Jump to content
chiliwili69

9900KS versus future 10900K, worth to wait?

Recommended Posts

I plan to do a PC upgrade this year and I was putting my eyes on the new 10th gen of Intel CPUs. My only purpose is IL-2 VR, all other aspects are secondary.

I have been collecting info in the Remagen benchmark Test and clearly the 9900K and 9900KS are the top performers for the IL-2 code.

 

9900Ks.png.83e16e1741138116cd0c11fbb275858a.png

 

I have been reading the specs of the new line: https://wccftech.com/intel-10th-gen-comet-lake-s-desktop-cpu-lineup-specs-confirmed/

and three things are important to note:

- They increase 2 cores for each line, so the 10900K will have 10 physical cores.

- RAM memory up to 2933 MHz (9900K is 2666MHz) (I don´t understand this, people usually run at 3200 to 4400)

- 20Mb cache (vs 16Mb, but same 2Mb per core)

 

On the Overclock, the 9900KS gives 5.0GHz by default in all cores. But the 10900K will give 4.9GHz for all cores. 

 

Having 2 extra cores "would" be counterproductive for IL-2 VR since we have test that there is no gain above 6 cores. Going to 10 cores will produce more heat and will reduce the capability to overclock.

 

My questions are:

How much the future 10900K will improve for IL-2 (or IL-2 VR) over the 9900KS? (assuming you put top Mobo/RAM/watercooling and manual overclock)

What it is would be better 9900KS with two cores disabled or the 10900K with four cores disabled?

It is worth the wait? (I think the 10th gen deskptop will go for Q4-2020)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you can pay extra for the 9900ks, or you can get the 9900k which in most cases easily runs  5 GHz on all 8 cores with no problem as long as one has a decent cooler.

Currently and at least for the near term future as you know IL-2 is very much dependent on CPU Horsepower. 

I do not see any advantage at least first glance of the newer 10th gen chip for just what we do here.

Now if the new chips were to gain one say an additional 500 MHz plus then it would be a different story. Of course there may be other benefits with the new chip architecture and the motherboards required for it that are not known yet.

 

I also would not disable any cores. Hyperthreading yeah, I disable that . Heck you pay for the cores, let the game use them. Plus there are a lot of other processing threads going on outside the game that needs to go somewhere.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is doubtfull that waiting for the 10900K will give you anything above what you get with the 9900 chips, besides the hassle of having to deal with a new platform (LGA1200) required for Comet Lake.

 

The only raison d'être of Comet Lake is to get something on paper that somehow keeps up with AMD's offerings without real world gains. It you needed what Comet Lake is better than previous generation, then you have to go AMD and get far better solutions.

The RAM speeds mentioned are just the certified ones that match official JEDEC specs. Having a higher number there might give you more OC pontential, but maybe not as new platforms generally do worse in that than proven ones.

 

The only thing that Comet Lake has for itself is maybe better OC potential. But for this you might need to wait another two months.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9900KS, RTX2080ti, Pimax 8KX (fits your eco-system perfectly and you'll always be able to sell the Index easily).😎

Edited by SCG_Fenris_Wolf
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m in same place with same goal, ie pimax 8k 

 

ive been looking at AMD 3950. Would anyone share there thoughts, experience on the comparison in IL2...

 

jokkr

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, JG51_jokkr said:

I’m in same place with same goal, ie pimax 8k 

 

ive been looking at AMD 3950. Would anyone share there thoughts, experience on the comparison in IL2...

 

jokkr

 

 

 

I have the 3950x for three weeks.  It's great for me, but i don't have VR.    For VR, based on how the game and VR software is setup this days, intel is the better option. 

I have a 1080Ti card and play at 1440p, with a lot of eye candy, so I'm GPU bound. At my Resolution it doesn't matter what CPU i use, they all are going to have to wait for the GPU. 

   This game engine is old and like most older game engines, that were built during times when AMD CPUs had below 10 percent of market share, it's very dependent on single core boost and fast memory/memory controller. So, unless the game engine gets modernized, so it can use multithreading more efficiently, AMD chips will be at disadvantage.  In VR the difference between AMD and intel Chips may be big enough to be worth going intel.

 In my case, it make no sense, since i don't play at low resolution, with all the eye candy turned off.

For everything else, outside gaming, this 3950x is so far above intel mainstream CPUs that it's not even funny. 

 

Intel 10900k comes with a new socket, but not much else. Not even PCIE gen 4. However, that new socket may allow you to swap the CPU for a new one down the road. 9900KS is the last supported CPU in the current socket, so you have zero CPU upgrade potential.

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is rumored the 10900K will have up to 5.3 Ghz single core turbo, this could be benneficial for IL-2. That being said still being on the 14nm process it will consume a good bit of power with 2 extra cores and generate more heat, there are some rumors that early samples are consuming up to 300W in heavy workloads giving trouble to the motherboard manufacturers.

If you can wait I guess you could get an i7 10700K, it will be 8 core / 16 thread basically a 9900K but in the i7 segment so it's likely to be in the 300 USD price range rather than 500 USD of the i9s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

It is rumored the 10900K will have up to 5.3 Ghz single core turbo, this could be benneficial for IL-2.

That is useless. All that matters for IL-2 is max. collective turbo on all cores. There, you get added headache with the 10900, as you - in principle - had to provide for cooling for 10 cores under 100% load, and not ten cores of ~10% load each. That is why they need a new socket, they need more pins for power draw and to hook up more cores. You can make systems that run IL-2 well at highest clocks, but as soon as you run Prime95, you'll have a meltdown.

 

A propos meltdown: they say they have that fixed for Comet Lake. It has become a feature now that the newest one is less broken than the current one on sale.

 

While in principle there should be no reason for not being able to make Comet Lake for LGA1151, this would just limit cores to 8. For gamers, this would still be a handy proposition. But there is someone who loves selling you a chipset along with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

That is useless. All that matters for IL-2 is max. collective turbo on all cores. There, you get added headache with the 10900, as you - in principle - had to provide for cooling for 10 cores under 100% load, and not ten cores of ~10% load each.


I wouldn't be so sure, at least looking at the CPU benchmark thread Jaws posted his 3950X utilization and it was like 2 threads at 40-50%, other 2 at 10%, and the rest of them 0-5%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

My questions are:

How much the future 10900K will improve for IL-2 (or IL-2 VR) over the 9900KS? (assuming you put top Mobo/RAM/watercooling and manual overclock)

What it is would be better 9900KS with two cores disabled or the 10900K with four cores disabled?

It is worth the wait? (I think the 10th gen deskptop will go for Q4-2020)

 

It's mostly speculation at this point as to the specifics of the upcoming CPUs.  Clock speeds haven't been rising very quickly for quite a while but I would think there will be some improvement available.

 

With some work you might be able to improve an overclock by disabling cores.  But I don't think it would be worth the trouble, besides which unless the build is only for apps that rely on single core performance, you would be sacrificing overall utility.

 

Personally I am willing to wait if a new release is imminent, and I don't know of any reason to think the next generation of Intel CPUs will any worse than the current ones.  For that matter AMD might eventually get into the race.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. The 9900 is the last of a generation with no mb upgrade available for future chips. Damn I didn’t know that.

 

im on a 270 now with my 7700 setup no longer upgradable.

 

sure makes amd more attractive. 

 

FM

 

jokkr

Edited by JG51_jokkr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I wouldn't be so sure, at least looking at the CPU benchmark thread Jaws posted his 3950X utilization and it was like 2 threads at 40-50%, other 2 at 10%, and the rest of them 0-5%.

 

IL2 doesn't fix load to a specific core. It uses all cores to different degrees, depending on the Windows thread scheduler. That one can distinguish in the very latest iterations of Win10 between AMD and Intel CPUs and schedules loads such that it *thinks* the CPU is used in the best possible way. The total amount of CPU load comes down to maybe 150% of one core (depending on scenario). This totals maybe 10 to 15% CPU load of a 10 core system which will define CPU power consumption that in turn translates in produced heat. Hence, IL2 runs a many core system very cool and you can run IL2 at hich clock with de facto insufficient cooling. (Loading missions produces easily about the 5 fold load on a many core CPUs than flying the mission.) Prime95 is the pure opposite. You require far better cooling for running that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG51_jokkr said:

Geez. The 9900 is the last of a generation with no mb upgrade available for future chips. Damn I didn’t know that.

 

im on a 270 now with my 7700 setup no longer upgradable.

 

sure makes amd more attractive. 

 

FM

 

jokkr

 

 

 Intel bet everything on the presumption that AMD is unable to close the gap and compete. So instead of looking for new ways to do things, they decided to just sit it out and cash on their current technology. The last few Intel generations of CPUs have been basically the same thing. 

Guess what, AMD did catch up.  Intel lost the performance crown mainstream CPUs, HEDT CPUs, and also it lost it's performance crown in server applications.  Intel's mobile computing department is also in the process of getting clobbered as well, by the new AMD mobile Ryzen 4000. 

   Gaming is the only area where the top Intel CPUs are maintaining a very small edge, simply because game engines were being built around Intel CPUs for a long time and the fact that the CPU isn't that important n gaming this days. 

  Even the next generation intel mainstream cpus, (10900k) are basically the same old rewarmed soup.

 I was planing to build a 9900k based computer back in 2018, but something came up and needed the money somewhere else. Even then, while the cpu was very fast, the platform was dated and very limited. 

  Last month when i built the new machine, for me Intel didn't make sense anymore. I need the computer for more than  just gaming.  The performance gap, in work load applications, between the new Ryzen 3950x+X570 platform and the same old thing intel can provide with their 9900k/ks is insane.

For me Intel just doesn't make any sense right now. Yes, at the resolution and settings i play at, in this game, i could probably get up to five fps increase by going to a 9900k/ks overclocked over 5.2, but those few fps for me don't justify getting less then half the performance 9900k/ks gets in productivity tasks.

 

  This is what my Ryzen 3950x can do right now:

 

cinemonster.png

cpumarkallcore.png

bbcode image

 

I got the Cinebench20 score of 10261 with an all core 4.4GHz overclock and the CPUmark score of 38363 was obtained with a simple auto overclocking. Intel needs server CPUs, with four or eight channel memory to match this kind of numbers.

 

  What kind of numbers can the 9900k/ks overclocked to 5.3 get in this all core benchmarks?

 

If gaming is all you need the computer for, then you don't need that much CPU power. Ryzen 3800x or Intel 9900k/ks will do the trick. If you plan to go in VR then  intel is the better option.

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I see, Comet Lake does not have a release date yet, but you could wait a month or two to see what comes up. The only advantage would be the possible fixes of some of the security loopholes and improvement in overclocking, since at every generation they tend to get more stable, the reason why even adding two cores the turbo is just 100Mhz lower. I imagine they would overclock very well without Hyper Threading.

 

Also, the i9-9900K has a thicker die than normal, heating more than it should. There are some videos of delidding and lapping the die and the reduction in temps is impressive. Then Intel might adjust the die thickness / IHS solution even to accommodate two more cores with decent enough temperatures. The 5Ghz of the KS does not mean it is better than the Comet Lake because they just binned chips that could reach 5Ghz. In theory, the Comet Lake will have a better binning, especially because they have been tweaking the 14nm architecture since forever.

 

But these are just guesses. Other than that, an i9-9900K or KS seems to be a good choice. I would disable Hyper Threading and overclock it past 5Ghz if possible though.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if there were any 9900k chips out there that can not reach 5.0 GHz on all cores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SeaW0lf said:

Also, the i9-9900K has a thicker die than normal, heating more than it should.

 

Afaik the thicker die is so it can withstand the temperatures of the soldering process, having a thinner die would risk damaging the transistors as it's heated up for the solder. In the end it's a bit better than the previous thermal paste, but worse than what the enthusiasts were able to do with delidding and applying liquid metal.

 

11 minutes ago, dburne said:

I would be surprised if there were any 9900k chips out there that can not reach 5.0 GHz on all cores.


Apparently since the KS came out the regular 9900K started getting lesser bins and some people complained they can't hit as good frecuencies as previous production run 9900Ks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

 

Afaik the thicker die is so it can withstand the temperatures of the soldering process, having a thinner die would risk damaging the transistors as it's heated up for the solder. In the end it's a bit better than the previous thermal paste, but worse than what the enthusiasts were able to do with delidding and applying liquid metal.

 

I'm sure that they are considering a better yield with a thinner die once they got used to the process with higher core counts. I'm not sure if the HEDT has the same manufacture procedure or if the die also has to be thicker. Then we might see better temps with Comet Lake. It is not a guarantee, but it could happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your best bet is probably to buy a pre-binned, pre-delidded 9900KS along with a 360mm AIO, or even consider more exotic cooling solutions (Linus had some kind of active chiller thing, a preproduction model, or you could go with a custom loop). A motherboard that is known-good for overclocking especially of RAM and the north bridge too (I thought I had a good motherboard for overclocking, it turns out I can't tune as much as I would like when it comes to memory OC). And some DDR4-4000 CAS16 or something.

 

When are rumored new GPUs coming out? Big Navi may put pricing pressure on NVidia (we can but hope) so that might be another reason to wait for the 10-series. Not necessarily because you want the 10-series chips, but because that will reduce pricing on the 9900K(S) and there might be new GPU price wars by then.

 

The usual problem with PC buying is that there's always something better around the corner. Do you need an upgrade today to be happy? If not, wait. Otherwise buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't the devs fix/update the game engine instead of bringing new titles? Surely this is going to solve a lot of their headaches - and ours - and make the game run a lot smoother. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, =EXPEND=Dendro said:

Why don't the devs fix/update the game engine instead of bringing new titles? Surely this is going to solve a lot of their headaches - and ours - and make the game run a lot smoother. 

 

Because they need money and people go crazy when they are given new stuff. It's a match. Just look at the raving in the dev diaries / general discussions anytime something new is thrown out or just planned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just don't see Comet Lake hitting the shelves in meaningful numbers before March. And if you are prepared to wait anoher half year, Zen3 is also around the corner by then as Doctor Seuss Su said so because "it is doing really well".

 

Either you need it and you buy it for what it can do now, or you don't. There is no hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"If" 5ghz on all cores is really the benchmark mark we are looking at which seems to be even the next release of cpu, is it worth getting anything over the i5 9600k and overclocking that to 5ghz on all cores?


Is the 9900K, or 10900K faster really for this game with their extra cores?

I have a i7 6700k running at 4.7ghz, and looking at getting to the 5ghz point, which hopefully improve things, but to do so would need a M/B and CPU upgrade. If the next cpu's are not going to push way ahead of 5ghz, then the 9600k might be a good way to go?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Black-Bart said:

"If" 5ghz on all cores is really the benchmark mark we are looking at which seems to be even the next release of cpu, is it worth getting anything over the i5 9600k and overclocking that to 5ghz on all cores?


Is the 9900K, or 10900K faster really for this game with their extra cores?

I have a i7 6700k running at 4.7ghz, and looking at getting to the 5ghz point, which hopefully improve things, but to do so would need a M/B and CPU upgrade. If the next cpu's are not going to push way ahead of 5ghz, then the 9600k might be a good way to go?

 

 

 

The 9600k has only six cores and no HT, lower boost clock, plus only 9MB of cache.  The game may not use more than 6 cores right now, and a lot of times is just throwing everything on a single core, but that can change. If you already have the cpu and you can just overclock it it's a good upgrade, but to build a new computer with such a limited potential is not exactly good upgrade. 9700k is as low as i would go

9900k has 16MB of cache, more boost, more cores and hyperthreading to help with applications and games that are using the CPU more efficiently.  

 

Even Intel will stop making CPUs without hyperthreading, starting with the 10000 serie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SeaW0lf said:

There are some videos of delidding and lapping the die and the reduction in temps is impressive

 

I thought that after TIM of gen 9th the delidding was going to be a thing from the past. But I see it is still there.

I am afraid that gen 10th will not improve that too much.

19 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Linus had some kind of active chiller thing, a preproduction model

what is that?

19 hours ago, Alonzo said:

A motherboard that is known-good for overclocking especially of RAM

 

Any suggestions about Mobo for that?

 

ROG Maximus XI Apex seems to be target for that.

Any other Mobo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick Question for the more knowledgeable with regard to hardware. At present I am using a i7-2600K@4.000Ghz on a Asus Mobo (Maximus IV Extreme Z) with 16 Gigs and two Asus GTX980 in SLI Combo, which served me well over the past years, but that rig is getting a tad bit dated and I am no more able to max out graphics in FullHD. Based on the Infos thankfully posted here in this thread and the Remagen benchmark thread I am planning to do some upgrades and during 2020 I am planning to invest in the following components. The aim is to have maximum reasonable performance for Il-2 GB for the next years to come and to have some horsepower to do the next step and perhaps later in 2021 go for VR and a Pimax 8K+:

 

MoBo: Asus Maximus XI Code

CPU: i9 9900K

RAM: Corsair Dominator, 64 GB (4 x 16 GB), DDR4 3200 (PC4-25600), C16

SSD: Samsung MZ-V7P1T0BW 970 PRO 1 TB NVMe M.2

CPU Cooler: ASUS ROG Ryujin 360 Watercooling Solution

 

GPU: My aim is for Asus 2080Ti which will replace my GTX-980-SLI Combo in the 2nd half of this year.

 

Any ideas? Good? Bad? Suggestions for optimisations? Possible performance bottlenecks?

 

 

Edited by sevenless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Quick Question for the more knowledgeable with regard to hardware. At present I am using a i7-2600K@4.000Ghz on a Asus Mobo (Maximus IV Extreme Z) with 16 Gigs and two Asus GTX980 in SLI Combo, which served me well over the past years, but that rig is getting a tad bit dated and I am no more able to max out graphics in FullHD. Based on the Infos thankfully posted here in this thread and the Remagen benchmark thread I am planning to do some upgrades and during 2020 I am planning to invest in the following components. The aim is to have maximum reasonable performance for Il-2 GB for the next years to come and to have some horsepower to do the next step and perhaps later in 2021 go for VR and a Pimax 8K+:

 

MoBo: Asus Maximus XI Code

CPU: i9 9900K

RAM: Corsair Dominator, 64 GB (4 x 16 GB), DDR4 3200 (PC4-25600), C16

SSD: Samsung MZ-V7P1T0BW 970 PRO 1 TB NVMe M.2

CPU Cooler: ASUS ROG Ryujin 360 Watercooling Solution

 

GPU: My aim is for Asus 2080Ti which will replace my GTX-980-SLI Combo in the 2nd half of this year.

 

Any ideas? Good? Bad? Suggestions for optimisations? Possible performance bottlenecks?

 

 

 

Looks nice.

64 GB of ram is a bit of overkill unless you need it for other things. 32 Gb should be plenty.

You could also easily find two sticks with a CL of 14 at 3200 MHz.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, sevenless said:

Quick Question for the more knowledgeable with regard to hardware. At present I am using a i7-2600K@4.000Ghz on a Asus Mobo (Maximus IV Extreme Z) with 16 Gigs and two Asus GTX980 in SLI Combo, which served me well over the past years, but that rig is getting a tad bit dated and I am no more able to max out graphics in FullHD. Based on the Infos thankfully posted here in this thread and the Remagen benchmark thread I am planning to do some upgrades and during 2020 I am planning to invest in the following components. The aim is to have maximum reasonable performance for Il-2 GB for the next years to come and to have some horsepower to do the next step and perhaps later in 2021 go for VR and a Pimax 8K+:

 

MoBo: Asus Maximus XI Code

CPU: i9 9900K

RAM: Corsair Dominator, 64 GB (4 x 16 GB), DDR4 3200 (PC4-25600), C16

SSD: Samsung MZ-V7P1T0BW 970 PRO 1 TB NVMe M.2

CPU Cooler: ASUS ROG Ryujin 360 Watercooling Solution

 

GPU: My aim is for Asus 2080Ti which will replace my GTX-980-SLI Combo in the 2nd half of this year.

 

Any ideas? Good? Bad? Suggestions for optimisations? Possible performance bottlenecks?

 

 

 

 

Looks good, but if you don't plan to do the upgrade in the next few weeks, You should wait for the  release of 10900K. It will come with a new socket and later on you could swap the CPU for the upcoming 10nm/7nm CPUs.  

  Even if you decide to get the 9900k, when the new chip and motherboard arrives, the price for the 9900k/Maximus XI Code will drop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jaws2002 said:

Looks good, but if you don't plan to do the upgrade in the next few weeks, You should wait for the  release of 10900K. It will come with a new socket and later on you could swap the CPU for the upcoming 10nm/7nm CPUs.  

  Even if you decide to get the 9900k, when the new chip and motherboard arrives, the price for the 9900k/Maximus XI Code will drop.

 

Thanks for the hint. Any estimate when the 10900K might arrive? I guess my trusty old rig will easily carry on for another 6 months or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Not necessarily because you want the 10-series chips, but because that will reduce pricing on the 9900K(S)

 

the 9900KS was released last october. I don´t think the price will go down significantly in the next 3-4 months.

20 hours ago, Alonzo said:

Do you need an upgrade today to be happy?

Not really a rush. I can wait 3-4 months with no problem if there is a real reason for the wait.

1 hour ago, dburne said:

32 Gb should be plenty.

16Gb is more than enough for IL-2 or IL-2 VR.

Unless you want your PC for other ram hungry duties, 16Gb is the optimum for IL-2.

RAM is always something easily upgradable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, chiliwili69 said:

what is that?

 

Any suggestions about Mobo for that?

 

ROG Maximus XI Apex seems to be target for that.

Any other Mobo?

 

Unfortunately I made such a bad decision on my current board that I don't trust myself giving recommendations. I'd check Gamers Nexus for motherboard reviews, or some proper overclocking places like Actually Hardcore Overclocking, Der8auer, that kind of thing. Stay away from Tom's Hardware.

 

The interesting chiller is a thermosiphon. Available for preorder, $119.99 price (MSRP $149.99) with a $19.99 deposit for their limited production run. Production unit will be smaller than Linus' review unit.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

16Gb is more than enough for IL-2 or IL-2 VR.

Unless you want your PC for other ram hungry duties, 16Gb is the optimum for IL-2.

RAM is always something easily upgradable.

 

Yes 16 GB is currently enough for IL-2. I would not call it the optimum though, as that sounds like more is not optimum when that is not 

necessarily the case.  If building a new rig I would definitely suggest 32 GB - heck he was looking at 64 GB initially.

I ran 16 GB in my X79 system for 5 years, when I built this one I went 32 GB as I want it to do the same. There are other games that benefit from it as well that use more.

So I have it should it be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Alonzo said:

The interesting chiller is a thermosiphon

 

LOL, Thermosyphons is what it is used in the reboilers of distillation columns in the petrochem industry! I have modeled many of them at my work. Never thought will see one in a PC!!

They operating principle is fluid selfcirculation due to differences in densities (Hot-Cold) of the cooling media. The more heat the more circulation.

But I think that the only advantage over AIO water coolers is the reliability (no moving pump).

I think a forced circuit (pump) will provide a better circulation for regimes of low-mid heat.

On the other hand, it could be bigger the mechanical stress over the CPU with that chiller.

24 minutes ago, dburne said:

I would not call it the optimum though, as that sounds like more is not optimum when that is not 

necessarily the case

Yes optimum is not the right word. 16 or 32 Gb will run equally in IL-2.

I would say price-wise. I mean, with the money of a 32Gb RAM, you can buy a better memory of 16Gb. (higher freq, lower CL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, chiliwili69 said:

 

Yes optimum is not the right word. 16 or 32 Gb will run equally in IL-2.

I would say price-wise. I mean, with the money of a 32Gb RAM, you can buy a better memory of 16Gb. (higher freq, lower CL)

 

Well I guess if IL-2 was the only game one played that might be reasonable.

I am going to buy the quality that I can regardless whether 16 or 32. 

I would certainly not suggest today to build a new system with 16 GB only.

Even DCS makes use of more than 16GB.

Edited by dburne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, dburne said:

 If building a new rig I would definitely suggest 32 GB - heck he was looking at 64 GB initially.

 

Yep, they will be there for a purpose. Flightsimming is not the only thing I will be doing with that rig. I will wait, however for the 10900K release and see how the benchmarks turn out for that CPU before finally pulling the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

Yep, they will be there for a purpose. Flightsimming is not the only thing I will be doing with that rig. I will wait, however for the 10900K release and see how the benchmarks turn out for that CPU before finally pulling the trigger.

 

Can't say I blame you as it will be a new gen product along with a new gen motherboard platform.

I doubt it will be much if any improvement for what we do here, but certainly can be in other areas.

 

Hard to believe it has now been a year since I built this 9900K / Z390 rig I have now. The 15th of Jan was it's first birthday LOL.

I am loving it though and very glad I did it when I did. Great performance in IL-2 VR.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bang for CPU buck - AMD

 

Edge with single threaded apps at the moment but at a price both in $$$ and vulnerabilities - Intel

 

As for updating the game engine instead of releasing content - the devs here are working all the time improving the game engine and optimising it.  Doing a API jump though comes with time and the question will be do they go with DX12 or move across to Vulcan like DCS is doing.

 

If they move to Vulcan then for CPU AMD will be the one to fly with.  I'm running a 3900X system myself and it hums along nicely with Il2 and VR.  Matter of fact, some of my more recent engagements have been featuring quite a lot of planes which makes my palms sweaty and my head spin...😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people buy considering some combination of budget (new gen will be more expensive), time constraints (e.g., how much the current rig needs an upgrade), compatability constraints (chipset, RAM, etc.), other uses for the machine (i.e., where AMD becomes a factor), and of course price vs. performance (paramount concern for most people/builds).

 

If none of these concerns apply except the time issue (now vs. ~3 months from now), it's a close call but I guess I'd wait for the 10900. There's also something to be said for buying tech at the end of a generation though. It's well-tested and proven, coding and manufacturing kinks have mostly all been worked out. The 10900 will come with 6+ months of frustration in necessary firmware and bios updates, let alone problems with the new 10nm process.

 

That said, it'll be new and shiny, and if your current rig already kicks butt and the price difference isn't an issue, then why not wait?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

let alone problems with the new 10nm process.

 

10900k is still done on the 14nm process....Yes...Intel is that far behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...