I'm looking for thoughts on a build dilemma.

[Nazeeh]

First I must upgrade in the very near future as my GF wants a new PC so she'll be getting my old one -1080ti. (It's a 8600k at 5ghz).

Secondly I'm buying all new parts which aren't really relevant with an 1000w psu (it will be seasonic, corsair or bequiet depending on sales). It will be custom water cooled and overclocked if their is free performance to be had. I should mention I already have 2x16GB of 3600mhz gskill 16-16-16-36 and I also upgrade every 2.5-3 years.

I only game, mainly r6:siege while having Kovaaks opened as well. One is always in the background as well as chrome with several tabs, a streaming service (music or video) and discord. I gain absolutely nothing by encoding/decoding/rendering speed and have no intention of streaming.

The goal is to drop from 240hz 1080p to 165hz 1440p. I do not want massive fps drops, so I'd like the min fps to be as close to 165 as possible. Which means I'll likely need the latest and greatest. I'll be FPS capping at 162 until my min is above 140, in which case I'll probably cap it at 200 depending how the drops feel, strictly for the input lag benefits.

The cpu options I have in mind.
3800x until 4900x either would be in an x570 board
This puts me to upgrade in the 2023-2024 range with a sidegrade of gaming performance gain until I get the 4900x in hand.

The other option is to get the 10900k and a z490 board on release. Which means I'd be upgrading in 2022-2023 right as zen 4 and meteor lake hit as well as DDR5.

I really only care Siege performance in the above scenario. So until a IPS comes out at 240hz with LOW input lag 165hz is good enough for now.

So what say you [H] ardforum.

edit: As for GPU I really don't want to get the 2080ti, it's so expensive for the performance gain compared to the 1080ti. So I'm waiting for Big Navi, 3080ti and possibly the 2080 ti super. However if I do go with a Nvidia card, I'll get an evga 2080 ti once I know the 3080ti/2080ti super are available for step up.

 

[Deleted member 278999]

First I must upgrade in the very near future as my GF wants a new PC so she'll be getting my old one -1080ti. (It's a 8600k at 5ghz).

Secondly I'm buying all new parts which aren't really relevant with an 1000w psu (it will be seasonic, corsair or bequiet depending on sales). It will be custom water cooled and overclocked if their is free performance to be had. I should mention I already have 2x16GB of 3600mhz gskill 16-16-16-36 and I also upgrade every 2.5-3 years.

I only game mainly r6:siege while having Kovaaks opened, but one is always in the background as well as chrome with several tabs, a streaming service (music or video) and discord. I gain absolutely nothing by encoding/decoding/rendering speed and have no intention of streaming.

The goal is to drop from 240hz 1080p to 165hz 1440p. I do not want massive fps drops, so I'd like the min fps to be as close to 165 as possible. Which means I'll likely need the latest and greatest.

The cpu options I have in mind.
3800x until 4900x either would be in an x570 board
This puts me to upgrade in the 2023-2024 range with a sidegrade of gaming performance gain until I get the 4900x in hand.

The other option is to get the 10900k on release. Which means I'd be upgrading in 2022-2023 right as zen 4 and meteor lake hit as well as DDR5.

I really only care Siege performance in the above scenario. So until a IPS comes out at 240hz with LOW input lag 165hz is good enough for now.

So what say you [H] ardforum.

edit: As for GPU I really don't want to get the 2080ti, it's so expensive for the performance gain compared to the 1080ti. So I'm waiting for Big Navi, 3080ti and possibly the 2080 ti super. However if I do go with a Nvidia card, I'll get an evga once I know the 3080ti/2080ti super are available for step up.

You're not going to be able to hit your target FPS without a 2080 Ti. Even then, depending on the game you may have some issues.

 

[Nazeeh]

You're not going to be able to hit your target FPS without a 2080 Ti. Even then, depending on the game you may have some issues.

Oh, I'm well aware I do plan on a gpu upgrade but I figure we should know something by April about the 3080ti, 2080ti super or Big Navi. Any of which I'll hold on to for the next 2 years following the purchase or so unless there's a massive leap in performance.

The fact that the 2080ti isn't going to be enough for the 1300+ it would cost, not really ideal.. you know?

I'm just focused on the CPU front right now because we know of the potential amd's 4000 series has with the rumored IPC gains, clock speed and lower latency. All of which are important in gaming. It's just whether you guys would go with the immediate gratification in the 10900k or the likely better purchase in the 3800x-> 4900x.

But for the record I'm expecting to have to shell out around 1800.00 for a gpu including a full card block. In the meantime I will use the 1080ti my 240hz 1080p.

 

[Blue4130]

I'm just focused on the CPU front right now because we know of the potential amd's 4000 series has with the rumored IPC gains, clock speed and lower latency.

We don't know anything All we have is speculation and rumors. Way too early to start banking on gains.

 

[Nazeeh]

We don't know anything All we have is speculation and rumors. Way too early to start banking on gains.

No offense but this isn't really relevant to my issue. It smells like fanboy, because history has shown 7% IPC gains per cpu cycle is pretty reasonable expectations in both camps as are 100-300 mhz clock increases. Latency is something that is intentionally being addressed as stated by AMD and with it already being competitive in gaming and that being the main reason it's not currently winning is very promising.

My whole post is based on what would you do RIGHT NOW with what we know thus far and what seems reasonable. Not wait for numbers and dates that would remove the necessity for this post. We'll have even more speculation, and rumors after CES too. That doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm quite certain the 4000 series will be superior to Comet lake and Meteor lake isn't due out until 2022. So my question is simply better now in the 10900k for a year or better later with 4900k.

Rumors show the the 10900k has 23-30% increased performance in situations I don't care about too. But history shows that the 300mhz bump is very important to me. The only question there is how hot will it run and is there any room for overclocking beyond the 5.3ghz or if it's even capable of running 5.3ghz on all cores.

 

[Dan_D]

I'd wait on anything Intel related. I wouldn't even consider making a decision until actual reviews are out on that. The fact is, Intel's marketing department is in full spin mode. Intel always touts huge gains each generation that are either woefully exaggerated and require very specific applications, instruction sets or scenarios to be realized. Intel has made great strides in extending its clock speed lead lately. It's likely that most of what the 10900K will gain will be from that. Intel's fuzzy math generally only applies to its own processors which means, these gains are probably relative to the 9900K. Two more cores and a 300MHz clock speed increase sounds about right for some 23% gain or whatever. If that was a straight IPC gain, the performance improvement combined with the clock speed would challenge AMD's higher core count parts, and I seriously doubt that's happening.

And the 7% example you gave was also basically bullshit. It was bullshit every time Intel said it. It was only true in specific applications and scenarios. The IPC gains in previous generations have also often been at the cost of clock speed making the net performance gain 0-3% at best. You also asked two questions at the end of your post. The fact is, no one knows so any answer from anyone would be speculative at best. However, the answers are likely: No and yes in that order. If there is anything to be gained over stock, it's probably about 100MHz. How can I be certain? Well I'm not, but I think its likely. The 9900K can basically only reliably hit 5.0GHz. That's its Turbo Boost Max boost clock anyway. It can do so on all cores but it generates a lot of heat as a result. The 9900KF really isn't any better and the 9900KS only does a bit better, but those CPU's are extremely well binned parts. 5.2GHz is generally all you will see out of those.

Current chips at 14nm like Cascade Lake-X are able to clock higher than their predecessors, but again, cooling and power consumption become an issue. I don't see that changing in the near future. I also don't think any of the CPU's we see coming out soon will be that different from Skylake until Intel gets 10nm up and going. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it.

 

[TheFlayedMan]

If you are buying right now and only play one game, you could check how many threads that game actually uses. If it's not heavily multithreaded then buying a speed binned 9600k would give good performance. However if it was me I would wait 6 months see what Intel and AMD does next.

 

[Dan_D]

If you are buying right now and only play one game, you could check how many threads that game actually uses. If it's not heavily multithreaded then buying a speed binned 9600k would give good performance. However if it was me I would wait 6 months see what Intel and AMD does next.

We are going to be at least 6 months plus away from anything new from AMD. It's likely we won't see anything competitive from Intel for considerably longer than that.

 

[Nazeeh]

I'd wait on anything Intel related. I wouldn't even consider making a decision until actual reviews are out on that. The fact is, Intel's marketing department is in full spin mode. Intel always touts huge gains each generation that are either woefully exaggerated and require very specific applications, instruction sets or scenarios to be realized. Intel has made great strides in extending its clock speed lead lately. It's likely that most of what the 10900K will gain will be from that. Intel's fuzzy math generally only applies to its own processors which means, these gains are probably relative to the 9900K. Two more cores and a 300MHz clock speed increase sounds about right for some 23% gain or whatever. If that was a straight IPC gain, the performance improvement combined with the clock speed would challenge AMD's higher core count parts, and I seriously doubt that's happening.

And the 7% example you gave was also basically bullshit. It was bullshit every time Intel said it. It was only true in specific applications and scenarios. The IPC gains in previous generations have also often been at the cost of clock speed making the net performance gain 0-3% at best. You also asked two questions at the end of your post. The fact is, no one knows so any answer from anyone would be speculative at best. However, the answers are likely: No and yes in that order. If there is anything to be gained over stock, it's probably about 100MHz. How can I be certain? Well I'm not, but I think its likely. The 9900K can basically only reliably hit 5.0GHz. That's its Turbo Boost Max boost clock anyway. It can do so on all cores but it generates a lot of heat as a result. The 9900KF really isn't any better and the 9900KS only does a bit better, but those CPU's are extremely well binned parts. 5.2GHz is generally all you will see out of those.

Current chips at 14nm like Cascade Lake-X are able to clock higher than their predecessors, but again, cooling and power consumption become an issue. I don't see that changing in the near future. I also don't think any of the CPU's we see coming out soon will be that different from Skylake until Intel gets 10nm up and going. I'd like to be wrong, but I doubt it.

From what I've seen of the leaks it's 23-30% in multi threaded applications over the 9900k which is exactly as you said the increase in cores and clock speed. It's about 4% in single threaded apps over the 9900k which is in line with the clock increase.

As for the 7% IPC comment I was more referring to next gen cpus or architecture revamps and was thinking of AMD not intel since I won't consider anything new from intel until Meteor lake. The 10900k is literally a 9900k with 2 more cores and more clockspeed.

I am leaning towards AMD right now since I already have a 2x16gb kit of 3600mhz 16-16-16-36. I'll likely see bigger gains for around 3 years with the 4000 series than I would getting the 10900k over the 3800x right now. Even though the 10900k would be better for me in the short term. However, If it has a lot of OC headroom, that will be the clear choice for me. Since I'd be upgrading for DDR5 anyway.

If you are buying right now and only play one game, you could check how many threads that game actually uses. If it's not heavily multithreaded then buying a speed binned 9600k would give good performance. However if it was me I would wait 6 months see what Intel and AMD does next.

I am not afforded time to wait as I said in the OP I have about 3 months max since GF wants a PC(she's getting my 8600k which is at 5ghz) so it's either
10900k in April and upgrade in 2023ish or 3800x as a stop gap until the 4800x/4900x which puts me ugprading in about 2024.

The only game I really care about performance in is rainbow six siege and it should use all cores, just not as well as it could.

 

[sabrewolf732]

Is your girlfriend big on gaming?

There's not really much of an upgrade available over a 1080ti with exception of the 2080ti.

IMO keep your system in build your girlfriend a 2400g system for really cheap.

 

[TheFlayedMan]

The only game I really care about performance in is rainbow six siege and it should use all cores, just not as well as it could.

Looks like it will use 6 cores so a 9600k seems a pretty good choice.

 

[Nazeeh]

Is your girlfriend big on gaming?

There's not really much of an upgrade available over a 1080ti with exception of the 2080ti.

IMO keep your system in build your girlfriend a 2400g system for really cheap.

Appreciate the thought. But I'm not going to pay money to not upgrade and she does game. I'm getting a new GPU this year whether it's the 2080ti, 3080ti, 2080ti super or Big Navi whichever is available and helps me get closer to 165 FPS min at 1440p and doesn't cost more than 1800.00 counting a waterblock.

I will be selling the 1080ti because she doesn't need that power vs the money I'd get selling it. But I'm not going to gain much by selling an 8600k and a 370 msi gaming pro and buying a new mobo and cpu for her.

I just really don't want to get the 2080ti because it doesn't fully do what I want to accomplish but I can't really go to 1440p without upgrading to at least that.

 

[Blue4130]

Not fanboy,

No offense but this isn't really relevant to my issue. It smells like fanboy, because history has shown 7% IPC gains per cpu cycle is pretty reasonable expectations in both camps as are 100-300 mhz clock increases. Latency is something that is intentionally being addressed as stated by AMD and with it already being competitive in gaming and that being the main reason it's not currently winning is very promising.

My whole post is based on what would you do RIGHT NOW with what we know thus far and what seems reasonable. Not wait for numbers and dates that would remove the necessity for this post. We'll have even more speculation, and rumors after CES too. That doesn't mean it's not true.

I'm quite certain the 4000 series will be superior to Comet lake and Meteor lake isn't due out until 2022. So my question is simply better now in the 10900k for a year or better later with 4900k.

Rumors show the the 10900k has 23-30% increased performance in situations I don't care about too. But history shows that the 300mhz bump is very important to me. The only question there is how hot will it run and is there any room for overclocking beyond the 5.3ghz or if it's even capable of running 5.3ghz on all cores.

Not a fanboy, I just don't see any point in bringing up cpu's that don't exist yet. You say you can't wait, so pick a CPU on what is available now, not what will be available in 2to 4 years from now.

 

[Dan_D]

I am leaning towards AMD right now since I already have a 2x16gb kit of 3600mhz 16-16-16-36.

That RAM will work on Intel systems as well. Funny how industry standards like that work.

 

[Nazeeh]

That RAM will work on Intel systems as well. Funny how industry standards like that work.

Oh I know, I'm using it right now on the 8600k. But it's just a bit more beneficial on AMD.

But I'm curious if you were me which route do you go?

10900k or 3800x->4800/4900x

(Just saw the new Samsung Pro PCIE4 drives come out the 21st,rip wallet, which sways me to AMD even more)

 

[purple_monster]

i dont know how you can seriously ask this question without posting a picture of your GF its critical to the decision here

 

[Dan_D]

Oh I know, I'm using it right now on the 8600k. But it's just a bit more beneficial on AMD.

But I'm curious if you were me which route do you go?

10900k or 3800x->4800/4900x

(Just saw the new Samsung Pro PCIE4 drives come out the 21st,rip wallet, which sways me to AMD even more)

Without details I wouldn't necessarily plan on Ryzen 4000. However, at present, I'd likely go with a 3900X or 3950X if I were buying a CPU today. I don't know what the 10900K will look like, so I don't have any idea how it will stack up.

 

[Nazeeh]

Without details I wouldn't necessarily plan on Ryzen 4000. However, at present, I'd likely go with a 3900X or 3950X if I were buying a CPU today. I don't know what the 10900K will look like, so I don't have any idea how it will stack up.

Fair enough, appreciate the thoughts.

I'm gonna go 3800x since the 3900x isn't much of an improvement in gaming and I feel the resell value won't justify the 130.00 price increase.

Then there's the option of the 4000 series.. whereas with intel it's just what i get and that's it.

Not a fanboy, I just don't see any point in bringing up cpu's that don't exist yet. You say you can't wait, so pick a CPU on what is available now, not what will be available in 2to 4 years from now.

I didn't bring up CPUS that don't exist. The 4000 series already exists as does the 10900k (it's been qualified with several mobo companies and leaked tests)

Both of which are going to be released this year. It's just whether or not the availability of the 4000 desktop series will be an issue or if it pushes it back a few more months.

There is absolutely no reason to believe the 4000 series isn't faster than the 3000 series. I'd be an idiot to think it's possible for the 3000 series to be faster because they'd royally have to fuck up and even if that were the case i'd just be a lucky idiot.

The fact they address the main issue with AMD game performance (latency) means they are conscious of it and they are going to try to improve there. At the very least it will be better than the 3000 series.

There's much less reason to talk about what's out rather than what's coming. Before a product hits the streets we know it's performance. The week it's out we know of all the major issues. Then there's nothing to talk about except what's coming. If all I wanted to do was have somebody recite benchmarks I can read myself to figure out performance and then make a completely idiot proof decision (since I'm not loyal to any company) I wouldn't have made the post.

Why is it pointless to ask for thoughts on an upgrade with a path or just a flat upgrade?

 

[King_Potato]

I'd wait for Amd and Nvidia to show their hand on the next card releases. You might have buyers remorse if you go 2080ti and both Amd and Nvidia blow it out of the water. At the very least if you wait to buy a 2080ti, the market will push down the price because of the new cards. Amd is going to show their hand soon I think, give it some time.

 

[Keljian]

Aww man, get a 9900k and a 2080ti and be done with it