Upgrading cpu/mb: 3900x or 9900k?

[Rossterman]

I’m planning on making some upgrades to my rig this xmas season and having some difficulty as to which CPU will give the best performance in DCS. Most of what I’ve read is highest single core performance and clock speed. If that’s the only determining factors, the 9900k seems to be a no brainer. But, recently I’ve been reading that ipc and performance tests that calculate total work performed are a better indicator. The single core benchmark (I forgot the name at the moment) actually shows the 3900x outperforms the the intel chip by a small margin even though it runs at a lower clock speed.

 

So, has anyone with similar specs to mine run back to back comparisons in DCS to determine which CPU has the best performance? What are folks thoughts?

[Gnadentod]

3800X. I am doing the same as you and build a new simulator system in one month. Will be a X570 system with 3800X. 3900X and 3800X have about the same single core performance as the 9900K at 5 Ghz.

[DocSigma]

I havent done a single core cinebench test on my new system, but I did run a CPU-z bench and it yielded a slightly better single core score over a 9900k. My system isnt overclocked, just the stock clocks out of the box. Click on the multithreaded bar for my system (you) to bring up the full single and multithreaded comparisons. Not sure if the clocks are just the average over the test or if the CPU boosted to 4.6ghz on that single core, which I've confirmed my chip does do - I've monitored it in DCS and it does boost to the frequency amd claims - in fact I've seen it boost beyond 4.6, briefly.

 

 

https://valid.x86.fr/bg5fk1

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Edited November 4, 2019 by DocSigma

[Pilotasso]

From a performance standpoint for gaming it makes no difference on your experience. The choice is all about what other use will you give for the machine beyond DCS.

[Delta59R]

There are 3 popular tests that measure single core performance that we see reviewers use a lot. Cinbench R20, R15 and CPUZ. R20 favors AMD while intel performs better on R15 and CPUZ.

[Scendore]

Watching this thread... Wanting to build a new rig. Mine rig is terribly old but still effective at 1440p.

[BitMaster]

I'd go AMD if I was you. The much better overall setup

[Akrescue130]

And from what I've read, AMD ryzen 4000 series stuff will be launching next year as well, and will still be using the am4 socket. Then you could just a cpu upgrade by itself on a more matured 7nm process with higher clock speeds

[Delta59R]

I havent done a single core cinebench test on my new system, but I did run a CPU-z bench and it yielded a slightly better single core score over a 9900k. My system isnt overclocked, just the stock clocks out of the box. Click on the multithreaded bar for my system (you) to bring up the full single and multithreaded comparisons. Not sure if the clocks are just the average over the test or if the CPU boosted to 4.6ghz on that single core, which I've confirmed my chip does do - I've monitored it in DCS and it does boost to the frequency amd claims - in fact I've seen it boost beyond 4.6, briefly.

 

 

https://valid.x86.fr/bg5fk1

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

 

That is odd, stock clock 9900k typically gets around 582 on single core cpuz

[Delta59R]

https://valid.x86.fr/hwdum6

 

 

Mine @ 5.0, Actually 596 seems high, I don't remember it being that high before, I wonder if something changed with cpuz?

[Tailhook]

For DCS, until ED does something about multi-threading then you want to remain with Intel. Go with the 9900KS.

[Konovalov]

For DCS, until ED does something about multi-threading then you want to remain with Intel. Go with the 9900KS.

Really there is very little to distinguish between 3rd gen Ryzen and Intel now that in real world DCS scenario terms you probably won't notice. And the Intel 9900KS is just a sickening money grab from Intel. :disgust::disgust: Get the stock 9900k and spend the saved money on a better GPU.

[The Falcon]

I think we should consider the loss of performance due to intel's security flaws, so I don't know but I believe that in this case amd is the best choice, especially if intel's performance losses affect the single core

[streakeagle]

With the release of the Rift S, I am flying VR more. 1 or 2 fps isn't a big difference. There are essentially two realms: try to hold 40 fps with the highest quality settings possible or if your gpu and cpu are strong enough, try to hold 80 fps with the highest quality settings possible.

 

I am going to guess that the 3rd gen Ryzen and 9900k are close enough in performance that given a decent gpu will be too close in performance to distinguish... i.e. hold 40 fps with the same settings or maybe hold 80 fps with the same settings. If that is the case, then it is just a matter of personal preference or whether you intend to use the PC for more than just playing DCS World in VR.

 

Multithreading is coming sooner or later for just about everything. But is it coming soon enough to sacrifice even a slight amount of single thread performance to make sure you have a decent multi-threading support?

 

I have been sitting on the fence for a few years already. Still nothing leaps out at me enough to make me pull the trigger on building a new PC. I will just keep sitting here until something forces me to act.

[Waxer]

There is very little between AMDs 3rd gen Ryzen and Intel's 9900K. Very little.

 

If you intend to overclock and you have a powerful cooling solution (very good air cooler like Noctua or a custom water-cooling loop like on my system) you would most likely be able to overclock the 9900K to a small advantage (0-5%). But getting there is expensive (high spec PSU, high spec motherboard with good VRM and high specification cooling system and case ventilation). Definitely law of diminishing returns.

 

Ryzen will also benefit from a powerful cooling system*, but for normal performance it is far easier and cheaper to cool. (*Including making sure case ventilation is working well... plentiful cool air in, hot air out immediately though the top without being recirculated around the case). However it is already overclocking itself effectively so there is not so much extra potential performance to manually squeeze from the silicon.

 

You probably want to consider that 9900K is end of line. Meaning that a step forward from Intel probably requires new motherboards. Ryzen has been making effective use of it's AM4 socket meaning that an investment in their motherboard has been offering upgrade paths to early adopters. It also gives higher resale to people selling old Ryzen processors second hand as late adopters can buy your top CPU and get it to work without a new motherboard when you upgrade.

 

If it were me, unless I saw a striking deal on a high specification Intel motherboard, I would go the AMD route based on the current choices in the market. (Note that I only got into Intel HEDT on the basis of CPU and motherboard both bought at 50% below RRP... so if you spot a "deal" that changes the value dynamics then you could reach different conclusions).

[BitMaster]

9900KS is a PAPER LAUNCH. Sold out mostly, 1 year warranty only also speaks for itself and you will have ZERO chance to drop in a new CPU next year.

 

Ever Der 8auer says, admitting a few more frames in every game for the KS and better overclocking, for most customers, he'd go with AMD as it only matters at 1080p, you will be GPU bound for a few years to come.

 

PCIe v4 is another thing to be considered, not only for NVMe where it really doesnt matter much, but for all the rest like USB, Audio, LAN, WLAN...all those chips suck away bandwidth that Intel has not so much of compared to AMD

[Delta59R]

9900KS is a PAPER LAUNCH. Sold out mostly, 1 year warranty only also speaks for itself and you will have ZERO chance to drop in a new CPU next year.

 

Ever Der 8auer says, admitting a few more frames in every game for the KS and better overclocking, for most customers, he'd go with AMD as it only matters at 1080p, you will be GPU bound for a few years to come.

 

PCIe v4 is another thing to be considered, not only for NVMe where it really doesnt matter much, but for all the rest like USB, Audio, LAN, WLAN...all those chips suck away bandwidth that Intel has not so much of compared to AMD

 

 

I had a chance to buy one from BnH photo last night, not for 513 but for 595.00... I also saw some new slides that just got out of the 10900kf, its 14++++++ 10core 5.2 ghz. More cores and a tad better clocks. Deja vu

[Rossterman]

Thanks all for the feedback. I like the idea of buying something at the beginning of model run and being able to drop a new chip in a few years later vs. end and now having to rebuy mb and cpu. Think I’ll give the AMD a try (last on I had was back in the althon days). Let you know how it goes once I get it all together.

[DocSigma]

Thanks all for the feedback. I like the idea of buying something at the beginning of model run and being able to drop a new chip in a few years later vs. end and now having to rebuy mb and cpu. Think I’ll give the AMD a try (last on I had was back in the althon days). Let you know how it goes once I get it all together.

 

 

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Sn8ke_iis]

For those planning new builds this season. As Bit already mentioned just because you want a processor does not mean said processor/mb/GPU is in stock at a reasonable price. If you have your heart set on building something over the holidays have a backup plan.

 

Until someone does some serious benchmarks to compare, the new AMD processors should match Intel within a frame or two or within the margin of error is my best guess. It's not really a matter of opinion or which company you are partial to, the single thread benchmarks speak for themselves. But the price performance ratio gets all thrown out of whack if vendors start scalping stuff they know is popular. I've seen prices raised in realtime based on demand. If you buy an overpriced AMD motherboard that's more than you actually need, that also throws off the price performance savings of the CPU. For DCS all you need is a $100 - $150 ITX motherboard unless you want to do SLI or need expansion slots (you don't).

 

In general this the best time to buy components but there are always bottleneck components you will need to have a working computer like the CPU. Best course of action might be to decide on a build and collect the parts over time when they are at their best price and vendors know demand has subsided. If you get excited to play with a new toy by a certain emotional deadline you'll pay more $$$.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Sn8ke_iis

[Rossterman]

With the recent releases of info on the 4000 series ryzen cpus in 1st half 2020 and Intels 10 series cpu debuting around the same time. I’ve been rethinking spending upgrade money right now to see what pans out. I’m hoping for a significant boost to get the best bang for my buck. Can’t wait to see what’s coming!

[Strong05]

With the recent releases of info on the 4000 series ryzen cpus in 1st half 2020 and Intels 10 series cpu debuting around the same time. I’ve been rethinking spending upgrade money right now to see what pans out. I’m hoping for a significant boost to get the best bang for my buck. Can’t wait to see what’s coming!

 

 

I'm in the exact same CPU boat as you. After doing a reasonable amount of research I've come to the conclusion that the current gen Intel and Ryzen CPU's are only giving about a 10-15% improvement in gaming performance over an overclocked 6700k. Hard to justify an upgrade imo for just gaming. Also depressing how little progress has been made in 3 years or more (aside from core count).