Worthwhile gaming gains to go from i7 8700K to i9 10900K? Solved: Upgraded - Page 3 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

Worthwhile gaming gains to go from i7 8700K to i9 10900K? Solved: Upgraded

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #21 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 09:42 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Princess Garnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,660
Rep: 206 (Unique: 178)
Right now, there's not a whole lot to be gained from going to an 8 core CPU for gaming. If you were on a quad core CPU that needed upgraded, and were asking about it, I'd say it's a worthwhile consideration if longevity was a concern. But since you're already on a good 6 core CPU, it's a different matter. That being said, you mentioned a game that taxes your current CPU; does this simply mean it is the CPU that is the limit and not the GPU, or that it actively uses the majority/all of the cores/threads you have? In the case of the latter, you MAY see benefit from more cores or threads. In general, 6 core/12 thread CPUs are fine, and above that is where diminishing returns are (in most of gaming at least) for now.

That being said, you mentioned you had disposable income, so if you're asking because you have an upgrade tempt to scratch, that is up to you. Just be aware and temper your expectations accordingly; you're basically gaining cores and threads but raw/gaming performance won't go up in the majority of titles yet.

I really don't see the point in spending four figures for a motherboard though either way, not unless you fall into a spot where you KNOW you need it for something it offers. I can't speak much for which particular motherboard is good or not for Intel, but it mostly comes down to making sure it has the features you need, and performs well (has the VRMs and such to support what you're after). You probably don't need a $350 motherboard, let alone a $1,000 motherboard to get this. But, again, if the income is disposable and you just WANT to do something, I guess that is reason enough. Just, again, be aware you're probably spending the extra for nothing when you could get the same from a board way less than a third of the price, so I'd put the money towards a new graphics card, monitor, storage, anything, or just save it. Spending an extra couple hundred dollars on a really small difference on the CPU, even if it's a far worse value, I still sort of get if the income is disposable, but I really don't see the point of motherboards at such a price point. Maybe I'm just not the target audience though.
Quote: Originally Posted by Sehnsucht View Post
Well, I'm running the most expensive RAM I could find at the time I got it. But of course, my motherboard doesn't support the 4000MHz config, so I have to run them at around 3400. Timings are probably worse too than on the XMP profile. Another minor reason I want to get a new motherboard.
You can try to manually adjust the timings to match what they would be at 4000 MHz at the current 3200 MHz you're running it at and it SHOULD be capable of it (at least, the RAM itself certainly is).

"The heart has it's reasons that reason knows nothing of."
Princess Garnet is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #22 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 09:50 AM
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 8,056
Rep: 461 (Unique: 320)
Quote: Originally Posted by 0451 View Post
I understand the logic you are using, but consider that the 10700k and 10900k are the same chip but the 10-7 has 2 cores disabled. Less heat is being generated, leas current is needed, and the VRM and ring don’t need to work as hard.
I don't know what logical fallacy you spewed out here, but you do realize you can also disable 2 cores on a 10900k too, right? Unless you have a terrible SP51 10900k, no 10700k is going to be able to touch that even if it's "golden" VID. And then if you disable HT (with all cores enabled) and then clock it to the sky (5.2-5.6 ghz for the worst, to golden chips)...

[email protected] ghz, RX Vega 64, 32GB DDR4, Gigabyte Aorus Master, Seasonic Platinum 1000W, Corsair 760T
Alt: MSI GT73VR Throttlebook with 7820HK @ 4.7 ghz, GTX 1070 MXM TDP mod to 230W, 32 GB RAM

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.
Falkentyne is offline  
post #23 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 09:55 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
0451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,218
Rep: 45 (Unique: 40)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by 0451 View Post
I understand the logic you are using, but consider that the 10700k and 10900k are the same chip but the 10-7 has 2 cores disabled. Less heat is being generated, leas current is needed, and the VRM and ring don’️t need to work as hard.
I don't know what logical fallacy you spewed out here, but you do realize you can also disable 2 cores on a 10900k too, right? Unless you have a terrible SP51 10900k, no 10700k is going to be able to touch that even if it's "golden" VID. And then if you disable HT (with all cores enabled) and then clock it to the sky (5.2-5.6 ghz for the worst, to golden chips)...
No 10700k is going to touch what?

Smallblock Power
(10 items)
CPU
Core i7 10700K
Motherboard
MSI Z490 Unify
GPU
2080ti K|NGP|N
RAM
Patriot Viper Steel 4400
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 Pro
Power Supply
EVGA 1200 P2
Cooling
5 Radiators
Cooling
2 Pumps
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG
Monitor
Samsung CF791 34"
▲ hide details ▲
0451 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #24 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 10:47 AM
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 8,056
Rep: 461 (Unique: 320)
Quote: Originally Posted by 0451 View Post
No 10700k is going to touch what?
A 10900k with two cores disabled.
You made the absurd claim that a 10700k clocks higher than a 10900k because it runs cooler. That's like the biggest CPU strawman I've ever seen. There's a reason a 9900k clocked higher than a 9700k even though it ran significantly hotter...(even more so than just disabling 2 cores on a 10900k and having lower silicon quality on a 10700k (in general))

[email protected] ghz, RX Vega 64, 32GB DDR4, Gigabyte Aorus Master, Seasonic Platinum 1000W, Corsair 760T
Alt: MSI GT73VR Throttlebook with 7820HK @ 4.7 ghz, GTX 1070 MXM TDP mod to 230W, 32 GB RAM

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.
Falkentyne is offline  
post #25 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 10:58 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
0451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,218
Rep: 45 (Unique: 40)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
A 10900k with two cores disabled.
You made the absurd claim that a 10700k clocks higher than a 10900k because it runs cooler. That's like the biggest CPU strawman I've ever seen. There's a reason a 9900k clocked higher than a 9700k even though it ran significantly hotter...(even more so than just disabling 2 cores on a 10900k and having lower silicon quality on a 10700k (in general))
Some 10900k may come from the center of the wafer, have a runt core, and get binned as a 10700k. Since binning is a trade secret, and Intel protects its IP, this is a case of "Those who don't know, talk. Those who know, don't talk." As such, your theory that a 10900k has better silicon quality is no better than my theory that a 10700k runs cooler because it has 2 cores disabled.

Enough theory. Propose a benchmark and a clock speed and I'll show you whether a 10700k can hit it.

Smallblock Power
(10 items)
CPU
Core i7 10700K
Motherboard
MSI Z490 Unify
GPU
2080ti K|NGP|N
RAM
Patriot Viper Steel 4400
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 Pro
Power Supply
EVGA 1200 P2
Cooling
5 Radiators
Cooling
2 Pumps
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG
Monitor
Samsung CF791 34"
▲ hide details ▲
0451 is offline  
post #26 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 11:07 AM
Facepalm
 
Falkentyne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 8,056
Rep: 461 (Unique: 320)
Quote: Originally Posted by 0451 View Post
Some 10900k may come from the center of the wafer, have a runt core, and get binned as a 10700k. Since binning is a trade secret, and Intel protects its IP, this is a case of "Those who don't know, talk. Those who know, don't talk." As such, your theory that a 10900k has better silicon quality is no better than my theory that a 10700k runs cooler because it has 2 cores disabled.

Enough theory. Propose a benchmark and a clock speed and I'll show you whether a 10700k can hit it.
5.3 ghz, Realbench 2.56 (monitor CPU L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors).
Or if your CPU is so good, prime95 small FFT AVX1 (AVX2 disabled).

[email protected] ghz, RX Vega 64, 32GB DDR4, Gigabyte Aorus Master, Seasonic Platinum 1000W, Corsair 760T
Alt: MSI GT73VR Throttlebook with 7820HK @ 4.7 ghz, GTX 1070 MXM TDP mod to 230W, 32 GB RAM

Quote: Originally Posted by sakete View Post
Well, I want you to know I have an academic degree in speculation.

Last edited by Falkentyne; 08-01-2020 at 11:16 AM.
Falkentyne is offline  
post #27 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 12:45 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
0451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,218
Rep: 45 (Unique: 40)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
5.3 ghz, Realbench 2.56 (monitor CPU L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors).
Or if your CPU is so good, prime95 small FFT AVX1 (AVX2 disabled).
Here is Realbench at 5.4. I can do P95 small FFT with AVX2 enabled at 5.3 for 10 min and I have showed this before. I have to run but I'll post that later.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Real Bench 5.4.PNG
Views:	27
Size:	3.39 MB
ID:	363488  


Smallblock Power
(10 items)
CPU
Core i7 10700K
Motherboard
MSI Z490 Unify
GPU
2080ti K|NGP|N
RAM
Patriot Viper Steel 4400
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 Pro
Power Supply
EVGA 1200 P2
Cooling
5 Radiators
Cooling
2 Pumps
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG
Monitor
Samsung CF791 34"
▲ hide details ▲
0451 is offline  
post #28 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 01:25 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
0451's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,218
Rep: 45 (Unique: 40)
Quote: Originally Posted by Falkentyne View Post
5.3 ghz, Realbench 2.56 (monitor CPU L0 errors in HWinfo64 sensors).
Or if your CPU is so good, prime95 small FFT AVX1 (AVX2 disabled).
As promised, P95 AVX2 ON @ 5.3 for 10 minutes.

Again, not Silicon Lottery, never exchanged, first Comet Lake I bought. I wouldn't trade this for a 10900k for gaming.

Also does ok in 3Dmark
https://www.3dmark.com/spy/13062169
https://www.3dmark.com/pr/285857
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	5.3 P95 AVX ON.PNG
Views:	17
Size:	1.88 MB
ID:	363514  


Smallblock Power
(10 items)
CPU
Core i7 10700K
Motherboard
MSI Z490 Unify
GPU
2080ti K|NGP|N
RAM
Patriot Viper Steel 4400
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 Pro
Power Supply
EVGA 1200 P2
Cooling
5 Radiators
Cooling
2 Pumps
Case
Phanteks Enthoo Evolv ATX TG
Monitor
Samsung CF791 34"
▲ hide details ▲

Last edited by 0451; 08-01-2020 at 01:34 PM.
0451 is offline  
post #29 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 01:47 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Sehnsucht's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Norway
Posts: 40
Rep: 0
Quote: Originally Posted by Betroz View Post
Heisann, ja det stemmer
I'm happy with my 10900K, more so than my 9900K cause I get 5.0-5.1 Ghz on all cores. That and a higher RAM speed since the IMC is better too. But the chip runs hot (at 5.1 Ghz and up), so I highly recommend getting an 280mm or 360mm AIO. Having said that, why not wait until Intel Rocket Lake comes out? That chip will have PCI-E 4.0 support. Or...go for AMD Ryzen 4000 at the end of the year.

Btw check out my thread on the Phanteks P500A case here : https://www.diskusjon.no/topic/18639...eclipse-p500a/
Not gonna go the closed water loop route again, so it'll have to make do with a high end air cooler. Haven't been that interested in OC anyway since the first gen i7 days, where I ran an i7 930 at 4.2 or 4.3GHz for years (2.8GHz stock). The gains have never been the same since that. PCI-E 4.0 won't net me anything at all, and since a 2080Ti BARELY pushes past PCI-E 3.0 x8 speeds, it won't be an issue for years and years to come. I'll be surprised if the new RTX 3090 is more than 30% faster than the 2080Ti (in non-RTX games, which is 99,99% of all games).

That case looks nice, but it's too small for my taste. Might have been interested if it was big tower sized.

Quote: Originally Posted by Princess Garnet View Post
Right now, there's not a whole lot to be gained from going to an 8 core CPU for gaming. If you were on a quad core CPU that needed upgraded, and were asking about it, I'd say it's a worthwhile consideration if longevity was a concern. But since you're already on a good 6 core CPU, it's a different matter. That being said, you mentioned a game that taxes your current CPU; does this simply mean it is the CPU that is the limit and not the GPU, or that it actively uses the majority/all of the cores/threads you have? In the case of the latter, you MAY see benefit from more cores or threads. In general, 6 core/12 thread CPUs are fine, and above that is where diminishing returns are (in most of gaming at least) for now.

That being said, you mentioned you had disposable income, so if you're asking because you have an upgrade tempt to scratch, that is up to you. Just be aware and temper your expectations accordingly; you're basically gaining cores and threads but raw/gaming performance won't go up in the majority of titles yet.

I really don't see the point in spending four figures for a motherboard though either way, not unless you fall into a spot where you KNOW you need it for something it offers. I can't speak much for which particular motherboard is good or not for Intel, but it mostly comes down to making sure it has the features you need, and performs well (has the VRMs and such to support what you're after). You probably don't need a $350 motherboard, let alone a $1,000 motherboard to get this. But, again, if the income is disposable and you just WANT to do something, I guess that is reason enough. Just, again, be aware you're probably spending the extra for nothing when you could get the same from a board way less than a third of the price, so I'd put the money towards a new graphics card, monitor, storage, anything, or just save it. Spending an extra couple hundred dollars on a really small difference on the CPU, even if it's a far worse value, I still sort of get if the income is disposable, but I really don't see the point of motherboards at such a price point. Maybe I'm just not the target audience though.
You can try to manually adjust the timings to match what they would be at 4000 MHz at the current 3200 MHz you're running it at and it SHOULD be capable of it (at least, the RAM itself certainly is).
The games I was talking about either max the CPU completely (100% on all threads as is the case of Star Citizen - which is an unoptimized buggy mess, to be frank), or maxes out however many threads the lazy devs saw fit to program in. I know that the 10900K won't be good enough either to remedy all this. Nothing is. Been the same with graphics cards for many years, for me. Nothing is good enough. But that also means I want the best, always (within reason - considered the RTX Titan, but it's just stupid expensive for the incremental gaming upgrade over the 2080Ti).

The CPU may not do a whole lot for me now, but I'm fairly certain that it could net me some modest gains (in certain games) when I upgrade to an RTX 3090. Since the 3000 series is set to launch in September this year, I might as well start upgrading now. I really wanted to get an enthusiast level Intel CPU this time around (Extreme edition), but they simply aren't as good for gaming, which is kind of frustrating. So I guess I'll have to go mainstream once again.

I see your points regarding the motherboards. I'm not going to buy a $1000 motherboard. I'll likely just get the $400 or whatever one. Had an Asus Maximus Hero before, and was very happy with it. More so than my current MSI one. Just hope to whatever deity is up there that it actually supports my damn RAM chips. According to the Asus web site, it supports almost the exact same chips (but the supported ones are CL18, not CL19 like mine). Another website lists them as compatible with that particular motherboard (but not the one I have now, which is correct). Guess I'll see. Probably gonna order everything tonight. Been going back and forth a few times now, over the past couple of months.

Desktop
(19 items)
CPU
i9 10900K
Motherboard
Asus ROG Maximus XII Hero
GPU
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming OC
RAM
32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 4000MHz
Hard Drive
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD
Hard Drive
Corsair Neutron 1TB SSD
Hard Drive
WD Black 6TB
Hard Drive
WD Black 1TB
Optical Drive
ASUS DVD Writer ZenDrive U9M Silver
Power Supply
Corsair HX 750W
Cooling
Noctua NH-D14
Case
Corsair Obsidian 1000D Super Tower Case
Operating System
Windows 10 Enterprise
Monitor
Asus 27" G-Sync Rog Swift PG279Q
Monitor
Asus VG248QE 144hz 3D
Keyboard
Corsair Strafe MK.2 RGB MX Red
Mouse
Logitech G502 Hero
Audio
Sound Blaster Zx
Other
Dali Zensor 3 speakers, Yamaha RX-V659 7.1 receiver
CPU
i7 9750H
GPU
RTX 2080 (full powered)
RAM
32GB DDR4 2666MHz
Hard Drive
2x 512GB WD M.2 NVMe
Hard Drive
4TB Samsung 860 QVO SSD
Monitor
17,3" G-Sync 144hz IPS
Keyboard
Logitech G613 wireless mechanical
Mouse
Logitech G900 Chaos Spectrum
Audio
5.1 built in surround speakers
▲ hide details ▲
Sehnsucht is offline  
post #30 of 78 (permalink) Old 08-01-2020, 02:03 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Betroz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Norway
Posts: 198
Rep: 3 (Unique: 1)
Quote: Originally Posted by Sehnsucht View Post
Had an Asus Maximus Hero before, and was very happy with it. More so than my current MSI one. Just hope to whatever deity is up there that it actually supports my damn RAM chips. According to the Asus web site, it supports almost the exact same chips (but the supported ones are CL18, not CL19 like mine). Another website lists them as compatible with that particular motherboard (but not the one I have now, which is correct). Guess I'll see. Probably gonna order everything tonight. Been going back and forth a few times now, over the past couple of months.
The Z490 Hero will be just fine, just don't expect RAM OC at the level of the Apex board. 4 DIMMs at 4000-4200 Mhz should work (anyone correct me if I'm wrong here).

Corsair Graphite 780T | Corsair AX860 | i9 10900K | NZXT Kraken X62 with Corsair ML140 PRO fans | Asus Maximus XII Apex | Asus Strix OC 2080 Ti | 16GB Patriot Viper Steel 4400 C19 @ tweaked| Two Adata SX8200 PRO 1TB, Samsung 850 EVO 2TB | BenQ BL3201PT | Asus PG279Q
Betroz is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off