3900XT or 10900K?

[Southpaw_Joe]

Just to be clear i'm building this for the sole purpose of gaming, primarily FPS @1080p. My goal is to sustain a 144fps+ with whatever graphical settings I can get away with to maintain that. I don't consider myself a pro or know whats best with all the current hardware, i've only just built them with enough knowledge to some degree. I'm  just slightly confused with so much info being thrown around on what to upgrade to. This is my current rig:

 

AMD Ryzen 1600x @ 3.9GHZ
Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4 3000
ASUS Prime X370-Pro
EVGA RTX 2070 Super
Asus 27" 144hz 1ms
Crucial M2 Drive
Windows 10 64bit

 

I've been looking to upgrade the cpu/mobo/ram combo but i'm a bit torn on what to get with so much new stuff out. I've been reading that pure core clock speed is the way to go for gaming so I was leaning towards getting the 10900k for that nice 5.3ghz boost clock. I have also read that the 3900xt (or 3900x) is the way to go for better overall performance. Probably won't matter which I get since its a nice bump coming from a 1600x but if my goal is only for gaming I would think that the 10900k would be the way to go but  honestly I really dont know lol.

 

Any thoughts or suggestions is much appreciated!! Thanks.

[Oswin]

have you considered waiting for zen3? if you are only gaming then a 10600k would be your best option, you wont have much benefit going above that.

[Haro]

for gaming, the 10600k will be more then enough, but since you already have an x370 board, you could just go for a 3600/xt  which will be more than enough for gaming.

but wait for zen 3 and then decide which platform you want to move to. but either a 10600k and switch the board, or a 3600/xt and keep the current board.

or wait for zen 3 and decide. 

[Moonzy]

if you're going pure highest FPS route, the 10900k is the obvious choice, unless the game is GPU limited

 

but given that u have that motherboard, the 3900X(non-T) would be a cheaper upgrade, though you do lose some fps in most games

Spoiler

 

 

buf if you're buying high end stuff, just wait a month or two if you can, new things are rumoured to come out soon

[Mateyyy]

Wait a couple of months for Zen 3 to launch. If that's still not on par with Intel when it comes to gaming performance, get a 10600K. Again, for gaming, it does everything the 10900K does just as well.

Or you could just throw a 3600 or 3700X into your current motherboard and call it a day.

[Southpaw_Joe]

32 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

if you're going pure highest FPS route, the 10900k is the obvious choice, unless the game is GPU limited

 

but given that u have that motherboard, the 3900X(non-T) would be a cheaper upgrade, though you do lose some fps in most games

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

buf if you're buying high end stuff, just wait a month or two if you can, new things are rumoured to come out soon

 

Definitely going for the highest FPS route for now. I get anywhere from 100-130ish in CoD with what I have now, even some 140's depending on the area and whats happening on screen. I just didn't know (wasn't sure) if a pure clock boost like the 10900k @ 5.3ghz vs the 3900xt and its 2 extra cores would be better suit but it makes sense the bigger clock boost would reign supreme for FPS.

 

Now this is where im completely lost as to my old knowledge of "ram speed doesn't really matter that much" mentality. If I go with the 10900k, does the ram speed matter as much compared to the ryzen? I'm really lost when it come to ram other than if I go ryzen I was reading just get 3600 ram and set the fabric to 1800 and call it a day. But for a 10900k for max fps (if any lol) whats the best ram?

 

Thanks for all the replies, all the help is greatly appreciated!

[Moonzy]

2 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

I get anywhere from 100-130ish in CoD with what I have now, even some 140's depending on the area and whats happening on screen.

it depends if you're GPU limited, if you are, upgrading your CPU wouldnt change it much

 

3 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

But for a 10900k for max fps (if any lol) whats the best ram?

it does matter for intel, just not as bad AFAIK

not too familiar with RAM to give a recommendation though

 

are you in a rush for a new system though?

[Southpaw_Joe]

22 minutes ago, Moonzy said:

it depends if you're GPU limited, if you are, upgrading your CPU wouldnt change it much

 

it does matter for intel, just not as bad AFAIK

not too familiar with RAM to give a recommendation though

 

are you in a rush for a new system though?

Not really in a rush tbh, I just know that in my 21 years of gaming that there is always something bigger and better "coming". So I just would upgrade with what was out if had the money at the time, but I really do want a 144+ fps in gaming.

 

It's hard to tell other than my 1600x is old with a weak core clok to see whats the bottleneck. I had an older gtx titan and I was getting 70-100 fps and when I got the RTX 2070 super I went to 100-140. So just looking for a cpu with the best clock speed.

[Moonzy]

5 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

I just know that in my 21 years of gaming that there is always something bigger and better "coming". So I just would upgrade with what was out if had the money at the time,

yea, but this is like, a month away probably

up to you though

 

6 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

It's hard to tell other than my 1600x is old with a weak core clok to see whats the bottleneck

you can tell by monitoring which component is at 100% usage (or near 100%)

[Southpaw_Joe]

11 hours ago, Moonzy said:

yea, but this is like, a month away probably

up to you though

 

you can tell by monitoring which component is at 100% usage (or near 100%)

On CoD Warzone the GPU was around 80-90%

[Mateyyy]

2 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

On CoD Warzone the GPU was around 80-90%

If you do end up going for a 3900X/XT, make sure you've got at least some decent airflow in your case and around your VRM heatsinks.

[jones177]

I just built a i9 10900k system and it is already faster than my i7 8086ks that have 5ghz all core overclocks. I don't mean faster because of the more cores. I mean faster cores.

My i7 8086k have really good silicon and can beat a i5 1600k in most scenarios so this is a big deal but it comes at a cost.

 

To take full advantage of the CPU you need to keep the temperature really low so TVB(Turbo Velocity Boost) can do its thing and for that you need a high end motherboard with a 360mm AIO. If the CPU runs over 70c it will perform on par with a i5 10600k or i7 10700k. 

Eventually it will get an all core overclock to 5.3ghz but that may even be too hot of a 360mm AIO. Tech Deals thinks so and they are usually right.

 

Reviews on the CPU are a little misleading since most testers left the Intel power limits in place and the CPU only becomes alive if they are removed even when running the CPU stock. Others used cooling that allowed the CPU to run over 70c and if the cpu does that you are better off with a i5 10600k 

 

I still have lots of testing to do since only in some scenarios does it seem to have crazy performance. 

 

For what I bought the CPU for it is already a success but that is not to play vanilla games. My i7 8086ks are fine for that. It is for games that you can add content to like building and modded games. So I spent well over $1000 so I can have bigger ships and bigger battles in Space Engineers without the frame rate tanking or having over 300 draugr in a cell in Skyrim without crashing. All sorts of silly fun things like that.  

 

I would not recommend this CPU to a casual gamer. It just has too many hoops you have to jump through to get it to perform over its siblings. But if you are a nut like me with more money than sense get one.  

 

16 hours ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

Definitely going for the highest FPS route for now.

I have the i9 10900k hooked up to an ultra wide monitor so in my 3440 X 1440 tests on games that won't use the extra cores it is only about 3 frames faster than the 6 core i7 8080k. The i7 is overclocked to 5.1 all cores and the i9 is only using TVB. On SOTTR both setups are 99% GPU bound so not much to gain.

 

I only expect gains on games that are not GPU bound with a 2080 ti or use more cores so I don't expect a much higher performance than a i5 10600k.  My modded/ building games are all CPU bound at 4k and run at 60hz so the only gain I will get with them is I will be able to add more content.

16 hours ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

If I go with the 10900k, does the ram speed matter as much compared to the ryzen? I'm really lost when it come to ram other than if I go ryzen I was reading just get 3600 ram and set the fabric to 1800 and call it a day. But for a 10900k for max fps (if any lol) whats the best ram?

 

Probably not.

Right now I am using 3600 but that will go into a different computer and be replaced with 4000 ram by next week. I am not expecting much of a difference but it will be fun to test. 

[maizenblue]

19 hours ago, Oswin said:

have you considered waiting for zen3? if you are only gaming then a 10600k would be your best option, you wont have much benefit going above that.

The soon to be released consoles are 8c 16t. Wouldnt it be advisable to choose a cpu for gaming purposes that is the same? 

[Southpaw_Joe]

3 hours ago, jones177 said:

I just built a i9 10900k system and it is already faster than my i7 8086ks that have 5ghz all core overclocks. I don't mean faster because of the more cores. I mean faster cores.

My i7 8086k have really good silicon and can beat a i5 1600k in most scenarios so this is a big deal but it comes at a cost.

 

To take full advantage of the CPU you need to keep the temperature really low so TVB(Turbo Velocity Boost) can do its thing and for that you need a high end motherboard with a 360mm AIO. If the CPU runs over 70c it will perform on par with a i5 10600k or i7 10700k. 

Eventually it will get an all core overclock to 5.3ghz but that may even be too hot of a 360mm AIO. Tech Deals thinks so and they are usually right.

 

Reviews on the CPU are a little misleading since most testers left the Intel power limits in place and the CPU only becomes alive if they are removed even when running the CPU stock. Others used cooling that allowed the CPU to run over 70c and if the cpu does that you are better off with a i5 10600k 

 

I still have lots of testing to do since only in some scenarios does it seem to have crazy performance. 

 

For what I bought the CPU for it is already a success but that is not to play vanilla games. My i7 8086ks are fine for that. It is for games that you can add content to like building and modded games. So I spent well over $1000 so I can have bigger ships and bigger battles in Space Engineers without the frame rate tanking or having over 300 draugr in a cell in Skyrim without crashing. All sorts of silly fun things like that.  

 

I would not recommend this CPU to a casual gamer. It just has too many hoops you have to jump through to get it to perform over its siblings. But if you are a nut like me with more money than sense get one.  

 

I have the i9 10900k hooked up to an ultra wide monitor so in my 3440 X 1440 tests on games that won't use the extra cores it is only about 3 frames faster than the 6 core i7 8080k. The i7 is overclocked to 5.1 all cores and the i9 is only using TVB. On SOTTR both setups are 99% GPU bound so not much to gain.

 

I only expect gains on games that are not GPU bound with a 2080 ti or use more cores so I don't expect a much higher performance than a i5 10600k.  My modded/ building games are all CPU bound at 4k and run at 60hz so the only gain I will get with them is I will be able to add more content.

Probably not.

Right now I am using 3600 but that will go into a different computer and be replaced with 4000 ram by next week. I am not expecting much of a difference but it will be fun to test. 

Interesting and awesome feedback, thanks for that. Glad im asking now before I pull the trigger on anything, such good info from this.

 

I prefer to stay air cooling (something like a Noctua NH-U12S Chromax Black). Let me ask you this though, would it be much easier to get a 10600k @4.8ghz all core stable vs a 10900k boosted to @5.3ghz? Just seems like the 10900k runs extremely hot from what i'm reading and you need really good cooling to make full use of it. Or perhaps a 10700k?

 

I suppose i'm just looking for the best replacement to my 1600x that was a simple 3.9ghz to all core, set the vcore and call it a day overclock lol.

 

Curious though if a Noctua NH-U12S Chromax Black, or something along those lines would be enough cooling for a 10900k to get most out of its full potential.

[jones177]

36 minutes ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

Interesting and awesome feedback, thanks for that. Glad im asking now before I pull the trigger on anything, such good info from this.

 

I prefer to stay air cooling (something like a Noctua NH-U12S Chromax Black). Let me ask you this though, would it be much easier to get a 10600k @4.8ghz all core stable vs a 10900k boosted to @5.3ghz? Just seems like the 10900k runs extremely hot from what i'm reading and you need really good cooling to make full use of it. Or perhaps a 10700k?

 

I suppose i'm just looking for the best replacement to my 1600x that was a simple 3.9ghz to all core, set the vcore and call it a day overclock lol.

 

Curious though if a Noctua NH-U12S Chromax Black, or something along those lines would be enough cooling for a 10900k to get most out of its full potential.

The i9 10900k needs a 360mm AIO minimum so it can outperform a i5 10600k. That may not be enough for 5.3ghz all cores.

For the i5 10600k I would use a Noctua nh-d15 or a be quiet dark rock pro 4 and overclock it to 5ghz. Running less than 5ghz it is best the buy Ryzen.

 

You should wait for Zen 3. If they can beat Intel in games I will buy one.

[Southpaw_Joe]

1 hour ago, jones177 said:

The i9 10900k needs a 360mm AIO minimum so it can outperform a i5 10600k. That may not be enough for 5.3ghz all cores.

For the i5 10600k I would use a Noctua nh-d15 or a be quiet dark rock pro 4 and overclock it to 5ghz. Running less than 5ghz it is best the buy Ryzen.

 

You should wait for Zen 3. If they can beat Intel in games I will buy one.

Yea i'm going to have to do some digging to see the likelihood of a 10600k can go to 5ghz all core and be stable. Since I do not want to go AIO probably end up getting the 3900XT (or whichever has the highest clock boosted).

[jones177]

1 hour ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

Yea i'm going to have to do some digging to see the likelihood of a 10600k can go to 5ghz all core and be stable. Since I do not want to go AIO probably end up getting the 3900XT (or whichever has the highest clock boosted).

Even my i9 9900k at 5ghz all cores uses a Noctua nh-d15. The only CPU that I have that needs an 360mm AIO to perform is the i9 10900k.

 

The Noctua nh-d15s game in the 70s and bench in the 80s and as I mentioned that is too hot for a i9 10900k to perform. 

[KevyKevTPA]

9 hours ago, Southpaw_Joe said:

Yea i'm going to have to do some digging to see the likelihood of a 10600k can go to 5ghz all core and be stable. Since I do not want to go AIO probably end up getting the 3900XT (or whichever has the highest clock boosted).

 

I've got a fresh new 10600K install (about 3 weeks now), and I'm getting 5ghz on 3 cores, 4.9 on 4-5, and 4.8 on 6.  With that I'm only running temps in the low to mid 30s idle, up to about mid 60s under load.  That's with the Noctua 12S with an aggressive fan curve, which is fine by me since I can't hear it even at 100%.  Given those thermals, I figure I could easily go to 5ghz all core, but I'm new to the whole OC game and am being conservative until I learn more about what I'm doing.  I'm basically letting my MB's AI and the XMP profile control my OC.

 

Now, maybe the silicon lottery gods smiled upon me and I got a chip that can handle OC better than average, I can't really speak to that.  I guess I also got lucky just getting one at a reasonable price from a reputable retailer in a timely manner, as it seems like as soon as they get a shipment in, it's gone, and you have to pay scalper prices or wait it out.  I got it for $289.  

 

Since you're going to need a new MB anyway to go Intel, I would strongly recommend against going 9th gen anything, as you would have zero upgrade path without ANOTHER new MB.  As far as the i7 or i9 10th gen, I didn't see any point in paying 2x or more for the CPU given the small performance increases they hypothetically come with.  The conventional wisdom is that 11th gen when it comes will be supported by the LGA1200, and given the delay in 7nm, I suspect that's even more true now than ever.

 

Anyway, lots of things to consider, I was where you are a month or so ago, and initially thought I'd go AMD, but the 10600K changed my mind.  Good luck!

 

KevyKevTPA  

[Southpaw_Joe]

2 hours ago, kmoze2001 said:

 

I've got a fresh new 10600K install (about 3 weeks now), and I'm getting 5ghz on 3 cores, 4.9 on 4-5, and 4.8 on 6.  With that I'm only running temps in the low to mid 30s idle, up to about mid 60s under load.  That's with the Noctua 12S with an aggressive fan curve, which is fine by me since I can't hear it even at 100%.  Given those thermals, I figure I could easily go to 5ghz all core, but I'm new to the whole OC game and am being conservative until I learn more about what I'm doing.  I'm basically letting my MB's AI and the XMP profile control my OC.

 

Now, maybe the silicon lottery gods smiled upon me and I got a chip that can handle OC better than average, I can't really speak to that.  I guess I also got lucky just getting one at a reasonable price from a reputable retailer in a timely manner, as it seems like as soon as they get a shipment in, it's gone, and you have to pay scalper prices or wait it out.  I got it for $289.  

 

Since you're going to need a new MB anyway to go Intel, I would strongly recommend against going 9th gen anything, as you would have zero upgrade path without ANOTHER new MB.  As far as the i7 or i9 10th gen, I didn't see any point in paying 2x or more for the CPU given the small performance increases they hypothetically come with.  The conventional wisdom is that 11th gen when it comes will be supported by the LGA1200, and given the delay in 7nm, I suspect that's even more true now than ever.

 

Anyway, lots of things to consider, I was where you are a month or so ago, and initially thought I'd go AMD, but the 10600K changed my mind.  Good luck!

 

KevyKevTPA  

 

Thanks for the info! Yea the more and more I look into it the 10600k is looking much better, but I might end up going with the 3900XT simply for the overall performance boost. But yea the 10900k looks good, but not if I have to go water cooling.