-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Is it worth replacing my 9900K with a 10900K?
- Thread starter evo4ever86
- Start date
Hopefully it isn't!
OP I think you should sit this gen out til DDR5 and what intel/AMD bring next (next)
Hopefully it isn't!
OP I think you should sit this gen out til DDR5 and what intel/AMD bring next (next)
No it really need's to be.... oh the things that are possible when the game just eats up however many threads you throw at it.
It looks nice sure. Runs like a dog's breakfast though for what it actually on the screen. The trouble with development hell games is that all the cool stuff they are working on will be old hat by the time there is an actual GAME. Server side nonsense yadayada, scope etc., I know
Anyhow, off topic
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2020
- Posts
- 9
9900K is fine, no need to upgrade
totally
eapecially considering that all 9900k owners do is play games and there is no benefit to the 10900k - just overclock your 9900k a little and you have the same performance as the 10900k
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,230
- Location
- London
Well yes if there is a dual purpose and especially for workstation tasks it could be worth it.
I would get some proof it is a benefit first. Would be really pig sick after spending all the money on motherboard and CPU only to find out there is not much difference/doesnt use extra cores or it shaves off like 20 seconds.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2019
- Posts
- 126
My two cents, unless you are finding the 9900k slow for some multi-threaded productivity task then there is no point in upgrading. In fact, from what I have read, the all core boost of the 10900k is 4.9GHz, although in all likelihood you could probably get an all core boost of 5.1Ghz, there is no guarantee, so if you do badly on the silicon lottery, you could end up getting a 10900k that has worse performance than your current [email protected] in some tasks.
My rule of thumb is only consider a new CPU if either of the following are true:
i) For games: Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU AND you can't obtain smooth, responsive game play
ii) For productivity: Your CPU is completing tasks so slowly that it irritates you (and there are much faster CPU's on the market within budget)
iii) You don't have enough threads for the task at hand (e.g. you are a live streamer and you can't live stream at a high enough frame rate because your CPU is pegged at or close to 100%)
If you haven't hit an issue yet where more thread's would make a noticeable difference, then to the question "should I upgrade from a [email protected] to a 10900k", my answer would be a clear "no".
That said, if you are the kind of person that just likes to have the bragging rights regardless of whether or not the new CPU makes any difference, then that is your call.
My rule of thumb is only consider a new CPU if either of the following are true:
i) For games: Your CPU is bottlenecking your GPU AND you can't obtain smooth, responsive game play
ii) For productivity: Your CPU is completing tasks so slowly that it irritates you (and there are much faster CPU's on the market within budget)
iii) You don't have enough threads for the task at hand (e.g. you are a live streamer and you can't live stream at a high enough frame rate because your CPU is pegged at or close to 100%)
If you haven't hit an issue yet where more thread's would make a noticeable difference, then to the question "should I upgrade from a [email protected] to a 10900k", my answer would be a clear "no".
That said, if you are the kind of person that just likes to have the bragging rights regardless of whether or not the new CPU makes any difference, then that is your call.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 6,354
- Location
- Manchester
Why do people keep coming out with this old carp.
AMD has has 8 cores for many years and games have been using 8 cores for all them years too.
Why do people keep licking Intel's butt for another very expensive +2 cores?
Just like NetBurst/Pentium 4, Bulldozer was completely failed architecture with its wimpy cores and halves of such.
Though Intel seems to be now doing nearly same in Alder Lake with tablet cores added, because of being unable to match AMD in core count.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 6,354
- Location
- Manchester
Beamng will use as many cores as you can throw at it I believe.
1 vehicle simulated per core/thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6QeUhdbDOE
1 vehicle simulated per core/thread
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6QeUhdbDOE
Last edited:
At least with a 9900K with it should match this console generation for PC versions of games and is nicely powerful for a few years.
You bought the most future proof one from that range unlike me that bought a 9600K without research in late 2018, the upgrade itch is massive now from both AMD and even Intel again as I do like the look of that 10900K.
Best bet for me is likely buying a cheap 9900k down the line but they're still ridiculous prices.
You bought the most future proof one from that range unlike me that bought a 9600K without research in late 2018, the upgrade itch is massive now from both AMD and even Intel again as I do like the look of that 10900K.
Best bet for me is likely buying a cheap 9900k down the line but they're still ridiculous prices.