New Build: i7-13700K vs i9-13900K for VR?

[Kirk66]

New Build: i7-13700K vs i9-13900K for VR? Planning on a 4090 and 64GB of DDR5. Currently on a Rift S but planning on upgrading to a Quest Pro or similar to go with the new build.

Only use is simming (DCS, IL-2 GB, MSFS, AFS 4) so productivity is not a concern.

Does the i9-13900K have a significant (as in actually visible) advantage over the i7-13700K?

Also, what kind of CPU coolers are you guys using for your i9-13900K and i7-13700K CPUs?

Cheers,

Vulture

[SharpeXB]

A 13900K is about 6.5% faster than a 13700K just according to benchmarks. A CPU cooler would be worthwhile since no doubt you’d want to overclock a K series. I can get 6.2 GHz with the cooling below. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by SharpeXB

[Dangerzone]

7 hours ago, Kirk66 said:

New Build: i7-13700K vs i9-13900K for VR? Planning on a 4090 and 64GB of DDR5. Currently on a Rift S but planning on upgrading to a Quest Pro or similar to go with the new build.

Only use is simming (DCS, IL-2 GB, MSFS, AFS 4) so productivity is not a concern.

Does the i9-13900K have a significant (as in actually visible) advantage over the i7-13700K?

Also, what kind of CPU coolers are you guys using for your i9-13900K and i7-13700K CPUs?

Cheers,

Vulture

My thought is to go with the i13900K.  The reason - it may not give an advantage now and the 13700K is probably enough for now... but I'd go for futureproofing. DCS has been (and continues to be) very heavy in the CPU department. I know that multithreading is being worked on, but I take the approach that I don't believe anything will work until it's actually been released - and is working. Even then, we don't know just how much of it will be effective.

As such, that extra headroom the 13900K may give in additional mhz may come in handy down the track. 

Mind you - I've been CPU bound in many occasions so I'm probably BIAS, but I'd hate for a 4090 to be restricted due to being CPU bound - it's a small extra cost to ensure that you get the most potential you can out of the GPU. 

Very interested to know what more knowledgeable people think and whether they differ in logic.

[Steel Jaw]

Big fan of Liquid cpu cooling, takes up far less space than air and nowhere near as much weight hanging off the motherboard. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by Steel Jaw

[Jive_68]

Hi Kirk,

I was in the same situation like you. I also use my computer mainly for flight simulations. Up until two weeks ago, I was still using a 10700k Intel CPU and a 1080GTX graphics card. I spent a long time looking at the various upgrade options and finally decided on an AMD CPU with the 7800X3D. The main reason was the better efficiency with better graphics performance compared to the Intel CPUs and at the same time low need for productive use of the system. However, I assume that even with low productive performance compared to the 13900k, the AMD CPU easily beats my old 10700k in terms of performance ;). 

I have kept the case, the installed case fans and my previous CPU fan Noctua NH-D15 with my upgrade.

 New additions are:

- 1000 Watt be quiet! Straight Power 11 Modular 80+ Platinum

- be quiet! 12VHPWR PCI-E Adapter Cable CPH-6610

- 24GB Palit GeForce RTX 4090 GameRock Active PCIe 4.0 x16 1xHDMI / 3xDisplayPort

- Gigabyte B650 AORUS ELITE AX

- AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 8x 4.20GHz So.AM5 WOF

- Kingston FURY Beast DDR5 32GB (2x16GB) 6000MT/s DDR5 CL36 DIMM

As VR goggles I still use an Oculus Quest 2.

At the end of the day, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the current top CPUs. At least until a new generation appears ;).

Here are some of my performance tests using the plazma torture map:

Greetings

Dirk

[blkspade]

20 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

My thought is to go with the i13900K.  The reason - it may not give an advantage now and the 13700K is probably enough for now... but I'd go for futureproofing. DCS has been (and continues to be) very heavy in the CPU department. I know that multithreading is being worked on, but I take the approach that I don't believe anything will work until it's actually been released - and is working. Even then, we don't know just how much of it will be effective.

As such, that extra headroom the 13900K may give in additional mhz may come in handy down the track. 

Mind you - I've been CPU bound in many occasions so I'm probably BIAS, but I'd hate for a 4090 to be restricted due to being CPU bound - it's a small extra cost to ensure that you get the most potential you can out of the GPU. 

Very interested to know what more knowledgeable people think and whether they differ in logic.

The 13900K MT advantage is from the extra E cores, which will do nothing for games. They accelerate productivity tasks that aren't effected by latency, but will indefinitely hamper game performance. They have less IPC and clocks than the P cores, so they'd constantly turn in work at a slower pace. 

[LucShep]

On 5/1/2023 at 7:19 PM, Kirk66 said:

New Build: i7-13700K vs i9-13900K for VR? Planning on a 4090 and 64GB of DDR5. Currently on a Rift S but planning on upgrading to a Quest Pro or similar to go with the new build.

Only use is simming (DCS, IL-2 GB, MSFS, AFS 4) so productivity is not a concern.

Does the i9-13900K have a significant (as in actually visible) advantage over the i7-13700K?

Also, what kind of CPU coolers are you guys using for your i9-13900K and i7-13700K CPUs?

Cheers,

Vulture

If it's between those two, and productivity is not of concern....
Then I'd certainly save the money and go straight to for the i7 13700K. Because you've defeated the purpose of the i9 13900K right there.
If you're an enthusiast ("gotta have the very best") and money is no object, then sure why not, go for the i9 13900K.

I'd also say same thing for motherboards - you also don't need the ubber expensive most top-of-the-line Z790 model version of any manufacturer.

In stock form, what you get with the (over a third) more expensive i9 13900K is the 400Mhz higher turbo clock, and eight more E-cores (which are not good for gaming). 
Haven't yet digged into overclocking process and results of these two, so can't tell wether OC'ing has a perceived advantage that makes one the far better choice vs the other.

In my experience, in practice you wont be able to tell a single difference between one and the other with whichever sim/game, at 4k or with VR or whatever.
But, of course, the very last unperceived milimetrics in OSD charts (and ownership pride) can often speak louder and make you feel more comfortable... 


Both run fairly hot, so get a decent 360AIO.
The 420AIOs are better but not necessary at all in stock form, though it can be nice to have if you're an enthusiast with PC case and budget permitting it.

Edited May 3, 2023 by LucShep

[Dangerzone]

3 hours ago, blkspade said:

The 13900K MT advantage is from the extra E cores, which will do nothing for games. They accelerate productivity tasks that aren't effected by latency, but will indefinitely hamper game performance. They have less IPC and clocks than the P cores, so they'd constantly turn in work at a slower pace. 

 

48 minutes ago, LucShep said:

In stock form, what you get with the (over a third) more expensive i9 13900K is the 400Mhz (6,5%) higher turbo clock, and eight more E-cores (which are not good for gaming). 

Thanks for the counter view gentlemen. I don't know if my thought process is right, but what I seemed to notice with DCS (with my 10700) - is that 100mhz seemed to make the difference at one stage between stutters and no stutters to me. My guess (and I admit it's a complete guess) is that with the settings or server scripting / number of units / etc on the MP map is that once DCS hits a limit - it doesn't gracefully degrade gradually - it degrades in steps.

The problem I had is I haven't been able to push that 100mhz and keep it stable. I was going to give up on VR, but then OpenXR came out, works smoother with less frames and saved my bacon seemingly solving the issue.

So when I looked at these 2 options, and saw 400mhz difference after my experience - it's always been in the back of my head that with DCS - it's not necessarily a down hill run, but a cliff that you can meet between acceptable and non-acceptable, and I've been paranoid ever since - so 400mhz difference to me got my attention. 

My question now is - cost side, is there any benefit not going for the 13900K?  Will the additional e-cores create more problems, or can they just easilly be completely disabled/turned off leaving just the extra 400mhz available as elbow room if someone has money to burn, or are there other negative aspects in going with the 13900K besides finance?

[LucShep]

2 hours ago, Dangerzone said:

So when I looked at these 2 options, and saw 400mhz difference after my experience - it's always been in the back of my head that with DCS - it's not necessarily a down hill run, but a cliff that you can meet between acceptable and non-acceptable, and I've been paranoid ever since - so 400mhz difference to me got my attention. 

My question now is - cost side, is there any benefit not going for the 13900K?  Will the additional e-cores create more problems, or can they just easilly be completely disabled/turned off leaving just the extra 400mhz available as elbow room if someone has money to burn, or are there other negative aspects in going with the 13900K besides finance?

I hope someone can answer your specific question of performance differencial in VR for DCS between those two processors (I sure can't).

Yes, you can disable the E-cores in the Bios, to make the P-cores do all the work. But you don't really have to (article in TPU).
And yes, you're technically right that the extra 400MHz of Turbo clock may play a tiny role, in the heaviest of all scenarios requiring specific CPU brute (clock) force.
But those will not be a regularity.

The thing is, the CPU architecture and the surrounding components (RAM speed/latency and NVMe drive file transfers) play far more of a role than Turbo clock speeds ever will.
Turbo clocks are "the best scenario". Not the constant. (and why "all-core" overclocks can be nice, IMO)

Once you get into these Intel 13th gen processors (use Windows 11 for it), with DDR5 6400Mhz CL32 memory (or better) and NVMe gen4 drives, the jump in performance will be tremendous over your 10th gen 10700K (I got one too) - imediately felt, guaranteed. Especially with that monster RTX4090(!) which will be the driving force of most of your VR experience. Not the "Turbo clock numbers".

If the extra 400Mhz Turbo clock (not meaningful, IMHO) are something that will keep popping inside your head, then by all means, man - get the i9 13900K.
After all the effort and investment, it's not nice to later feel some regret and that ongoing "what if I had.....?" 

Edited May 3, 2023 by LucShep

[derneuemann]

Am 3.5.2023 um 03:19 schrieb Dangerzone:

 

Thanks for the counter view gentlemen. I don't know if my thought process is right, but what I seemed to notice with DCS (with my 10700) - is that 100mhz seemed to make the difference at one stage between stutters and no stutters to me. My guess (and I admit it's a complete guess) is that with the settings or server scripting / number of units / etc on the MP map is that once DCS hits a limit - it doesn't gracefully degrade gradually - it degrades in steps.

The problem I had is I haven't been able to push that 100mhz and keep it stable. I was going to give up on VR, but then OpenXR came out, works smoother with less frames and saved my bacon seemingly solving the issue.

So when I looked at these 2 options, and saw 400mhz difference after my experience - it's always been in the back of my head that with DCS - it's not necessarily a down hill run, but a cliff that you can meet between acceptable and non-acceptable, and I've been paranoid ever since - so 400mhz difference to me got my attention. 

My question now is - cost side, is there any benefit not going for the 13900K?  Will the additional e-cores create more problems, or can they just easilly be completely disabled/turned off leaving just the extra 400mhz available as elbow room if someone has money to burn, or are there other negative aspects in going with the 13900K besides finance?

400MHz ? Doesn't matter...
Why, because times have changed.

5.5GHz to 5.1GHz is 7.8% more clock that will never make more than 6% difference in performance on one core.

The clock does not scale 1:1.

In addition, the DCS can now also do MultiCore and that is also being further developed... There is absolutely no need to buy the 13900k...

If at all, it is better to combine the 13700k with a fast DDR5 kit. DDR5 7200, for example, will ultimately bring more than 400MHz.

I personally vary between R5 7600 and 13600kf, each optimized with DDR5 6000 CL30 for AMD or DDR5 7200 CL34 for Intel.

Both will certainly be good for DCS for a long time.
And you are even better equipped with a 13700k!

Non Plus Ultra could also be a 7800X3D, but you are specifically asking for 13700k and 13900k.

13700k!

[skywalker22]

Does anyone having i5 13600K CPU? Based on benchmarks there is not a lot of difference to bigger brothers, but way lower power usage and temperature. 

I have 4090 and 10700k atm, and considering buying something new, but still not sure what.

[skywalker22]

38 minutes ago, mitchelrobertson said:

I went from a 10850k to a 13700k and couldn't be happier.  I used my Noctua air cooler from the 10850k.  Temps have been no problem.

The real question is if you think 8mb of 2nd level cache and 6mb 3rd level cache and 8 more efficiency cores is worth $150 and higher temps.  I didnt think so.

I also have Noctua NH-D15 cooler on 10700K, and I would use it on upgrade. So you are saying there are higher temps now on 13700K. How much higher? That's the most I am worried about. And just because of that I would rather go for 13600K - less power, lower temp. Not for much, I know. But as you were guessing, is it worth it? 600€ upgrade for what? 

[skywalker22]

4 minutes ago, mitchelrobertson said:

I was running hotter on the 10850k because I was OCing more.  With a minor OC on the 13700k Im running under 70 on an air cooler in DCS.

 

Ok, understood. So this is a good news then. Just have to decide which one to pick 13600 or 13700 series  Would you also go for 13600k? Based on all the tests I have seen, its just a bit behind it's bigger brother, its almost nothing. The only question is how it will behave in VR.

[skywalker22]

5 minutes ago, mitchelrobertson said:

If youre on a tight budget the 13600 looks pretty good and should be a good upgrade but for less than a $100 Id just get the faster CPU.  

Not that I am on a tight budget, just considering the value performance vs cost, that's all. If there is almost no difference in performance between these 2, I would rather pick the cheeper one. 

[Hippo]

Please note that I refer to DCS F/A-18C  only, with somewhat limited testing, and to visible, perceptible improvements in using the sim in VR.  I don't care if my CPU frame times have reduced substantially if my experience in the sim is exactly the same.  My main aim is a consistent 72 fps and at least 2xMSAA, ASW to kick in as rarely as possible - ideally never.  This was very difficult with the 1080 ti.  Also, see my sig for more details.

Feb 2023, I had i7 8700k + 1080 Ti + Quest 2 -> I was considering a 4090 but decided that "no way am I ever spending £1,800 on a GPU".  I instead picked up a 2nd hand 3080 Ti on ebay.  Very noticeable improvement.   I could now get 72 fps 2xmsaa, with lowish settings and Oculus at 1.0.

April 2023, upgraded to an i19 13900kf.  No practical, visible improvement whatsoever.  My system was limited by the GPU.

June 2023, just said life's too short and bought a 4090.  This thing has taken me up another level and t,he performance I have seen has been above what I was expecting; it's a monster.  Oculus all the way to the right at 1.3, 4xmsaa and highish settings, and I can hold 72 fps in the sort of stuff I'm doing (SP, e.g. I am currently playing the Persian Lion campaign).

Two weeks ago, I went for a Quest Pro, greatly improved visuals at no performance cost.  For my particular circumstances I have a system which gives me a fantastic DCS experience.  I have never bought "top of the line", as I have always balked at the extortionate cost involved.   Before I have always gone mid-range and had to compromise in some way or other, endlessly trying to tweak to eke out that last bit of performance; now I'm just enjoying DCS.

I think I should've bought the 4090 first and tried it with the 8700k as my first step.  I suspect that I would've been fine with that.  I really regret not going this way, because I really would have liked to have tested and compared.   I'm not unhappy though, as I use the PC for more than DCS, and it was time for a change that mobo and cpu being over 5 yrs old.

BTW, I have used an exteral power meter to measure the power draw, and the PC  has never gone over 500W when running DCS.  I don't intend to o/c (yet) - so my old 850 W PSU has been perfectly adequate.

Having said all that, for a new build, with a 4090 I would just go for the 13900k, because, well, in for a penny...

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hippo

[skywalker22]

43 minutes ago, Hippo said:

Please note that I refer to DCS F/A-18C  only, with somewhat limited testing, and to visible, perceptible improvements in using the sim in VR.  I don't care if my CPU frame times have reduced substantially if my experience in the sim is exactly the same.  My main aim is a consistent 72 fps and at least 2xMSAA, ASW to kick in as rarely as possible - ideally never.  This was very difficult with the 1080 ti.  Also, see my sig for more details.

Feb 2023, I had i7 8700k + 1080 Ti + Quest 2 -> I was considering a 4090 but decided that "no way am I ever spending £1,800 on a GPU".  I instead picked up a 2nd hand 3080 Ti on ebay.  Very noticeable improvement.   I could now get 72 fps 2xmsaa, with lowish settings and Oculus at 1.0.

April 2023, upgraded to an i19 13900kf.  No practical, visible improvement whatsoever.  My system was limited by the GPU.

June 2023, just said life's too short and bought a 4090.  This thing has taken me up another level and t,he performance I have seen has been above what I was expecting; it's a monster.  Oculus all the way to the right at 1.3, 4xmsaa and highish settings, and I can hold 72 fps in the sort of stuff I'm doing (SP, e.g. I am currently playing the Persian Lion campaign).

Two weeks ago, I went for a Quest Pro, greatly improved visuals at no performance cost.  For my particular circumstances I have a system which gives me a fantastic DCS experience.  I have never bought "top of the line", as I have always balked at the extortionate cost involved.   Before I have always gone mid-range and had to compromise in some way or other, endlessly trying to tweak to eke out that last bit of performance; now I'm just enjoying DCS.

I think I should've bought the 4090 first and tried it with the 8700k as my first step.  I suspect that I would've been fine with that.  I really regret not going this way, because I really would have liked to have tested and compared.   I'm not unhappy though, as I use the PC for more than DCS, and it was time for a change that mobo and cpu being over 5 yrs old.

BTW, I have used an exteral power meter to measure the power draw, and the PC  has never gone over 500W when running DCS.  I don't intend to o/c (yet) - so my old 850 W PSU has been perfectly adequate.

Having said all that, for a new build, with a 4090 I would just go for the 13900k, because, well, in for a penny...

 

 

Awesome mate, happy for you  I'm in a sort of condition you would like to be. I have 4090 and 10700k  And considering now buying 13600k to 13900k, still not decided yet.

How are you cooling 13900kf? What temps does it reach in DCS (VR and non VR)?

[Hippo]

2 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

How are you cooling 13900kf? What temps does it reach in DCS (VR and non VR)?

Cooler Master ML360 Illusion CPU Cooler.  VR a handful of cores just under 60 C, the rest around low 40s C.  According to MSI Afterburner.  Don't do non-VR, sorry

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hippo

[skywalker22]

2 hours ago, Hippo said:

Cooler Master ML360 Illusion CPU Cooler.  VR a handful of cores just under 60 C, the rest around low 40s C.  According to MSI Afterburner.  Don't do non-VR, sorry

 

One more question, how much work is there with these "water" type of coolers? Do you have to open, clean and replace the coolant? If so, how often?

Edited July 1, 2023 by skywalker22

[Hippo]

2 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

One more question, how much work is there with these "water" type of coolers? Do you have to open, clean and replace the coolant? If so, how often?

 

Supposedly sealed and maintanance-free  - so no, and never.  I suspect air cooling would've been fine for me, and it's what I've always used,  but I was keen to try one of these out and it does look much nicer and tidier.  Installation was pretty simple, but care needs to be taken, with the radiator being 360mm, that it will fit without issue in your case.

 

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hippo

[Hippo]

6 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

And considering now buying 13600k to 13900k, still not decided yet.

I don't think you've mentioned which headset you're using but if it's QP or Q2 you could try doing what I did here and see if your results are very different from mine.  I'd be quite interested to know myself.

[skywalker22]

7 minutes ago, Hippo said:

I don't think you've mentioned which headset you're using but if it's QP or Q2 you could try doing what I did here and see if your results are very different from mine.  I'd be quite interested to know myself.

I have Pro. So far, I don't find CPU is limited in VR, it seems it's only struggling in heavy missions, which has nothing to do with VR. 

[Hippo]

6 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

I have Pro. So far, I don't find CPU is limited in VR, it seems it's only struggling in heavy missions, which has nothing to do with VR. 

Ah.  TBH, because I have been struggling to get acceptable performance with VR for many years, I have avoided "heavy missions" (and don't do multiplayer).  I suppose it's very possible you could see considerable improvements owing to the CPU in those circumstances.  I have not tested with such missions - I suppose I really should at some point.

Edited July 1, 2023 by Hippo

[skywalker22]

6 minutes ago, Hippo said:

Ah.  TBH, because I have been struggling to get acceptable performance with VR for many years, I have avoided "heavy missions" (and don't do multiplayer).  I suppose it's very possible you could see considerable improvements owing to the CPU in those circumstances.  I have not tested with such missions - I suppose I really should at some point.

 

Multiplayer is not a problem, its not your CPU doing all the processing (unless you are the host). I fly mainly online, daily on PvP G.S. server for example, with 64players, or some 4YA servers with heavy missions with no problem what so ever.

Yes, please, check some offline mission now when u have an overall monster, how's the system holding up running some heavy stuff.

Edited July 1, 2023 by skywalker22

[Hippo]

1 hour ago, skywalker22 said:

Multiplayer is not a problem, its not your CPU doing all the processing (unless you are the host). I fly mainly online, daily on PvP G.S. server for example, with 64players, or some 4YA servers with heavy missions with no problem what so ever.

Yes, please, check some offline mission now when u have an overall monster, how's the system holding up running some heavy stuff.

 

Sure, can you suggest a suitable mission or track?

[Hippo]

1 hour ago, skywalker22 said:

If you have MSI Afterburner, can you do the same screenshot? To see how are your cores loaded.

Sorry, I couldn't be bothered with the whole setting up the overlay rigmarole.  I attach a log instead.  I chose the first F-16 in the list, and mainly just sat in the cockpit looking forward.  That dip to 36 fps I think happened when I then had a good look around the cockpit and sorroundings.  BTW, my settings are now different to what they were in that post I linked to.  The main difference is I am now running 4xMSAA.  Hope this helps.  My spec is in my sig.  If you can't see it, you need to activate the viewing of sigs in the forum settings.

ab2023_07_01_22_09_06_440.hml