i9 10900f or i9 11900f?

[seeyouyoosee]

Hey, I'm a pc newbee and want to upgrade my cpu recently, I'm currently using i5 11400, with 3070ti and 16gb ddr4 3200 x2.

 

And I'm not upgrading to beyond 12th gen bc that way I need to upgrade my motherboard too which is beyond my budget.

 

I want to upgrade my i5 to i9 and add 2 more 16gb ram make it 64gb

 

So what I've learnd is 10900 has 2 more cores but 11900 has better single core performance? In my country 10900 is slightly more expensive than 11900. I mainly want to upgrade my cpu bc I use blender for 3d rendering and physic simulation stuff(heavily cpu use). I play games too but 6~7 fps difference is not a big deal for me, 3d software performance is the big deal

 

I also don't do overclock stuff, I don't know how, and my power unit is 750w, fan cpu cooling system

 

So which cpu should I choose? Thank you

 

 

 

[filpo]

2 minutes ago, seeyouyoosee said:

which is beyond my budget

what is your budget and country?

[SkilledRebuilds]

The 11900 series has a worse ddr4 memory controller than 10th gen, but your only chasing 3200Mhz so I doubt it's even an issue you'll come across. 3200Mhz isn't hard to attain it's the higher frequencies 11th gen has trouble with on DDR4.

 

11th Gen has a faster single core speed, and 10th gen 10 cores vs 8 cores isn't some huge advancement either in games.

 

The 10900K in heavy AVX workoads probably pulls more power too, and in AVX workloads, it gets pretty toasty and uses a lot of power, i mean thye both do, but the 11th gen has lesser amount of cores to throw power into in those scenarios and probably fares better temp/power wise.

[8tg]

If you’re going for the 3D software primarily and the games aren’t as important, the 11900 still generally outperforms the 10900 despite having less cores. It’s fairly close, and depending on workload the 10900 will simply pull ahead with more cores and threads but the difference is small. 
You may also see benefits from having pcie 4.0 if you have a modern GPU or particularly fast ssd, with 10th gen won’t support.

 

But either are realistically good choices. If the 11900 is cheaper, get that. Because the performance differences can go both ways, very slightly, and it’s not too much of a concern either way to instead just go the economical route.

[--SID--]

What's the brand and model of the motherboard?

[seeyouyoosee]

19 minutes ago, filpo said:

what is your budget and country?

I'm in China and 11900kf is around 162 bucks, 10900f is around 178 bucks plus two 16gb ram around 70 bucks, which the best I can afford on this pc right now

[podkall]

17 minutes ago, 8tg said:

If you’re going for the 3D software primarily and the games aren’t as important, the 11900 still generally outperforms the 10900 despite having less cores. It’s fairly close, and depending on workload the 10900 will simply pull ahead with more cores and threads but the difference is small. 
You may also see benefits from having pcie 4.0 if you have a modern GPU or particularly fast ssd, with 10th gen won’t support.

 

But either are realistically good choices. If the 11900 is cheaper, get that. Because the performance differences can go both ways, very slightly, and it’s not too much of a concern either way to instead just go the economical route.

aren't 11th and 10th gen i9s almost same in terms of performance?

[8tg]

Just now, podkall said:

aren't 11th and 10th gen i9s almost same in terms of performance?

The 11900 is faster by a noticeable amount, but in OPs use case there’s some scenarios where having the extra 2 cores will even the playing field between them.

[seeyouyoosee]

7 minutes ago, --SID-- said:

What's the brand and model of the motherboard?

asus tuf gaming b560m plus wifi

[podkall]

2 minutes ago, 8tg said:

The 11900 is faster by a noticeable amount, but in OPs use case there’s some scenarios where having the extra 2 cores will even the playing field between them.

so the benchmarks I saw online were not set up properly?

 

oh, I just checked something, and turns out they're only even in Cinebench R23, but in other programs they have much higher discrepancy

[seeyouyoosee]

25 minutes ago, 8tg said:

If you’re going for the 3D software primarily and the games aren’t as important, the 11900 still generally outperforms the 10900 despite having less cores. It’s fairly close, and depending on workload the 10900 will simply pull ahead with more cores and threads but the difference is small. 
You may also see benefits from having pcie 4.0 if you have a modern GPU or particularly fast ssd, with 10th gen won’t support.

 

But either are realistically good choices. If the 11900 is cheaper, get that. Because the performance differences can go both ways, very slightly, and it’s not too much of a concern either way to instead just go the economical route.

Thx I may consider 11th gen, I do only have a Samsung 980 ssd (not pro) which is pcie 3.0 I guess? 

[seeyouyoosee]

29 minutes ago, SkilledRebuilds said:

The 11900 series has a worse ddr4 memory controller than 10th gen, but your only chasing 3200Mhz so I doubt it's even an issue you'll come across. 3200Mhz isn't hard to attain it's the higher frequencies 11th gen has trouble with on DDR4.

 

11th Gen has a faster single core speed, and 10th gen 10 cores vs 8 cores isn't some huge advancement either in games.

 

The 10900K in heavy AVX workoads probably pulls more power too, and in AVX workloads, it gets pretty toasty and uses a lot of power, i mean thye both do, but the 11th gen has lesser amount of cores to throw power into in those scenarios and probably fares better temp/power wise.

I don't really touch/change anything on my motherbord so they basically just running as default settings, which one is more power consuming?

[SkilledRebuilds]

9 hours ago, seeyouyoosee said:

I don't really touch/change anything on my motherbord so they basically just running as default settings, which one is more power consuming?

Pretty negligible I'm actually a little surprised.

(Cinebench R20 Multicore 100% workload)