Can anybody get me up to speed on the state of the CPU game right now?

tno

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
109
This will be long, and I'm sorry, but I have been spending a lot of time similarly catching up, and two things really hit me. 1) I, like a lot of people based on sigs, built a Haswell rig I was happy with and have remained happy with. 2) The number of fumbles that put Intel where it is today is really staggering and totally unexpected given where we all thought we'd be.

To me, one of the hard turns that made all those LGA1150 chips a dead-end for many is that changing meant moving to an incompatible socket and also to new RAM, RAM which at the time was crazy expensive. I know when I built my rig, DDR4 was just on the horizon, and looked pointless and pricey. I've never been one to upgrade to new rigs often, but I was used to slowly creeping up the ladder when the time struck. And from a processor and Mobo standpoint I just haven't needed to, I've upgraded RAM and video but haven't even thought about the rest, until now.

And after looking things over, I'm much more interested in replacing my mobo and upgrading my CPU . . . to something higher up the Haswell chain.

That said, my AMD RX 470 is definitely holding me back, even on the older games I have time to bother playing.
 

LGabrielPhoto

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,196
That’s a bit disingenuous. TR is more expensive, but is meant for a completely different use case.

The cheaper 3900X is better than the 9900k at most everything that higher price isn’t really justified by the better gaming performance.
Lol the 9900k is still King for games specially if you are doing competitive gaming going for 240hz plus fps. Arguing that is just silly
Apps like Photoshop are all about speed and once again, the 9900k kills the 3900.
And Premiere when using the built in igpu destroys the 3900 and 3950 as well but of course AMD fanboys like to ignore facts
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,154
If the 4770k is still doing all right then the 9700k could be fine with a 4080 or 4080 Ti?
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Yes, this was posted in Intel sub forum, but seeing as there isn't much news for Intel recently people like to peruse both. As already mentioned, a lot of enthusiasts (but not all obviously) have moved to AMD or are looking to move to AMD due to the price/performance and how long the platform was supported. They have had AM4 for 3 years and their next CPU coming out at the end of this year will also be supported, so about 4+ years out of a platform isn't bad! Intel platforms have been good for 1-2 years and hasn't really been doing a lot of innovating. Add to that they are burning more and more power compared to AMD and there are less reasons to stay blue than there used to be. All that said, Intel still isn't a crap choice by any stretch, their mid range is pretty good and if you do competitive gaming (which it didn't sound like you did) they have a slight lead. If you do much else (best to find applications you actually use/want to use and find benchmarks) AMD is typically faster and gets it done with less power to boot. Hard to really give you some advice without knowing what you're plan is (how much budget, what you want to use it for, etc) but if you some more specific questions, just ask.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Shaolin95 , benchmarks?
Doubt he'll post them, it won't prove his point!!! https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/a...adripper-2-Intel-9th-Gen-Intel-X-series-1529/
"With current MSRP pricing, the AMD Ryzen 7 3800X is $100 cheaper than the Intel Core i9 9900K, yet performs almost exactly the same." If you check the benchmarks, the 3800x is actually slightly above the 9900k... which leaves the 3900x which is above both.
Also, i'm not sure what he's getting on about the iGPU... nobody buys a 3900x or 3950x and doesn't put in a graphics card and then tries to run Premiere. It just doesn't make any sense. And comparing a single manufacturers product to prove a point is... well, pointless really. Everyone knows how to find benchmarks online from reputable places. Find the apps you actually use and find what gives you the best bang for the buck for your use case. Don't take Shaolin95's word, don't take my word, find what you use and want and go from there.

https://helpdeskgeek.com/reviews/ryzen-3900x-vs-intel-i9-9900k-which-cpu-is-truly-better/
"Puget Systems’ tests have shown the AMD 3900X beats all other chipsets in Photoshop, and the 3900X beats the 9900K in Premiere Pro performance. "
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
Shaolin95 is way out of date. Premiere now uses GPUs as well and even though they are Intel booth buddies intel now gets steamrolled in it.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Shaolin95 is way out of date. Premiere now uses GPUs as well and even though they are Intel booth buddies intel now gets steamrolled in it.
He's still hanging onto it, lol. Like I said, trust benchmarks in applications you plan to use. And find them from multiple sources. Might just realize something you thought was true isn't, or may find a specific piece of software you rely on really does better one one manufacturers hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
Lol the 9900k is still King for games specially if you are doing competitive gaming going for 240hz plus fps. Arguing that is just silly
Apps like Photoshop are all about speed and once again, the 9900k kills the 3900.
And Premiere when using the built in igpu destroys the 3900 and 3950 as well but of course AMD fanboys like to ignore facts

The ONLY reason for that is two things:

1) That Intel CPU can sustain significantly higher clock speeds than any AMD CPU at the moment. And then, it needs both the iGPU and the discrete GPU enabled at the same time just to edge out even the R7 3800X. At default (with only the discrete GPU enabled but the iGPU disabled), the default Turbo'd i9-9900K actually falls behind a stock R7 3800X. And without a discrete GPU (meaning with only an iGPU), the i9-9900K really chokes out, falling behind some older dual-core CPUs (with discrete GPUs).

And I had submitted my results with a beta version of Premiere Pro with NVENC enabled, and in comparison my R7 3800X at default Turbo clocks and only an RTX 2060 SUPER barely falls behind an overclocked to 5.0 GHz on all cores i9-9900K with an RTX 2070 SUPER in overall performance in Premiere Pro.

Thus, if anything, you are a complete Intel fanboy. (And note that I only speak for video editing. I do not currently game at this present time.)
 

LGabrielPhoto

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,196
The ONLY reason for that is two things:

1) That Intel CPU can sustain significantly higher clock speeds than any AMD CPU at the moment. And then, it needs both the iGPU and the discrete GPU enabled at the same time just to edge out even the R7 3800X. At default (with only the discrete GPU enabled but the iGPU disabled), the default Turbo'd i9-9900K actually falls behind a stock R7 3800X. And without a discrete GPU (meaning with only an iGPU), the i9-9900K really chokes out, falling behind some older dual-core CPUs (with discrete GPUs).

And I had submitted my results with a beta version of Premiere Pro with NVENC enabled, and in comparison my R7 3800X at default Turbo clocks and only an RTX 2060 SUPER barely falls behind an overclocked to 5.0 GHz on all cores i9-9900K with an RTX 2070 SUPER in overall performanc

Thus, if anything, you are a complete Intel fanboy. (And note that I only speak for video editing. I do not currently game at this present time.)
Hahaha cry all you want and make up all the nonsense stories you like, does not change the fact that the 9900k outclasses current AMD offerings for gaming and certain apps. It is a FACT..but of course, you AMD fanboys have never been able to deal with facts.
Welcome to my ignore list
 

Falkentyne

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 19, 2000
Messages
1,838
Yet another thread is going to get closed with all the flaming. Why do you guys hate each other so much? Don't you realize there are more important things going on this world--like where you're going to buy TOILET PAPER and MEAT ?
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
Hahaha cry all you want and make up all the nonsense stories you like, does not change the fact that the 9900k outclasses current AMD offerings for gaming and certain apps. It is a FACT..but of course, you AMD fanboys have never been able to deal with facts.
Welcome to my ignore list
It is true that most of AMD's low-end offerings pale in comparison to some of the Intel offerings in the same price range. For example, even the Ryzen 3 3xxx series can't quite keep up with a contemporaneous Intel i3.

And actually, it's different horses for different courses. You're right, you can't compare the two directly when you're comparing completely different architectures. Nowadays, it's no longer about the clock speed alone. Different programs have different optimizations.

And I am trying to point out that the i9-9900K is not a bad processor per se. In fact it is a good performer on its own. The trouble is that it is still too expensive for what it is at this present time.

And what was Intel thinking when even its 12-core HEDT CPU can't keep up with even an R9 3900X? In fact, with Intel's HEDT lineup you'd have to go all the way to the top-of-the-line i9-10980XE just to edge out the R9 3900X in overall performance. (Just like its i9-10920X barely edges out its own i9-9900K overall.)

By the way, for the longest time I had been an Intel user, on and off, since the days of the Intel Pentium in the Windows 95 days. And at least since the Core 2 Duo days I had been exclusively Intel, in large part due to the lack of a compelling CPU offering from AMD during that period. But when it came time to choose my current 8-core CPU-based upgrade a few months ago (I had been effectively shackled to a quad-core CPU due to the lack of funds), for my budget I had to choose between an 8-core Intel CPU without Hyperthreading (8 threads total, as in the i7-9700K) and an 8-core/16-thread AMD CPU (as the i9-9900K was simply too expensive for my $300-ish CPU budget, not counting the other required components).

In other words, I am not a fanboy in the strictest sense. I am actually in the same boat as Dan D. But after just a few posts that invoke accusations of fanboyism, I now no longer wish to take part in any discussions (threads) that are filled with fanboys from both sides.

EDIT: After I saw more results, it is now true for ANY CPU platform - Intel or AMD. If you're not gaming, don't go cheap on the CPU and then overspend on the GPU to compensate for the CPU performance deficit. That will put the total system budget to well above that of the more expensive CPU but somewhat lesser GPU that delivers equal or better overall performance. In other words, an i9-9900K plus an RTX 2070 SUPER is a much better buy than an R5 3600 plus an RTX 2080 Ti that still underperforms the 9900K/2070 SUPER combo in everything but gaming graphics.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
idk man, mostly because to a lot of people, Intel has that brand superiority feel goin' on... it just feels good to buy intel chips, lot's of people buy things for that reason alone... but I guess AMD is the way to go in the current market.

Arguably a more stable platform from the Intel side - rare to run into driver bugs or issues. I'm about to replace my workstation with Intel (probably a 9900K) from Ryzen - just bloody tired of the constant crashes that I can't seem to fix, and the fixing required to get it to work out of the box. AMD makes good hardware; less so on the software. Been all AMD from a core count perspective for 10 years on workstations, and this was the last straw - I'm tired of fucking with it.
 

Jamie Marsala

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
316
Arguably a more stable platform from the Intel side - rare to run into driver bugs or issues. I'm about to replace my workstation with Intel (probably a 9900K) from Ryzen - just bloody tired of the constant crashes that I can't seem to fix, and the fixing required to get it to work out of the box. AMD makes good hardware; less so on the software. Been all AMD from a core count perspective for 10 years on workstations, and this was the last straw - I'm tired of fucking with it.

Sorry to hear you had issues. Personally I have had my 3900x running since August and have had zero issues with Drivers or anything else. I do run a NVidia card though. Did you have an AMD Graphics card?
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
If you are ONLY gaming, the 9900k is the way to go. And that is due to the clock speed advantage while having comparable IPC and better latency. Even here you are looking at a 0-10% difference in performance, with 5% being the average source: https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

Keep in mind that the difference in performance is with a 2080ti at 1080p, so anything less than a 2080ti will show an even smaller difference in performance. The difference will disappear at 1440p or a lower-end graphics card.

If you are doing gaming and ANY other sort of use case, I would recommend ryzen. At the same price points you are getting more threads/cores and as a result better multitasking/multithreaded performance.

When Ryzen first launched there were some teething difficulties but currently ryzen is a VERY stout platform and I would say is on par with Intel in terms of platform difficulties. All rumors are pointing at ryzen 4000 series being compatible with AM4 so you're likely going to be able to upgrade without changing motherboard.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
Sorry to hear you had issues. Personally I have had my 3900x running since August and have had zero issues with Drivers or anything else. I do run a NVidia card though. Did you have an AMD Graphics card?

Yes. RX580, which may be the issue- have a replacement coming, but if that doesn’t solve it I’m replacing it all. Everything else I have used Nvidia; I try to keep at least one from the other side around.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
Yes. RX580, which may be the issue- have a replacement coming, but if that doesn’t solve it I’m replacing it all. Everything else I have used Nvidia; I try to keep at least one from the other side around.
In other words, there are too many variables here. My current 3800X system works absolutely fine with the RTX 2060 SUPER, other than the occasional boot issues related to the motherboard's EFI which are solved by simply hitting the case's Reset button one or more times.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
In other words, there are too many variables here. My current 3800X system works absolutely fine with the RTX 2060 SUPER, other than the occasional boot issues related to the motherboard's EFI which are solved by simply hitting the case's Reset button one or more times.

I wouldn't call that "absolutely fine" - that'd get the system chucked out of my house. :p I used to deal with that kind of problem - now I just RMA the kit and try again.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
Yes. RX580, which may be the issue- have a replacement coming, but if that doesn’t solve it I’m replacing it all. Everything else I have used Nvidia; I try to keep at least one from the other side around.
Is it x370 and Zen?
Memory config is primary place to look if so.
I had a Zen+ rig on B450 and it was rock solid, even running out of spec ram (3600 at 3200). I even got it working on Win7 contrary to the cries of 'there is no support'.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
Is it x370 and Zen?
Memory config is primary place to look if so.
I had a Zen+ rig on B450 and it was rock solid, even running out of spec ram (3600 at 3200). I even got it working on Win7 contrary to the cries of 'there is no support'.
Yeppers. Main thing that is convincing me to switch. Tracking down a stable 32G kit for Zen1 is a royal pain, and the memory also isn’t compatible with zen2... so that means a fix is a full replacement. And I could use that memory kit with Intel. I don’t like playing compatibility list bingo.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
I wouldn't call that "absolutely fine" - that'd get the system chucked out of my house. :p I used to deal with that kind of problem - now I just RMA the kit and try again.
I would rather deal with it than put up with an outdated system that wouldn't properly run any newer versions of the software that I frequently use (meaning that the last compatible version that ran on that older system had a ton of security holes - most of which cropped up after that particular version had already been EOL'd - that will forever remain permanently unpatched). In fact, I had already chucked that older platform out of my house. And with the COVID-19 pandemic really affecting my purchase and return abilities, it is very unfeasible for me to send out, return or exchange anything at the moment.

And when I made that decision to upgrade back in December, my Intel choice would have been a 6-core/6-thread i5 CPU that would not have been a sufficient enough upgrade from what I had back then to justify the total cost of the platform upgrade, which was between $500 and $600 at the time (including motherboard and RAM). An Intel platform upgrade to one with an 8-core CPU but only 8 threads would have put that upgrade at the very edge of my maximum total upgrade budget at the time. And of course, the Intel CPU that I deemed to be the most worthwhile Intel CPU upgrade at the time (or put it this way, the one that I considered the most worthwhile upgrade coming from a 4th-Generation Intel quad-core CPU), the i9-9900K, already cost $500 by itself, with a motherboard and RAM upgrade adding another $350 to that cost. Way over my limit at the time. And this comes from a guy who simply cannot afford spending for an entire platform upgrade plus an upgraded GPU all at once (and therefore had to make do with piecemeal upgrades).

By the way, my old Intel system also had similar boot issues to my current AMD system.
 
Last edited:

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
I would rather deal with it than put up with an outdated system that wouldn't properly run any newer versions of the software that I frequently use (meaning that the last compatible version that ran on that older system had a ton of security holes that will forever remain permanently unpatched). In fact, I had already chucked that older platform out of my house. And with the COVID-19 pandemic really affecting my purchase and return abilities, it is very unfeasible for me to send out, return or exchange anything at the moment.

This is a 100% valid point. I'd put up with a lot to run valid versions of hte software, and you're right - RMAs are a right proper pain in the ass right now. One of the reasons I'm being very hesitant on actually making changes- I can farm out ~some~ of what I do to VMs running on servers, which (while slow) at least works. But if I buy something and it doesn't work, or if bad things happen to the job landscape... yeah.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
Yeppers. Main thing that is convincing me to switch. Tracking down a stable 32G kit for Zen1 is a royal pain, and the memory also isn’t compatible with zen2... so that means a fix is a full replacement. And I could use that memory kit with Intel. I don’t like playing compatibility list bingo.
I guess you've played around with timings, ram calculator, etc etc to try solve it? Maybe RMA the CPU there was an issue with segfaults or something.. could be worth a shot.
Zen2 memory compatibility is basically not a thing any more, the IMC is now better than Intel. So I wouldn't be worried about compatibility - of course do your research but it should be fine, even zen+ was painless for a massive majority of users.
I would buy a cheap zen+ or cheap zen2 cpu (good excuse - 3600x perhaps) and upgrade the bios with your old cpu, then swap them over. Then go ram hunting but I think you'll find your stability issues are solved and it'll cost much less than swapping the whole platform.
I had plenty of kits of ripjaws 3600 and trident 3200 which went to AMD users that wasn't specifically compatible (8gb sticks in 16gb pairs) and had zero returns or issues over 8 kits sold.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
I guess you've played around with timings, ram calculator, etc etc to try solve it? Maybe RMA the CPU there was an issue with segfaults or something.. could be worth a shot.
Zen2 memory compatibility is basically not a thing any more, the IMC is now better than Intel. So I wouldn't be worried about compatibility - of course do your research but it should be fine, even zen+ was painless for a massive majority of users.
I would buy a cheap zen+ or cheap zen2 cpu (good excuse - 3600x perhaps) and upgrade the bios with your old cpu, then swap them over. Then go ram hunting but I think you'll find your stability issues are solved and it'll cost much less than swapping the whole platform.
I had plenty of kits of ripjaws 3600 and trident 3200 which went to AMD users that wasn't specifically compatible (8gb sticks in 16gb pairs) and had zero returns or issues over 8 kits sold.
The only bios that supports zen 2 on my 370 is a beta one. And... it’s kinda crap.
 
Last edited:

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
Hahaha cry all you want and make up all the nonsense stories you like, does not change the fact that the 9900k outclasses current AMD offerings for gaming and certain apps. It is a FACT..but of course, you AMD fanboys have never been able to deal with facts.
Welcome to my ignore list
But not to those on a strict total core upgrade budget, which for me turned out to be around $1,000 including a motherboard, new RAM and a new GPU. With that low of a total upgrade budget, going with an i9-9900K would have forced me to cheap out on the rest of the core component upgrade package. And that would have potentially left me with a heavily or even severely bottlenecked PC. Worse, that strict budget had wedged me in between a rock and a hard place: None of the Intel CPU options in combos with a good-quality motherboard, sufficient RAM (I had 32 GB, which a video editing system really needs in order to perform at its best) and a performance-balanced, appropriate new-generation GPU offered enough of a performance improvement over whatever quad-core PC that I had at the time to justify spending that kind of money.

Of course, I wish I had $1500 to $2000 to update my entire PC's CPU platform. That would have given me a lot more upgrade options. And all I'm trying to point out is overspending on a CPU while cheaping out on all of the other core components is just plain pound-foolish.
 

N4CR

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,948
The only bios that supports zen 2 on my 370 is a beta one. And... it’s kinda crap.
Damn. What manufacturer?
AM4 Boards are apparently nearly unobtainium in USA now so good luck. Got any buddies/[H]'rs nearby you could do some testing with?
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
I guess you've played around with timings, ram calculator, etc etc to try solve it? Maybe RMA the CPU there was an issue with segfaults or something.. could be worth a shot.
Zen2 memory compatibility is basically not a thing any more, the IMC is now better than Intel. So I wouldn't be worried about compatibility - of course do your research but it should be fine, even zen+ was painless for a massive majority of users.
I would buy a cheap zen+ or cheap zen2 cpu (good excuse - 3600x perhaps) and upgrade the bios with your old cpu, then swap them over. Then go ram hunting but I think you'll find your stability issues are solved and it'll cost much less than swapping the whole platform.
I had plenty of kits of ripjaws 3600 and trident 3200 which went to AMD users that wasn't specifically compatible (8gb sticks in 16gb pairs) and had zero returns or issues over 8 kits sold.

Underclocked, overclocked, cranked the voltage, put cards in different slots, ran single stick / dual stick (I normally have 4 dimms - need 32G at least), put the system on its side, turned off integrated components, latest BIOS, beta BIOS, back to latest BIOS, DDU and fresh installs, disabled power management, disabled GPU power management, locked all fans to high and disabled smart fan, did all of the above at once, sacrificed a goat... stuff still crashes to desktop, and the radeon drivers throw whack errors.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,691
Damn. What manufacturer?
AM4 Boards are apparently nearly unobtainium in USA now so good luck. Got any buddies/[H]'rs nearby you could do some testing with?

MSI - x370 Gaming Pro Carbon. Last official BIOS - January 2019. Only had 5-6 total in the lifespan of the system. Beta Bios last ... July? August? Turns off most of the BIOS features to enable Zen 2 support. Like most of the fan management stuff; also ugly as hell, but that's a minor complaint if had helped.

It was actually less stable on the beta than the latest GA.

Oh, and no one near with AMD. Everyone else is running Intel; only other AMD system in the house is my old workstation, which is Bulldozer/Piledriver, and is my wife's gaming system.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
But not to those on a strict total core upgrade budget, which for me turned out to be around $1,000 including a motherboard, new RAM and a new GPU. With that low of a total upgrade budget, going with an i9-9900K would have forced me to cheap out on the rest of the core component upgrade package. And that would have potentially left me with a heavily or even severely bottlenecked PC. Worse, that strict budget had wedged me in between a rock and a hard place: None of the Intel CPU options in combos with a good-quality motherboard, sufficient RAM (I had 32 GB, which a video editing system really needs in order to perform at its best) and a performance-balanced, appropriate new-generation GPU offered enough of a performance improvement over whatever quad-core PC that I had at the time to justify spending that kind of money.

Of course, I wish I had $1500 to $2000 to update my entire PC's CPU platform. That would have given me a lot more upgrade options. And all I'm trying to point out is overspending on a CPU while cheaping out on all of the other core components is just plain pound-foolish.
Yeah, I use a low budget as well, so it's a compromise. I can't spend my entire budget on a blazing fast 9900K/10900K and then use an rx 560 as the GPU because I couldn't afford to upgrade. Balance is the key and in my price range, you get more from AMD in almost every case. Heck, I'm looking at the 3300x because you get 4/8 at a pretty good clock rate, would be an upgrade for my sons 6600k and outrun almost anything intel has to offer near the $120 price range. I can pick up a cheap AM4 board, slap it on and be done. If I went with the 9900k or 10900k because it runs games faster, well, that's useless because I won't have any budget left for anything else. For the same $500 I could buy just the CPU for, I can pick up a 3300x and cheap motherboard for $200 and still have $300 to spend on a GPU. For my box, I already have a B450, so it's really a no brainer to upgrade to a newer Ryzen. I don't game as much as my son, so I would be more likely to leave my GPU alone and just get a faster CPU which would do all the tasks I need (some video encoding, programming, etc) just fine. If I had an unlimited budget and a 2080ti and all I did was game.. sure I'd buy a 9900k or a 10900k, but for everyone else, not so much.
 

Endgame

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
866
To jump back to the game discussion and acceptable settings, it all depends on your monitor and target game. Let me tell you, I can play Baulder’s Gate enhanced Edition at max game settings on my sig’d a10-7870k OC using the integrated video. X-Com enemy unknown and even Battletech will even run near 60fps on 1080 tv. I certainly can’t play anything FPS and recent though with it.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
V
To jump back to the game discussion and acceptable settings, it all depends on your monitor and target game. Let me tell you, I can play Baulder’s Gate enhanced Edition at max game settings on my sig’d a10-7870k OC using the integrated video. X-Com enemy unknown and even Battletech will even run near 60fps on 1080 tv. I certainly can’t play anything FPS and recent though with it.
Very true, I always recommend finding benches for what you plan to use your computer for, regardless of any suggestions (mine included). If you don't game or very little, I gen a 2080ti may not be needed. Heck, Intel quicksync does pretty good at realtime transcoding...
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
V

Very true, I always recommend finding benches for what you plan to use your computer for, regardless of any suggestions (mine included). If you don't game or very little, I gen a 2080ti may not be needed. Heck, Intel quicksync does pretty good at realtime transcoding...
Even so, the discrete GPU should be (relatively speaking) balanced in performance in relation to the CPU that you're going to be using it with. After all, no one wants a PC that's equipped with a super-expensive monster CPU to perform equally as sluggishly in everyday programs as a bottom-of-the-barrel office PC that's equipped with an outdated or a substandard CPU (I'm talking about an i9-9900K-based PC build that performs equally as badly as a 10-year-old office PC that's only equipped with a dual-core Pentium CPU just because a GeForce 8400 GS was used as the primary GPU in that 9900K system). That's exactly what may happen if that otherwise high-end PC is equipped with a cheap and badly mismatched GPU.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
Even so, the discrete GPU should be (relatively speaking) balanced in performance in relation to the CPU that you're going to be using it with. After all, no one wants a PC that's equipped with a super-expensive monster CPU to perform equally as sluggishly in everyday programs as a bottom-of-the-barrel office PC that's equipped with an outdated or a substandard CPU (I'm talking about an i9-9900K-based PC build that performs equally as badly as a 10-year-old office PC that's only equipped with a dual-core Pentium CPU just because a GeForce 8400 GS was used as the primary GPU in that 9900K system). That's exactly what may happen if that otherwise high-end PC is equipped with a cheap and badly mismatched GPU.
That can happen, but if someone doesn't game or just leisure at low settings, but does need the CPU power to get work done then it can make sense to go with a lower end GPU, but more often than not you want to balance performance. I don't be pairing a Celeron with a 2080ti or anyrhijg, but for my (mostly) headless home server that needs to transcode once in a while, I could see myself running a 3800x with a 1050ti just to keep from eating CPU cycles.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
That can happen, but if someone doesn't game or just leisure at low settings, but does need the CPU power to get work done then it can make sense to go with a lower end GPU, but more often than not you want to balance performance. I don't be pairing a Celeron with a 2080ti or anyrhijg, but for my (mostly) headless home server that needs to transcode once in a while, I could see myself running a 3800x with a 1050ti just to keep from eating CPU cycles.
True. In fact, I did see a Premiere Pro benchmark that clearly showed how badly a cheapo CPU could bottleneck an overqualified GPU. I am speaking about an i3-9100F, which bottlenecked an RTX 2080 Ti so badly that its GPU rendering performance was no better than a higher-end system that's equipped with a lesser RTX 2060 SUPER - and of course, the bottlenecked GPU dragged down the live viewing and export scores even further than the merely underpowered CPU alone would have. What the heck? Even a 3.5-year-old i7-7700 mini-ITX system that I currently have on reserve duty, when paired with my RTX 2060 SUPER from my current 3800X main rig, would have soundly beaten that 9100F overall.

Oddly, an AMD Ryzen 3 3100, which sells for around the same price as that i3-9100F, didn't bottleneck the RTX 2080 Ti anywhere near as badly: Its GPU rendering performance is about equal to those of other middling-performing CPUs.
 
Last edited:

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,491
True. In fact, I did see a Premiere Pro benchmark that clearly showed how badly a cheapo CPU could bottleneck an overqualified GPU. I am speaking about an i3-9100F, which bottlenecked an RTX 2080 Ti so badly that its GPU rendering performance was no better than a higher-end system that's equipped with a lesser RTX 2060 SUPER - and of course, the bottlenecked GPU dragged down the live viewing and export scores even further than the merely underpowered CPU alone would have. What the heck? Even a 3.5-year-old i7-7700 mini-ITX system that I currently have on reserve duty, when paired with my RTX 2060 SUPER from my current 3800X main rig, would have soundly beaten that 9100F overall.

Oddly, an AMD Ryzen 3 3100, which sells for around the same price as that i3-9100F, didn't bottleneck the RTX 2080 Ti anywhere near as badly: Its GPU rendering performance is about equal to those of other middling-performing CPUs.
Yeah, I'm actually excited about the 3300x, lol. Probably going to swap my son's 6600k out soon and pass that down to my daughter.
 

E4g1e

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 21, 2002
Messages
7,351
I wouldn't call that "absolutely fine" - that'd get the system chucked out of my house. :p I used to deal with that kind of problem - now I just RMA the kit and try again.
Thanks again. As it turned out, my occasional POST problems stem almost entirely from a faulty set of RAM. I replaced the RAM, and all is well again.
 
Top