10900k/3080 to 7700x/13700k?

[Mister Woof]

Budget (including currency): n/a

Country: USA

Games, programs or workloads that it will be used for: MMOs, AAA games

Other details (existing parts lists, whether any peripherals are needed, what you're upgrading from, when you're going to buy, what resolution and refresh rate you want to play at, etc): 

 

10900KF 5.1-5.3ghz modified turbo OC, 48x cache, 0 AVX offset

Gigabyte Z590 Aorus Elite AX

32gb 4x8 4000mts CL19 Crucial Ballistix

ASUS TUF 3080 OC 10GB

1440p/165hz

 

I skipped Alder lake, as reviews showed  only a 10-15% gain at the time. Given I'm stuck on PCIE3, and have encountered some scenarios where I am not always able to maintain 90%+ GPU utilization (mostly mmos which I know can be network, but also some AAA games like CP2077), I'd like to have a stronger system for get the full use out of my 3080 or whatever if I decide to upgrade.

 

Think it's worth considering the jump to 7700x or 13700k? Presuming 13700k is close in performance.l to the 7700x.

 

Recent benches show 24% difference at 1080p with a 3090ti (that I don't have) between a stock 10900k and the 7700x. Withy OC and faster RAM, and at 1440p, and my slower GPU, I'd say on average it's probably single digits difference if I did upgrade.

 

Think it's worth it for FPS lows?

[PDifolco]

From what I've seen there's no meaningful performance/fps difference at 1440p between anything recent, from a 10600 to a 7950X.

I've checked for example how a 5800X3D wil fare vs my 5900X, and at 1440p it's just the same...

 

 

[jaslion]

Why?

 

Your cpu is still crazy good and I doubt its holding back your card. Are you playing cyberpunk on the lowest settings? Because a 10900k is absolutly not going to struggle filling that up to 100% useage.

 

You might actually wanna try removing your oc and see what that gives. Overclocking does not equal performance gains always.

48 minutes ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

Think it's worth it for FPS lows?

Small tip disable any fps monitoring and you wont worry avout these unnecesary things :p.

 

Also not worth at all

[Somerandomtechyboi]

46 minutes ago, jaslion said:

You might actually wanna try removing your oc and see what that gives. Overclocking does not equal performance gains always.

^^^

Actually looks like its better to just set a ~5ghz 1.2v allcore static so the cores run at a lower volt and lower heat output while keeping performance pretty much the same

 

Also oced ram? Pretty pointless having high bin ram if you arent gonna oc

[Mister Woof]

5 hours ago, Somerandomtechyboi said:

^^^

Actually looks like its better to just set a ~5ghz 1.2v allcore static so the cores run at a lower volt and lower heat output while keeping performance pretty much the same

 

Also oced ram? Pretty pointless having high bin ram if you arent gonna oc

Performance is better with the OC on the CPU. I've checked. It's not an all core OC static, which is when you get performance issues. It's why I went with just changing the active core turbo, so it can boost anywhere from 5.1 to 5.3, as well as keeping power saving features on.

 

RAM is just XMP. Didn't manual OC. I don't think the IMC nor the ICs are good for much more than XMP.

 

To be clear, there's not perceivable performance issues when playing AAA games that I know aren't GPU limits; however, there are some times when GPU isn't maxed out. I'm well aware sometimes this happens regardless of CPU, but it was just an observation.  Definitely there's times in MMOs where fps tanks and it's not graphics and CPU can help. Hanging around towns in MMOs is a great example that is mostly network and single core CPU. None of that really affects serious gameplay, but it's a technical example of when CPU can help.

 

Also, annoyed that I am stuck on PCIE3. I know, I know....not really that helpful with current system, and its my own fault for choosing this setup with a non-functional top M.2 slot. I thought Rocket Lake might have been worth upgrading to but it just wasn't. 

 

I suppose this is more of a "convince me NOT" to upgrade vs the opposite. Every new generation I have to convince myself not to buy it. 

[thewelshbrummie]

17 hours ago, Shimmy Gummi said:

I suppose this is more of a "convince me NOT" to upgrade vs the opposite. Every new generation I have to convince myself not to buy it. 

Waste of money? Personally speaking I've not seen any need to upgrade platform more than once every 5 years having gone from my first build that ended up with a Core 2 Quad as originally intended, then jumping to a 4670K for my 2nd build, then my current 10700K.

 

Which will be more than enough until at least Meteor Lake. tbh I'll probably be sticking with this until at least 16th gen - and assuming that launches in 3 years from now, that would make my build 4.5 years old at that point and around 6 years after 10th gen launched. I say that as the only reason I built my current rig is that it is in the US and my previous builds... aren't, as they're in Europe. If I was still there, I'd probably be rebuilding around now as Haswell really isn't up to it anymore, but 9 years is far longer than I'd anticipated that build lasting.

 

And PCI-E Gen 4 just isn't worth worrying about. I built 2 computers in April - an office PC for my parents with a 12100 and a 2TB WD SSD (I think the SN850) and a HTPC for myself, that has a 10400 pared with a 500GB SK Hynix P31. Apart from a maybe 10 second difference in boot speed there's no significant time difference in opening programs. And in my case I get more than enough performance running my OS of a gen 3 SSD & games off a Sata SSD.

 

3 year just doesn't justify an upgrade imo. If you had OG Ryzen then jumping from any Zen/Zen+ CPU  to a 5600X or greater would be worth the extra performance without having to change motherboard or RAM. But PCI-E Gen 4 (or 5) just aren't worth considering as a factor (especially with a 3080) until a game flat out requires it as a minimum requirement, or there's a significant performance boost from the extra speed - which isn't there right now. As for GPU performance, that is academic on an x16 slot for now. This techpowerup review of the 6600xt makes the point, that even running that card at PCIE 1.1 x8 has a performance drop but of around 20%.

 

Right now, you'd be wasting money jumping so soon, unless you really need that extra m.2 slot - and a PCI-E bracket can fix that for you for gen 3 speeds.

[Mister Woof]

6 hours ago, thewelshbrummie said:

Waste of money? Personally speaking I've not seen any need to upgrade platform more than once every 5 years having gone from my first build that ended up with a Core 2 Quad as originally intended, then jumping to a 4670K for my 2nd build, then my current 10700K.

 

Which will be more than enough until at least Meteor Lake. tbh I'll probably be sticking with this until at least 16th gen - and assuming that launches in 3 years from now, that would make my build 4.5 years old at that point and around 6 years after 10th gen launched. I say that as the only reason I built my current rig is that it is in the US and my previous builds... aren't, as they're in Europe. If I was still there, I'd probably be rebuilding around now as Haswell really isn't up to it anymore, but 9 years is far longer than I'd anticipated that build lasting.

 

And PCI-E Gen 4 just isn't worth worrying about. I built 2 computers in April - an office PC for my parents with a 12100 and a 2TB WD SSD (I think the SN850) and a HTPC for myself, that has a 10400 pared with a 500GB SK Hynix P31. Apart from a maybe 10 second difference in boot speed there's no significant time difference in opening programs. And in my case I get more than enough performance running my OS of a gen 3 SSD & games off a Sata SSD.

 

3 year just doesn't justify an upgrade imo. If you had OG Ryzen then jumping from any Zen/Zen+ CPU  to a 5600X or greater would be worth the extra performance without having to change motherboard or RAM. But PCI-E Gen 4 (or 5) just aren't worth considering as a factor (especially with a 3080) until a game flat out requires it as a minimum requirement, or there's a significant performance boost from the extra speed - which isn't there right now. As for GPU performance, that is academic on an x16 slot for now. This techpowerup review of the 6600xt makes the point, that even running that card at PCIE 1.1 x8 has a performance drop but of around 20%.

 

Right now, you'd be wasting money jumping so soon, unless you really need that extra m.2 slot - and a PCI-E bracket can fix that for you for gen 3 speeds.