but I’m also super concerned with frame time with that type of set up. Stutter is a big concern for me.
Sorry for the long post and appreciate any opinions on the subject, and I didn’t mean to necro or hijack just thought this would be a better place to ask then start a new post.
Thanks
You could do what I did and drop the card in your existing system while waiting for something worthwhile to upgrade to. Ebay xeon 1680v2 is another upgrade option, 8 cores and they oc well.
Ha, just watched part 2, the 1680v2 OCd had less input lag than the ryzen lol.
On a side note since the previous posts I dropped a 2697v2 12 core in my x79 with a 113 bclk oc (they are multi locked). At 4k they are all the same for gaming.
Ha, just watched part 2, the 1680v2 OCd had less input lag than the ryzen lol.
On a side note since the previous posts I dropped a 2697v2 12 core in my x79 with a 113 bclk oc (they are multi locked). At 4k they are all the same for gaming.
Last edited:
Thank you so much that was almost every question I had. I really respect that dude, not sure how I missed that series.
Edit:
I m now hunting fir a 1680v2/2697v2 their the same price
Edit#2
Does that put your ram at 1808mhz? I already have 1866 cl1 4x8 sticks? My only other question was “could I use my OCed ram on a Xeon”....what does that put you 2697 @
Last edited:
I'd go with the 1680v2 for gaming as its multi unlocked and will have much better single threaded performance. I went with the 2697v2 since I do a lot of video editing too and 4k gaming where single threaded performance doesn't matter as much so figured may as well have more cores. Also plan on moving this to my server with ECC (it is currently on a much older quad core xeon) once I upgrade my desktop to the next threadripper. When I move it to a server i'll probably get rid of the OC, they run really cool at stock, also with BCLK overclocking some people only get a few mhz, as BCLK's that aren't 100 can cause issues with video cards, nvme drives, etc... I haven't seen any problems yet but it is a known issue with overclocking that way.
Attachments
Mchart
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 6,552
I had an overclocked 5820k system with a 2080ti.
I upgraded to a 2700x build and it was faster in almost every game I had, and generally just felt smoother.
Now i'm on a 3800x and it's even faster.
There is no way your 3930k is good enough to be paired with a 2080ti and this point, it's ancient. The 5820k was barely enough..
somebrains
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Messages
- 1,668
I use a 271hu with a 1080ti.
Have used a 7820x and 2600, both oc'd.
If the game behaves then I'm at the 160fps limit, some games it'll still overshoot a little so I should back to 158fps.
My take, I can set full speed oc's that won't survive benchmarking but HWmonitor tells me that 8hr gaming sessions are really less than 50% use across cores.
I use low quality settings, bc I really don't enjoy frame drops down to 60-80fps bc of aesthetic environment complexity in a map. Last BO4 update there are fog and static background sections that eat 100fps.
As far as one brand vs another, as long as the cpu is more recent than x99 it should feel fine.
The guys I've watched stringing together 18+ kills were having a lucky moment with noobs, or cheating. A couple guys are making a ton of $ streaming bc they are savants.
They weren't running better gear than you.
Have used a 7820x and 2600, both oc'd.
If the game behaves then I'm at the 160fps limit, some games it'll still overshoot a little so I should back to 158fps.
My take, I can set full speed oc's that won't survive benchmarking but HWmonitor tells me that 8hr gaming sessions are really less than 50% use across cores.
I use low quality settings, bc I really don't enjoy frame drops down to 60-80fps bc of aesthetic environment complexity in a map. Last BO4 update there are fog and static background sections that eat 100fps.
As far as one brand vs another, as long as the cpu is more recent than x99 it should feel fine.
The guys I've watched stringing together 18+ kills were having a lucky moment with noobs, or cheating. A couple guys are making a ton of $ streaming bc they are savants.
They weren't running better gear than you.
Last edited:
It might be noticable if you're on a low resolution 240hz display, but at 4k60 there is no difference, games don't even use all 6 cores yet.
Also for BO4 the last time I played it, it was super smooth multiplayer at 1080p120 on an lg oled.
While you are primarily GPU bound, CPU is very important in higher resolution gaming. I tested Destiny 2 for my Ryzen 9 3900X review and of course, I couldn't make it work on the Ryzen 3000 series so I dropped that content. However, I did the tests on my Threadripper 2920X and the 9900K. Here is the data from those two:
-----------------------------------------Intel
Intel Core i9 9900K @ Stock
Min Max Avg
54.2 121.7 74.8
Intel Core i9 9900K @ 5.0GHz (All core)
Min Max Avg
56.7 129.7 81.7
-----------------------------------------AMD
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 2920X @ PBO
Min Max Avg
36.4 113.1 79.4
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2 2920X @ 4.3GHz Manual (All core)
Min Max Avg
26.3 138.8 79.9
As you can see, the Core i9 9900K had higher minimum frame rates and a higher average. The Threadripper actually pulled a higher maximum frame rate, This was at 4K, maximum settings, V-Sync off, etc. Granted, the minimums you see on the Threadripper system weren't something you would necessarily feel in the game or even see that much. Those dips are very rare and occurred for something like 3 frames. On that same display with V-Sync on, the Intel never dropped below 60FPS no matter what your doing. The Threadripper system actually drops into the upper mid-40's quite often when things get crazy. So your CPU does matter. Threadripper is literally the worse case for AMD due to its CCX layout and the number of CCX complexes. A Ryzen 7 2700X out performs the Threadripper 2920X at every turn in gaming, but their performance isn't massively far apart either. In most of my tests, those two weren't all that different.
Ryzen 3000 closes the gap quite a bit, but don't kid yourself, Intel is still king at gaming. Whether or not the hit you take is acceptable to you is a personal choice. Usually its small, but there are some cases where the hit is still over 10%. If your at 4K @ 60Hz, that's noticeable. If your at 144Hz and your actual FPS is greater than that, you won't ever see it. Especially if you are using some form of variable refresh rate technology.
DJ Lushious
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Messages
- 113
This is the hottest of hot take. I have an i7-3930k and a 2070 Super overclocked to 2080. Running 3D Mark benchmark Time Spy
Darkswordz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 782
