Overclock.net banner

1 - 20 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Simple question, but perhaps not such a simple answer. The rest of my rig is high end:
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming OC
32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 4000MHz
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD
HTC Vive Pro VR
Asus 27" G-Sync Rog Swift PG279Q - 1440p @ 165hz

I have a pretty good disposable income, so I'm willing to pay more for Intel to get the absolute best gaming performance. So, I know that AMD is the best bang for buck nowadays. But I also know that Intel is still king of single core performance, and gaming performance in general. That is primarily what I use the desktop for (reason why I have 32GB RAM is because I sometimes run fairly demanding virtual machine environments, for fun - I work as a system analyst). And since I both run demanding monitor and VR setups, I'm wondering if it might actually be worth upgrading.

As a side note, I will also most likely buy the highest tier RTX 3000 card right after it releases. Considering it should release in a few months, that's another reason to upgrade my CPU. I've also been drooling over the Pimax 8K X VR headset, but I can't really justify it since I bought a Vive Pro just half a year ago (Valve Index is not available in my country, before anyone asks).

I'm also considering buying a Corsair 1000D big tower to replace my Thermaltake Level 10 tower, so if anyone has any input on that one as well, that would be cool.

TLDR: read title :)
 

·
waifu for lifu
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
Not @ 1440p.


 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
3,414 Posts
Simple question, but perhaps not such a simple answer. The rest of my rig is high end:
Gigabyte GeForce RTX 2080 Ti Gaming OC
32GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 4000MHz
Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2 NVMe SSD
HTC Vive Pro VR
Asus 27" G-Sync Rog Swift PG279Q - 1440p @ 165hz

I have a pretty good disposable income, so I'm willing to pay more for Intel to get the absolute best gaming performance. So, I know that AMD is the best bang for buck nowadays. But I also know that Intel is still king of single core performance, and gaming performance in general. That is primarily what I use the desktop for (reason why I have 32GB RAM is because I sometimes run fairly demanding virtual machine environments, for fun - I work as a system analyst). And since I both run demanding monitor and VR setups, I'm wondering if it might actually be worth upgrading.

As a side note, I will also most likely buy the highest tier RTX 3000 card right after it releases. Considering it should release in a few months, that's another reason to upgrade my CPU. I've also been drooling over the Pimax 8K X VR headset, but I can't really justify it since I bought a Vive Pro just half a year ago (Valve Index is not available in my country, before anyone asks).

I'm also considering buying a Corsair 1000D big tower to replace my Thermaltake Level 10 tower, so if anyone has any input on that one as well, that would be cool.

TLDR: read title :)
Since i have both @5.1 daily.. both rig with 2080ti..
Fps wise for just gaming the 8700k about da same

But when i run other stuff like recording [email protected]:4:4 1440p.. 10900k better

2080ti literally wont fly until u hit 5.1 on 8700k..

So
if you dont have a good ocer 8700k
If you runalot of background stuff

Go for 10900k

I had a [email protected] as well. To be honest the jump from 10700k to 10900k was marginal. But to advise somebody to get a 10700k that can overclock to 5.1.. not so easy. All 10900k does 5.1 easy . Tested 6 with 2 of then one of the worst binned sp rating of 57. No problem with AIO running prime95 small fft avx disable
Temps wise 10900k is cooler because its better binned by intel.
 

·
Avid Memer
Joined
·
5,940 Posts
I don't think it's worth it. The i7-8700K performs similarly to the i5-10600K, which performs very closely to the i9-10900K. It would only be worth it if you want to take the time to optimize your RAM as much as possible. Comet Lake seems to have much better memory controllers. Still, at 1440p, I don't think there's enough of a performance boost to justify the cost. A new video card later this year makes much more sense.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
I'm also considering buying a Corsair 1000D big tower to replace my Thermaltake Level 10 tower, so if anyone has any input on that one as well, that would be cool.
Get the new Phanteks P500A case. If you need a ton of 3.5 inch harddrives, then maybe not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
A 10900k is not worthwhile but a 10700k is. Cheaper and better all-core clock speed than 10900k.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
A 10900k is not worthwhile but a 10700k is. Cheaper and better all-core clock speed than 10900k.
You mean better than a 9900K... The 10900K is better binned than a 10700K.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
A 10900k is not worthwhile but a 10700k is. Cheaper and better all-core clock speed than 10900k.
You mean better than a 9900K... The 10900K is better binned than a 10700K.
I don’t think anybody on this forum has the knowledge or authorization to disclose how CPUs are binned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
I don’t think anybody on this forum has the knowledge or authorization to disclose how CPUs are binned.
Maybe so, but how about logic? The 10900K is the top of the line mainstream CPU with the highest max turbo frequency, and for it to reach that it has to be of high silicon quality, ergo better binned. Just as the 8086K was to the 8700K, or the 9900KS to the 9900K. Get the point?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I hadn't seen that one, but I saw a different one which was a bit more positive for the 10900K. I do appreciate the fact that the current GPU gen doesn't really bottleneck on the 8700K though. But I'm thinking this might change when the RTX 3090 gets released. Perhaps I should just wait and see - should hopefully come out around September.

Since i have both @5.1 daily.. both rig with 2080ti..
Fps wise for just gaming the 8700k about da same

But when i run other stuff like recording [email protected]:4:4 1440p.. 10900k better

2080ti literally wont fly until u hit 5.1 on 8700k..

So
if you dont have a good ocer 8700k
If you runalot of background stuff

Go for 10900k

I had a [email protected] as well. To be honest the jump from 10700k to 10900k was marginal. But to advise somebody to get a 10700k that can overclock to 5.1.. not so easy. All 10900k does 5.1 easy . Tested 6 with 2 of then one of the worst binned sp rating of 57. No problem with AIO running prime95 small fft avx disable
Temps wise 10900k is cooler because its better binned by intel.
I haven't overclocked mine at all (sacrilege, I know, considering which forum this is). I did clock it to 5GHz on all cores just after I got it, but I wasn't very lucky with the lottery on mine. I can only get a stable 4,8GHz on all cores without it melting down (running a very good air cooler, Noctua NH-D14, and a case with very good cooling all around with a good intake / exhaust fan setup). It's been a minor source of annoyment since I got it.

Doesn't help that Star Citizen (the unending alpha) absolutely tanks my CPU, maxing it completely at times.

I don't think it's worth it. The i7-8700K performs similarly to the i5-10600K, which performs very closely to the i9-10900K. It would only be worth it if you want to take the time to optimize your RAM as much as possible. Comet Lake seems to have much better memory controllers. Still, at 1440p, I don't think there's enough of a performance boost to justify the cost. A new video card later this year makes much more sense.
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. I'm definitely getting the RTX 3090 right after it comes out. If I didn't run VR, I wouldn't bother just yet, but my current VR setup is so demanding that nothing is ever good enough, on some games.

Get the new Phanteks P500A case. If you need a ton of 3.5 inch harddrives, then maybe not.
I only have 4 drives in my gaming desktop. Have a media server in my living room with a 10TB raid, so I don't need that much space on my desktop (still have 9TB though, but I have a ****load of Steam games). I see the case you are talking about is a midi tower though. That's far too cramped to work in for my liking. I currently have a Thermaltake Level 10 GT, and even that is on the border of what I am comfortable with, size wise. Plus, I like the look of the 1000D. Haven't made up my mind though, so I'm still looking.

Edit: I see you are a fellow Norwegian, and also that you have a 10900K. Happy with it?

A 10900k is not worthwhile but a 10700k is. Cheaper and better all-core clock speed than 10900k.
Price difference isn't that great, and I would lose 2C/4T and some single thread performance, which I really care about. Have a few games that are very CPU taxing and which only supports 1 core (X3: Terran Conflict, for one). X4 isn't too hot on multicores either. I'm basically looking for the very best single core performer, which seems to be the 10900K, right now.
 

·
Not New to Overclock.net
Joined
·
3,414 Posts
I hadn't seen that one, but I saw a different one which was a bit more positive for the 10900K. I do appreciate the fact that the current GPU gen doesn't really bottleneck on the 8700K though. But I'm thinking this might change when the RTX 3090 gets released. Perhaps I should just wait and see - should hopefully come out around September.



I haven't overclocked mine at all (sacrilege, I know, considering which forum this is). I did clock it to 5GHz on all cores just after I got it, but I wasn't very lucky with the lottery on mine. I can only get a stable 4,8GHz on all cores without it melting down (running a very good air cooler, Noctua NH-D14, and a case with very good cooling all around with a good intake / exhaust fan setup). It's been a minor source of annoyment since I got it.

Doesn't help that Star Citizen (the unending alpha) absolutely tanks my CPU, maxing it completely at times.



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. I'm definitely getting the RTX 3090 right after it comes out. If I didn't run VR, I wouldn't bother just yet, but my current VR setup is so demanding that nothing is ever good enough, on some games.



I only have 4 drives in my gaming desktop. Have a media server in my living room with a 10TB raid, so I don't need that much space on my desktop (still have 9TB though, but I have a ****load of Steam games). I see the case you are talking about is a midi tower though. That's far too cramped to work in for my liking. I currently have a Thermaltake Level 10 GT, and even that is on the border of what I am comfortable with, size wise. Plus, I like the look of the 1000D. Haven't made up my mind though, so I'm still looking.

Edit: I see you are a fellow Norwegian, and also that you have a 10900K. Happy with it?



Price difference isn't that great, and I would lose 2C/4T and some single thread performance, which I really care about. Have a few games that are very CPU taxing and which only supports 1 core (X3: Terran Conflict, for one). X4 isn't too hot on multicores either. I'm basically looking for the very best single core performer, which seems to be the 10900K, right now.
then upgrade. do justice to dat 2080ti. stop reading reviewers that dont even game to know what bottleneck is. the [email protected] benefits with cpu at 51.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
then upgrade. do justice to dat 2080ti. stop reading reviewers that dont even game to know what bottleneck is. the [email protected] benefits with cpu at 51.
Haha, yeah, perhaps. I am guessing that it will at least be a reasonable upgrade once RTX 3090 is out. It vexes me that there is no PCI-E 4.0 support though. DDR5 is just around the corner too, most likely. Though it might take a few years before it is somewhat mainstream.

And for my usage, PCI-E 4.0 won't matter. But I still want it, damnit. Gonna have to think some more on this. $1800 is not a huge amount of money (with the case I am looking at, and yes, my country is expensive), but it's not nothing either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Leaning towards upgrading now.. But wondering which motherboard to get. Basically wondering if it's worth the money to go all the way and get a ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XII EXTREME ($1000) or if a ASUS ROG MAXIMUS XII HERO will suffice ($440). Will likely overclock, but probably not right away (except RAM, which hopefully works with XMP @ 4000MHz on a new motherboard..). I don't need any of the additional interfaces or ports provided - just any additional performance, if applicable.

I've never had an enthusiast motherboard before, because I haven't seen the point. I've stuck to like the budget premium segment lately, in which category the XII Hero falls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
Edit: I see you are a fellow Norwegian, and also that you have a 10900K. Happy with it?
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/1863920-phanteks-eclipse-p500a/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
I don’️t think anybody on this forum has the knowledge or authorization to disclose how CPUs are binned.
Maybe so, but how about logic? The 10900K is the top of the line mainstream CPU with the highest max turbo frequency, and for it to reach that it has to be of high silicon quality, ergo better binned. Just as the 8086K was to the 8700K, or the 9900KS to the 9900K. Get the point?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I don’️t think anybody on this forum has the knowledge or authorization to disclose how CPUs are binned.
Maybe so, but how about logic? The 10900K is the top of the line mainstream CPU with the highest max turbo frequency, and for it to reach that it has to be of high silicon quality, ergo better binned. Just as the 8086K was to the 8700K, or the 9900KS to the 9900K. Get the point?
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.
It still doesn't change the fact that 10900k's are better binned. There's plenty of 10900 that runs at 5,4 and above.. Where are those 10700's? From what I've seen the IMC is allso weaker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
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 understand your logic too. LOL :D
 

·
waifu for lifu
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
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/1863920-phanteks-eclipse-p500a/

AMD may finally beat Intel in the low res gaming market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
384 Posts
AMD may finally beat Intel in the low res gaming market.
Most likely play catch-up. A 10900K at 5100+ allcore and 4400+ mem speed is gonna be hard to beat. But a 10900K at Intels' 125W TDP limit with only 2933 memory, then yes AMD may win in some games with the Ryzen 4000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
I don’️t think anybody on this forum has the knowledge or authorization to disclose how CPUs are binned.
Maybe so, but how about logic? The 10900K is the top of the line mainstream CPU with the highest max turbo frequency, and for it to reach that it has to be of high silicon quality, ergo better binned. Just as the 8086K was to the 8700K, or the 9900KS to the 9900K. Get the point?
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.
It still doesn't change the fact that 10900k's are better binned. There's plenty of 10900 that runs at 5,4 and above.. Where are those 10700's? From what I've seen the IMC is allso weaker
I happen to have a 10700k that would be considered stable at 5.4 by the standards most people on this forum follow. No, I didn’t buy it from silicon lottery and its the first chip I tried. My ram overclock is rather good too.
 
1 - 20 of 99 Posts
Top