Upgrade advice 10100+2070

Associate
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
So I recently got an ultrawide 3440x1440 144hz monitor and find out that gaming is no longer that smooth.
I am playing Diablo 4 and barely getting stable 60-70 fps.

Here is what I've got from OC 2 years ago:

Code:
be quiet! Pure Power 11 600W 80 Plus Gold Power Supply 1

Intel Core i3-10100 GHz (Comet Lake) Socket LGA1200 Processor - OEM 1

MSI MAG B460M MORTAR WIFI (Socket LGA 1200) DDR4 Micro-ATX Motherboard 1

Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-24000C15 3000MHz Dual Channel Kit

MSI GeForce RTX 2070 GAMING Z 8GB Graphics Card

2x Samsung EVO SSDs

Win 10

It seems to me that the bottleneck is a CPU as i am frequently hitting 90%+ load while gaming so the question is: should i spend £150 on 10600k or £350ish on new MB + Alderlake i5? I can afford a new MB but replacing a system after 2 years seems a bit too often for me and installing an MB isn't something i am super comfortable with, so basically I need an advice :) Is 10600 a substantial enough improvement?

Alternatively it is of course possible that neither option with get me to stable 120fps, in which case I guess i should consider a new gpu. Current gpu load while gaming is rather low though so idk.
 
Last edited:

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
Could a 32GB kit help for smooth gameplay? RAM prices have dropped a lot recently. Some places have offer prices under £60 for of 32GB kits.
 

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
I just wondered as Diablo 4 needs 16GB for 1080p/60fps and 32GB for 4K and your 1440p is in the middle.

With the game running you can load up task manager (Ctrl-Shift-Escape) and check the Performance tab for memory usage.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
I just wondered as Diablo 4 needs 16GB for 1080p/60fps and 32GB for 4K and your 1440p is in the middle.

With the game running you can load up task manager (Ctrl-Shift-Escape) and check the Performance tab for memory usage.
Good shout. Does this mean i need more RAM then? I mean it says 15.9 but then says 13.8 at the bottom - which one is correct?
Should i try to get same manufacturer etc or any pair would do?

image.png
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Posts
17,063
Location
West Side
Thats a bit confusing. In some games it seems significantly better and in some significantly worse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjH6wPndttg
Unrelated question: do you know if my stock 10100 cooler would work on the 11400f? or do i need a new one?
Another review where the 11400 in par so take it for what it's worth, all the reviews I've seen say it performs simmlar to the 10600k.

Look especially at 1440p that's where you gaming at.

 

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
Good shout. Does this mean i need more RAM then? I mean it says 15.9 but then says 13.8 at the bottom - which one is correct?
Should i try to get same manufacturer etc or any pair would do?

I'd buy a 2 x 16GB kit rather than use 4 x 8GB (2 x 8GB kits aren't much cheaper than 2 x 16GB these days).

Any decent brand will do.

Could sell or pass on your 2 x 8GB kit.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
I'd buy a 2 x 16GB kit rather than use 4 x 8GB (2 x 8GB kits aren't much cheaper than 2 x 16GB these days).

Any decent brand will do.

Could sell or pass on your 2 x 8GB kit.
but does the task manager confirm that i am missing ram?
Also cooler question still stands - do i need to buy a new cooler or a box cooler from 10100 would do? Do i need to buy paste then?
 

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
I would say ram is virtually maxed out and 32GB is needed.

You will need a new cooler and something like MX-4 thermal paste is decent and all is really needed is a decent pea sized blob centre of the cpu and it'll spread out when the new cooler is attached.
 

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
Also with 32GB ram sorting out stuttering, you can test your GPU by overclocking it a bit, to find out if framerates improve. Might help you decide if a CPU upgrade is needed.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
22 Jun 2006
Posts
12,588
It seems to me that the bottleneck is a CPU as i am frequently hitting 90%+ load while gaming so the question is: should i spend £150 on 10600k or £350ish on new MB + Alderlake i5? I can afford a new MB but replacing a system after 2 years seems a bit too often for me and installing an MB isn't something i am super comfortable with, so basically I need an advice :) Is 10600 a substantial enough improvement?

Alternatively it is of course possible that neither option with get me to stable 120fps, in which case I guess i should consider a new gpu. Current gpu load while gaming is rather low though so idk.

In the performance review on overclock3d here, a 2070 Super gets 99 fps at 1440p Ultra, with a 13900K. The CPU scaling only disables cores, so it's hard to judge performance based on this.

If I look generically, then a 10600K is a sizeable chunk faster in newer games like Cyberpunk, but if the extra cores aren't used, then it won't be that great a difference.

The 12th or 13th gen i5 will be considerably faster, but you'd be held back with a 2070, so the game will need to be rather CPU dependent to show a significance improvement from a 10600K.

I'd try lowering the graphics and using DLSS if available, if this pushes your FPS up a lot then you may not benefit much from the CPU.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
In the performance review on overclock3d here, a 2070 Super gets 99 fps at 1440p Ultra, with a 13900K. The CPU scaling only disables cores, so it's hard to judge performance based on this.

If I look generically, then a 10600K is a sizeable chunk faster in newer games like Cyberpunk, but if the extra cores aren't used, then it won't be that great a difference.

The 12th or 13th gen i5 will be considerably faster, but you'd be held back with a 2070, so the game will need to be rather CPU dependent to show a significance improvement from a 10600K.

I'd try lowering the graphics and using DLSS if available, if this pushes your FPS up a lot then you may not benefit much from the CPU.
ye, I am certainly not getting 90 stable fps on ultra although changing graphics doesnt seem to massively affect fps.
 

str

str

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,052
One thing to remember is 3440x1440 is an additional ~30% compared the 2560x1440 standard 1440p resolution.

I'm now wondering if at ultrawide 1440p, your system is basically maxed out and possibly 32GB won't get you much of an improvement without also upgrading the CPU and the GPU?
 
Associate
OP
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
One thing to remember is 3440x1440 is an additional ~30% compared the 2560x1440 standard 1440p resolution.

I'm now wondering if at ultrawide 1440p, your system is basically maxed out and possibly 32GB won't get you much of an improvement without also upgrading the CPU and the GPU?
One thing that makes me not suspect a GPU is that it doesnt go above 30% load at any point. RAM however is suspect considering i do have random stuttering - i.e. i start running and for a brief second i experience 50% fps drop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: str
Soldato
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Posts
18,862
Location
Aberdeen
Update the bios and put a 11400f in there for about £120 it will perform the same as the 10600k.

The 11400f is not on the supported CPU list. That B460 motherboard is 10th gen only.

It seems to me that the bottleneck is a CPU as i am frequently hitting 90%+ load while gaming so the question is: should i spend £150 on 10600k or £350ish on new MB + Alderlake i5?

I'm not sure that you're going to get a big boost going to a 10400 or 10600. The 10100 is already 4 cores and 8 threads. The big boost in performance came with Intel's 12th gen CPUs - the 12400 was the big bang for the buck CPU of its day.

If you can stomach the cost (CPU + m/b + RAM) you're probably best going for an AMD Ryzen 7000 platform.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
13 Jun 2015
Posts
38
The choice became much harder just now.

Any recommendations for wi-fi MB+CPU that is a good value for money and will fit into my micro-atx?
 
Back
Top Bottom