Getting a New Rig Come the New Year

[Lupus]

Ok. I'm getting ready to drop some big money on an update/new rig for myself.  My goal is to be able to run this game, and many others with max or near max settings.  I loves me the eye candy.  Ultimately I want to run Triple 27" Monitors (I wish I could manage triple 1440's but I'm thinking that I'm going to end up running at 1080p to get good frame rates north of 75hz).

 

Here is what I'm looking at building:

 

Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor         

Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO 82.9 CFM Sleeve Bearing CPU Cooler

Gigabyte Z390 AORUS ULTRA ATX LGA1151 Motherboard

G.Skill Ripjaws V Series 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 Memory

Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive           (Owned Already)

Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive 

Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Seagate Barracuda 1 TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive

Samsung 860 Evo 1 TB 2.5" Solid State Drive        (Owned Already)

EVGA GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER 8 GB BLACK GAMING Video Card

Phanteks Enthoo Pro Tempered Glass ATX Full Tower Case

EVGA SuperNOVA P2 850 W 80+ Platinum Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply        (Owned Already)

HP 1270i DVD/CD Writer               (Owned Already)

Creative Labs Sound Blaster Audigy Fx 192 kHz Sound Card            (Owned Already)

Asus VG278HE 27.0" 1920x1080 144 Hz Monitor                (Owned Already)

 

This leaves me with questions:

        Can a RTX 2080 Super push triples at 1440p or only at 1080p with max settings?

 

         If it can only push Triples at 1080p at max settings should I consider downgrading the CPU and/or Graphics card to save money towards a new monitor(s)?

         If I downgrade the hardware (CPU and GPU), how far down can I go and still push 3 1080p monitors at max settings with something around 75 to 144 fps or more?

 

I'm seriously debating between the 9700k and the 9900k for a CPU and the 2070 Super and the 2080 Super for the GPU.  The difference I save can be put towards getting my triple monitors sooner (right now I'm running an older 27" 1080p 144mhz monitor (no Gsync or Free Sync as that didn't exist when I bought the monitor I have now).  I fly with TrackIR 4 in an Obutto Rig, so if I get triples I'll need to update my monitor stand (another $206 US in addition to the cost of the monitors) so the triples aren't a necessity or immediately needed but in total for a triple set of 1080p monitors, with stands I'm looking at more than I can afford without making some serious compromises on the computer hardware.

 

What would you do in my shoes?

[Jaws2002]

1 hour ago, Lupus said:

 

 

I'm seriously debating between the 9700k and the 9900k for a CPU 

What would you do in my shoes? 

I would get the 9900k. With the massive influx of high core/high threads cpus by AMD, gaming companies may fix their old ways of using multicore CPUs. While the single core performance is very close between this two chip, the 9700k is single threaded and in multi threaded tasks, a 6 core/12 threads cpu will beat it.

 The trend goes towards multithreading and I'd rather be safe with double the threads of the 9900k.

 

Edit...However,  right now, that $100 difference between the two chips, will give you more bang for the buck in gaming, if you spend it on a more powerful Graphics card.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Jaws2002

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

2 hours ago, Lupus said:

What would you do in my shoes?

 

Do you have experience with multi-monitor gaming? Not everyone ends up finding it enjoyable as many games do not allow adjustments of important features like the projection and HUD element locations.

If you want a wide field of view, a single monitor with a high aspect ratio such as 21:9 or 32:9 is a possible alternative to triple monitors. This solution could be cheaper and much less complicated.

 

2 hours ago, Lupus said:

Can a RTX 2080 Super push triples at 1440p or only at 1080p with max settings?

 

7680 x 1440 isn't feasible in most modern games. 5760 x 1080 is relatively easy.

 

2 hours ago, Lupus said:

If it can only push Triples at 1080p at max settings should I consider downgrading the CPU and/or Graphics card to save money towards a new monitor(s)?

 

The GPU is something that you should prioritize for any high resolution setup, as graphics processing requirements increase with resolution. Your performance will be limited by the GPU most of the time. CPU requirements are essentially independent of resolution, so you are free to make some sacrifices there.

 

You could choose a 9700K, 9600K, or even 3000 series Ryzen and lose very little performance.

 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Mitthrawnuruodo

[SeaW0lf]

5 hours ago, Lupus said:

Intel Core i9-9900K 3.6 GHz 8-Core Processor         

Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO

 

A Hyper 212 Evo will make your i9-9900K throttle due to overheating. Really a standard cooler for old quad-cores running at stock. It could run the i5-9600K at stock or with a conservative OC, but the i9 is way out there.

 

Get at least a Noctua NH-U14S to run it at stock. Preferably a NH-D15 or an AIO water cooler of 280/360mm. I'm not sure if the NH-D15 will fit the motherboard with all those heatsinks at the VRM. Perhaps an AIO would be safer. Especially because you want to overclock the CPU to get the max out of it in simulators that uses mainly single threaded applications.

 

Do some research if you are buying the i9 and get the best cooling solution possible / under your budget. 

 

EDIT* - I would also get better RAM with lower timings. What's the CL of the Ripjaws 3200 that you are getting?

Edited December 1, 2019 by SeaW0lf

[dburne]

I use a Corsair H 150i Pro 360mm AIO with my 9900k, have all 8 cores clocked to 5.1 GHz and it does a pretty good job.

[Dakpilot]

Find out if the games you want to play will benefit from the extra threads of hyper threading on the 9900K, most don't, so save money on the 9700k. 

 

Seriously consider ultra wide monitor rather than tripples. For reasons said above

 

Think about a small/medium M2 ssd on the MB just for the O/S and associated critical programs

 

As said above go for cas 14 ram if you're getting 3200mgz. (these have generally better binned memory chips) 

 

The Intel K models need to be overclocked otherwise you are missing their performance advantage and wasting money buying them

 

Overclocking is easy if you have enough cooling, closed loop 280/360 systems work very well even some of the latest generation 240's are good enough for 5ghz.

 

If you are not overclocking intel, some of the latest AMD are also a comparable option, AMD currently do not give much benefit over stock when overclocked. 

 

Get the most powerful GPU you can afford, do not try and save money here, it will cost you more in medium/long term anyway and give immediate benefit. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

[SeaW0lf]

Yeah, the i7 seems a better option if you are not a streamer or something like that. And better to save on the rest (get less HDs for example, one ultrawide monitor) and do a good overclock on the CPU (good cooling solution) and get a top RAM, either a 3200Mhz with cas 14 or a 3600Mhz with cas 16. I read somewhere that although the cas is important, the clock is more used in general, so a higher clock with a good cas is better. But I rather have 3200Mhz with cas 14 than 3600Mhz with cas 18/19.

[malazan]

Hi,

 

Why buy 3 seperate 1TB HDD. rather than 1 3TB one?

[dburne]

Better yet why put that old of technology - HDD - in such a nice new system?

Go at least SSD, if not with NVME.m2 if slots available.

 

I have two NVME.m2 drives, and one SATA SSD drive on my Z390 rig.

 

1 hour ago, malazan said:

Hi,

 

Why buy 3 seperate 1TB HDD. rather than 1 3TB one?

 

I myself prefer separate drives, I like to keep different kinds of programs on different drives. 
For instance I have one drive dedicated to just games, another has all my documents, music, videos, etc.

My main C drive has of course Windows and all my program files. Just a personal preference on my part.

Edited December 1, 2019 by dburne

[Lupus]

5 hours ago, malazan said:

Hi,

 

Why buy 3 seperate 1TB HDD. rather than 1 3TB one?

 

The reason is simple, RAID0.  Not as fast as SSD's, and not nearly as expensive, but noticeably faster than a single HDD.  I can get all 4 HD's, if you count the one I already own, for $100.  Compare that with $500 for a similarly sized SSD or $250 if I buy 3 1TB SSD's.  It's just not in the budget and not worth the perfomance gains when I already have a 1TB SSD that I use as my boot drive and gaming drive.

 

I currently have 3TB's worth of storage on my current system and will need to accommodate that and have room to grow.  I'm thinking 5TB total makes a good start.

 

9 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

Yeah, the i7 seems a better option if you are not a streamer or something like that. And better to save on the rest (get less HDs for example, one ultrawide monitor) and do a good overclock on the CPU (good cooling solution) and get a top RAM, either a 3200Mhz with cas 14 or a 3600Mhz with cas 16. I read somewhere that although the cas is important, the clock is more used in general, so a higher clock with a good cas is better. But I rather have 3200Mhz with cas 14 than 3600Mhz with cas 18/19.

 

Based on my research, RAM Speed and RAM timings have minimal effect on gaming.  That said, 3200 speed ram seems to be the sweet spot currently based on value and speed but CAS timing has no real noticeable effect on games, at least from what I've found.  Can you show me where it does?

 

11 hours ago, Dakpilot said:

Find out if the games you want to play will benefit from the extra threads of hyper threading on the 9900K, most don't, so save money on the 9700k. 

 

Seriously consider ultra wide monitor rather than tripples. For reasons said above

 

Think about a small/medium M2 ssd on the MB just for the O/S and associated critical programs

 

As said above go for cas 14 ram if you're getting 3200mgz. (these have generally better binned memory chips) 

 

The Intel K models need to be overclocked otherwise you are missing their performance advantage and wasting money buying them

 

Overclocking is easy if you have enough cooling, closed loop 280/360 systems work very well even some of the latest generation 240's are good enough for 5ghz.

 

If you are not overclocking intel, some of the latest AMD are also a comparable option, AMD currently do not give much benefit over stock when overclocked. 

 

Get the most powerful GPU you can afford, do not try and save money here, it will cost you more in medium/long term anyway and give immediate benefit. 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

 

There are two main reasons for the Triples.

1. I play some older games that are not compatible with Ultra wide monitors.  In fact, they have some issues with 16:9 aspect ratio's, games like Silent Hunter III.  Although to be fair, I worry about when I have to step up to Windows 10 for those as well.

2. I play Elite Dangerous, and some of the things I do in that game take a lot of time.  I like to binge Netflix while playing the game.  The separate monitor lets me do this.

 

16 hours ago, dburne said:

I use a Corsair H 150i Pro 360mm AIO with my 9900k, have all 8 cores clocked to 5.1 GHz and it does a pretty good job.

 

As for the Cooler, based on what I've found, the Hyper 212 EVO will run the 9900k at stock settings just fine.  But you are right, the OC potential is there.  I did some OC stuff back in the early 2000's.  So I'll probably go with the Noctura NHD-15, which has slightly better cooling performance than any of the tested AIO's I've been able to find testing stats on.

Edited December 1, 2019 by Lupus
Grammer

[SeaW0lf]

23 minutes ago, Lupus said:

Based on my research, RAM Speed and RAM timings have minimal effect on gaming.  That said, 3200 speed ram seems to be the sweet spot currently based on value and speed but CAS timing has no real noticeable effect on games, at least from what I've found.  Can you show me where it does?

 

In general those articles are talking about well optimized games, DX12, etc. Regarding simulators, DCS included, CPU clock and memory clock / timing is always a plus as far as I remember. You can check these things on DCS forum and such. The other aspect is that sometimes you get good RAM paying just a few more. Since you are going for the i9 (apparently), top of the line motherboard, does not make sense to skimp on RAM.

 

At least for AMD, memory speed is crucial if I'm not mistaken due to the latency in between cores.

[WallysWorld]

For my recently built system, I went with a NH-D15 and have my i9-9900k overclocked to 5 Ghz with no issues. Can probably go higher if I really put some effort into it.

 

I bought two NVME.m2 SSD's for the new system and added two SSD's from my old system for a total of 4 SSD's with 2.9 TB. Once you have stuff running on SSD's, it's hard to go back to HDD's. At least it is to me.

 

I also got the Phanteks Enthoo Pro  and it's a wonderful case. Good choice!

 

I went with the Gigabyte Aorus Master because of the supposed better VRM's on it.

 

I am still debating sticking with the Aorus' onboard sound which is pretty good or buy a dedicated sound card. My old Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme wouldn't fit the new motherboard.

Edited December 2, 2019 by WallysWorld

[Lupus]

21 hours ago, WallysWorld said:

For my recently built system, I went with a NH-D15 and have my i9-9900k overclocked to 5 Ghz with no issues. Can probably go higher if I really put some effort into it.

 

I bought two NVME.m2 SSD's for the new system and added two SSD's from my old system for a total of 4 SSD's with 2.9 TB. Once you have stuff running on SSD's, it's hard to go back to HDD's. At least it is to me.

 

I also got the Phanteks Enthoo Pro  and it's a wonderful case. Good choice!

 

I went with the Gigabyte Aorus Master because of the supposed better VRM's on it.

 

I am still debating sticking with the Aorus' onboard sound which is pretty good or buy a dedicated sound card. My old Sound Blaster X-Fi Xtreme wouldn't fit the new motherboard.

 

I agree about the SSD, when I first put an SSD in my system as the boot drive I was astounded at the difference.  I also use that SSD for the current games I play.  I'll take a look at the Gigabyte Aorus Master and compare the two.  Thank you.

[Alonzo]

On 12/1/2019 at 10:50 AM, Lupus said:

Based on my research, RAM Speed and RAM timings have minimal effect on gaming.  That said, 3200 speed ram seems to be the sweet spot currently based on value and speed but CAS timing has no real noticeable effect on games, at least from what I've found.  Can you show me where it does?

 

I have some benchmarks in the IL2 VR forum, where CPU (and RAM) performance is critical to maintain frame rate. For VR, at least, there is a measurable improvement when you lower memory latency. Latency is a combination of speed (mhz) and CAS-latency (usually a number like 14, 16, 17 or 19). I can measure the improvement in IL2 VR when I overclock my memory from 3200-CAS16 to 3466-CAS16, and this is on an 8086K @ 5.0ghz.

 

Sounds like you already know your thing, but can I ask why you want to spend so much money on a flatscreen gaming experience? Have you considered VR? For the amount of cash you're dropping, you could run the HP Reverb headset, which has very high resolution and is pretty excellent for simulators.

 

For processor, if you can clock the 9700K as high as a 9900K (which you can do, if you get a beefy AIO cooler), there is no benefit to the extra expense of the 9900K. You could put that money towards the upgrade from 2070S to 2080S and that would probably give you more of a measurable improvement.

[Lupus]

10 hours ago, Alonzo said:

 

I have some benchmarks in the IL2 VR forum, where CPU (and RAM) performance is critical to maintain frame rate. For VR, at least, there is a measurable improvement when you lower memory latency. Latency is a combination of speed (mhz) and CAS-latency (usually a number like 14, 16, 17 or 19). I can measure the improvement in IL2 VR when I overclock my memory from 3200-CAS16 to 3466-CAS16, and this is on an 8086K @ 5.0ghz.

 

Sounds like you already know your thing, but can I ask why you want to spend so much money on a flatscreen gaming experience? Have you considered VR? For the amount of cash you're dropping, you could run the HP Reverb headset, which has very high resolution and is pretty excellent for simulators.

 

For processor, if you can clock the 9700K as high as a 9900K (which you can do, if you get a beefy AIO cooler), there is no benefit to the extra expense of the 9900K. You could put that money towards the upgrade from 2070S to 2080S and that would probably give you more of a measurable improvement.

 

Can you link the benchmarks?  I'd really be interested in looking at those.

 

The reason I'm going for a flat screen experience over VR is two-fold, although I have considered VR.

 

1. I get motion sickness from VR.

2. I use an extensive Obutto cockpit that has multiple CH controls, including a full HOTAS setup and an MFP.  Trying to use the MFP while wearing a headset that blinds me to the real world would prove very challenging.

 

Those two things said, I haven't ruled out VR, but I don't want to invest in the neighborhood of $1000 for a Valve Vibe VR setup only to find I can't use it comfortably for more than 5 or 10 minutes because I experience motion sickness.  I also don't like the screen door effect. I realize they aren't comparable, but so far my only VR experience is with Samsung Gear VR.  I currently use that with my Galaxy S10+.  I find that I can watch video for a limited time but any kind of motion involved video game, even those without much motion involved and I experience nausea.  So at least for now, I don't think VR is on the table until I can find a way to try it out with IL-2 or some other games and find a way past or around the motion sickness.

[skline00]

I use a Kraken X72 AIO to cool my 9900k clocked at 5Ghz.

Edited December 3, 2019 by skline00

[Alonzo]

10 hours ago, Lupus said:

Can you link the benchmarks?  I'd really be interested in looking at those.

 

The reason I'm going for a flat screen experience over VR is two-fold, although I have considered VR.

 

1. I get motion sickness from VR.

2. I use an extensive Obutto cockpit that has multiple CH controls, including a full HOTAS setup and an MFP.  Trying to use the MFP while wearing a headset that blinds me to the real world would prove very challenging.

 

Benchmarks are old, but here's a doc I wrote: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CBd9ubU78ZScBhEDry7I_p3_irptAVTr09gTqPIf0Ls/edit#

 

Somewhere in this thread I actually measure the difference from lower latency RAM: 

 

 

For VR, you basically need everything as a fumble-for-it style control, not much getting around that. I still fumble a lot. Some people add a bunch of physical switches to their sim rig, I have a wooden DIY rig that I intend to (eventually) add physical switches to. They would be in very clear places, I'm thinking I especially need to get gear off my throttle unit, and eject onto a panic pull somewhere.

 

For motion sickness, that's definitely a thing. If you Google a bit how to get your "VR legs" you'll find some advice. Basically don't ever push it -- stop as soon as you feel event remotely nauseous, and slowly build up the amount of time you're able to play. I'd say it's definitely worth it. Screen Door on the Rift S is bearable, better on the Index, and almost non-existent on the Reverb. HP currently has a "send it back if you don't like it, by Jan 20th" deal (at least on their Canadian store) so you could try one at little to no risk to your wallet.

[Lupus]

15 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

For motion sickness, that's definitely a thing. If you Google a bit how to get your "VR legs" you'll find some advice. Basically don't ever push it -- stop as soon as you feel event remotely nauseous, and slowly build up the amount of time you're able to play. I'd say it's definitely worth it. Screen Door on the Rift S is bearable, better on the Index, and almost non-existent on the Reverb. HP currently has a "send it back if you don't like it, by Jan 20th" deal (at least on their Canadian store) so you could try one at little to no risk to your wallet.

 

Thanks.  Do you know where I might find the IPD on the reverb?  I've heard it's a software adjustment and I fall on the larger side with an IPD of about 67mm.  I've also seen that Acer is planning a similar resolution model with a physical IPD adjustment I may look into.

[Alonzo]

On 12/3/2019 at 7:27 PM, Lupus said:

Thanks.  Do you know where I might find the IPD on the reverb?  I've heard it's a software adjustment and I fall on the larger side with an IPD of about 67mm.  I've also seen that Acer is planning a similar resolution model with a physical IPD adjustment I may look into.

 

Reverb is software-only IPD, so if you're much outside 64mm, you might be stuck. But it's very much a personal thing. I've heard of people with a 70 IPD saying the Rift S is just fine for them. The Index does have physical IPD adjustment, and a wider FOV which will be better for simming. You don't need a full Index package for seated sims, just the headset and 1 base station, so that brings the cost down.

 

Unfortunately you almost need to be prepared to order something and then send it back if it doesn't work for you. I believe HP offers no questions asked returns on the Reverb, I'm not sure about Oculus and Valve (for the Rift S and Index, respectively).

Edited December 5, 2019 by Alonzo

[CanadaOne]

Raaid has competition.

[RedKestrel]

21 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

Raaid has competition.

I was reading the first post for the hardware recommendations. About halfway through the second one I got some neckpain of my own through the whiplash.
 

 

2 hours ago, BohemianGypsies* said:

Oh Yeah that is a worthy point. If you play 5 missions in one day. That is average say 2hours a mission so 10 hours. These days there are serious health risks just sitting at a computer that long without even those things hanging off your head. If ya play any less ya not gonna rate a mention in the stats board. Unless you’re some kind of Genius flyer like Adler. Even if you think, i will just play one mission. The game is so addictive and you are genuinely learning true flying abilities that next thing you’re self massaging both legs googling remedies for a Deep Vein Thrombosis that no long haul commercial flight could ever give and then hoping that you don’t die. I have constant neck pain because sometimes i play 12 hours straight. Once i played non stop for 24hours. We pilots are a funny lot. That capability has only been around for a hundred years. Though to be in the sky is all that matters. I am the greatest coward alive but i’d gladly give my right arm and all my teeth just to clamber into a Fw 190 during WW2 and fly off to my doom. That Twelve O’clock High at the beginning when the grass starts to blow then it becomes the prop wash of those four Turbo Cyclones falls me into a fantasy that no Harry Potter movie could ever achieve. Anyway i am talking a heap of sh#t. Anyhow we are 65% up. hahahahaha,  i actually plot it on a graph. Yeah i know it’s their own private idaho and at the moment the good leadership are playing German. Plus other factors. God i’d give my limbs to play right now just their too painful. Makes me wanna quote Dr.Smith. So i’m constantly checking hoping ya’s kick Ass. i don’t hate the opposition i just really hate the opposition and wish i could shoot down a hundred a minute but i am not that good. i mean i’ve never seen a plane turn so fast and climb so high on Uncle Bob’s greasy & seized diesel tractor motor as some Soviet Aircraft.  I replay my many deaths over and over again and i notice no assisting rocket pods on those F2 things as if likened unto a C130 with wheels turning within a wheel being there four of and clothed in the Glory and Wreathed in the Victory of Lord. Fire breathing dragons indeed.

All jokes above aside, please don't play for 24 hours straight, my friend. 12 hours straight is really pushing it. If you have constant neck pain then you are very clearly getting into some repetitive strain type stuff and setting yourself up for serious chronic issues. 

[dburne]

Oh my...

[Lupus]

So I'll throw an answer to all the AMD recommendations I've been getting.  Simply put.  No.  I will never own AMD.  Not again.

 

The first PC I build was an AMD K-6.  One of the first 1GHz processors.  I had no end of stability issues and constant crashing from that CPU.  I switched to Intel and have never looked back.  Since I made the switch to Intel my computer only shuts down when I tell it to, unless I Bork up the OS with some experimental registry edits in an attempt to make the Windowz run faster.

Edited December 8, 2019 by Lupus

[Phantom77]

I just got myself a new Rig. It works great and much faster compared to the 9 years old rig that I used to have. I need to test it more with IL2 Great Battles and right now I'm at 144 FPS in QB 1 on 1 and I think it should stay around that fps if I'm not mistaken.

 

1. I7 9700K running at stock speed

2. Gigabyte Z390 Ultra MB

3.Gigabyte RTX 2070 Super OC 3X WIndforce

4. Corsair DDR4 32GB 3000Mhz C15

5. Seagate Firacuda 510 1TB M2 NVME SSD

6. Seagate Firecuda SSHD 2TB 2.5''

7. Corsair H100i Pro AIO Cooler

8 .EVGA Supernova G3 750 watts

9. Cougar Panzer Max Gaming case

10. LG 32GK850G-B 2K 144hz Monitor.